No one ever thought it was going to work this way.
In the words of Syndrome: "When everyone's super... no one will be" Poverty is relative wealth, so if everyone's wealth increased by the same amount, the poverty line would be exactly the same.
If you gave everyone on earth 1kg of gold simultaneously, it would actually make the poor poorer since it would devalue any of their current golden possessions to near zero.
Also remember people saying that in the early 1980's cocaine was essentially worthless in Bimini because it was being used as a staging point in the drug trade.
If we suddenly get a lot of new resources, we should ask how does that impact people's time, and those answers will indicate meaningful changes in wealth.
Just as examples:
The CEO making millions, but also working non stop, could be fairly poor in the basic sense. Slave to the job. One can make the argument they want to do that, etc... and once family, other basics are factored in, that argument may not be as easy as one might think.
Close that next deal, or attend the soccer game?
Another example may be someone who has very little financially, but maybe lives lean, has few dependencies. They may just not need too much, and have lots of time to purpose. That person is fairly wealthy, despite a low net worth.
Think about it this way: what if we gave everyone in the world a brand new iPhone. It's true that the resale value of an iPhone would decrease, but would the world really be poorer? I think that's a very hard argument to make.
If everyone in the world got 1 kg of gold, it would be as if everyone on earth got 1 kg of aluminum... that is to say, you would have a hard time turning that gold into something more useful than a paperweight. You would probably be able to take it to the nearest scrap metal recycling plant and get a few bucks.
Nope. This is entirely wrong.
Consider: You have $100. I have $1000. We both get +$50 worth of gold. So you have $150 and I have $1050. You increased your welth by 50%, but I only increased my wealth by 5%. So yes, if you had no money, you actually did earn purchasing power.
Let's consider another example: The poor person probably has $0 invested in gold. So if anything, it hurts people in the middle class, who might have let's say 5% of their wealth in gold, which is suddenly worthless. So the poor person has actually increased their buying power compared to the middle class, and the rich (who probably have so much money in real-estate and stocks that any gold investment is minuscule) are unaffected.
It would make people whose wealth is disproportionately stored in gold poorer. Same as if a company hands out a bunch of shares ex nihilo -- the existing shareholders are screwed. The people who had no shares and now have some shares are richer, despite the shares being devalued.
If the poor are heavily invested in gold, then plonking a bunch of gold into the economy will make them poorer, but I don't think they are.