Rather, the powerful will turn on each other and start waging war eventually, and the expendable bodies used in that is everyone else.
> Now at some point, the humans involved in handing out currency decided that too many people were living too nicely.
The origins of currency are mysterious. There were certainly some number of kings and tribal chiefs who minted coins and handed them out, mostly I think to soldiers. There were also traders using whatever coins and other small valuable objects. But I don't think anybody decided anything, except when messing around with taxes. I suppose company scrip comes closest to this vision, where your lack of money is determined by the mastermind who also creates it and hands it out and decides everybody's roles. That or communism. Generally no, it's not a rigged game, it's a messy brawl.
I disagree with the commenter that your replied to directly, who seems to believe the world is a zero-sum game. However it's also naive to believe that the game is not rigged, and that those who complain simply lack creativity.
In a healthy society, choosing to work to serve others 40 hours a week, should afford you the ability to acquire enough capital to buy a small house and start a family after 10 years. Unfortunately, this is now unachievable in many parts of the world.
The world is multiple repeated games happening simultaneously all over the place. Many of them are zero-sum (e.g. purchasing a home in a certain zip-code) in the short term and medium-term, but not in the long term.
People using the "omg it's not zero sum" generalization are mostly incorrect. Not because everything is zero-sum, but because of how much of a gross simplification it is - so much so that it becomes useless without specifics.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you seem to leap from "it is hard to buy a house these days" to "this is the fault of people accruing capital".
I'm trying to understand this leap. I think you mean that generational wealth means some people start with all the cards, and their buying power decides what house prices are?
Tim has to save for 10 years in order to get a down payment on a house (and borrow half of it from mom and dad).
Tim rents from Bob.
Tim has to compete with Bob when it comes time to purchase his home.
It is easier for Bob to acquire a house, and during the time Tim has saved, Bob has been able to add 10 homes to his portfolio.
Wealth consolidates more wealth at the top over time. The more consolidated, the more the velocity of consolidation speeds up (The point we are at) via not only how wealth/assets work, but also as Bob has more and more power/influence and the benefit grows of ensuring the system is in his favor he starts to exert more political influence. An orthodontist with two homes isn't bothering with political influence other than zoning around those homes. His son that inherited multiple homes and now rents out 50 is going to every government meeting related to renting in the town, taking the country planner to lunch, knows the council members on a first name basis, and exerts much more political power than his father. As wealth accrues, the ability/desire/benefit for manipulating/abusing power grows almost exponentially.
Then wage growth flattened out, at the same time that the wealth of the wealthiest few started to grow by leaps and bounds.
It is the fault of people accruing capital. They have taken a vast percentage of all the wealth created in the past 50 years, which would have otherwise gone to the rest of us.
Then they used that wealth as leverage to prevent the rest of us from having the power to do anything about it.