What You Would Earn

← Back to Part 3

Article 3-1

What You Would Earn

Audio version — listen instead of reading

Let us answer the question everyone asks first, plainly and without selling anything: if you contribute a dollar a month, what do you get back?

The honest answer is that for a long time you get back less than you put in — but the mere presence of the fund will reach you sooner than the dividend does. In the careful middle case, a member contributes about twelve dollars a year and receives a dividend of roughly two dollars a year by the end of the first decade, rising to perhaps thirteen to nineteen dollars a year two decades after that. However, the fund — through its digital bank and its acquisitions — will create entrepreneurial and job opportunities, and will slowly lower the cost of products and services through competition, long before the dividend amounts to much. A member who joins to make quick money as a fund investor has misread the offer. The dividend is real, it grows, and it is shared with perfect equality — but it was never the reason to join, and we will not pretend otherwise.

What you are really buying with a dollar a month is that equal share — of a global institution that lowers the price of the things you need, banks you fairly, employs people honestly, and slowly shifts the balance of economic power back toward ordinary people. The dividend is the receipt for that ownership, not the point of it. Think of the dollar as a membership in a fairer economy, not a deposit expecting a yield.

With that said honestly, here is what a member actually earns — in three streams.

The first stream: the dividend, your share of what the fund owns

Every member holds one equal share. When the fund’s companies and its bank earn profits, a portion is distributed equally — the same amount to a member in Jakarta as to a member in Zurich. Birth country, wealth, and education are irrelevant to the calculation. You are a human being and an equal investor; this is your equal share of an economy we collectively own.

The dividend is modest for a long time, by design, because most of the fund’s profit is reinvested to buy more companies and open more banks rather than paid out. In the middle case it runs near two dollars per member per year at operating year ten, and climbs as the fund’s companies mature and as members direct their spending toward the businesses they co-own. How fast it grows depends on choices the members themselves make and on how many people join — which is why, rather than ask you to trust a single number, we built a model you can operate yourself. You can move the contribution and the membership assumptions and watch the dividend, the fund’s reach, and the number of companies it owns respond, across a sixty-year horizon. The monthly fee determines how fast the fund can acquire companies in the early years; the yearly sales of the fund’s products do more than fuel that growth — they are also what raises the dividend each member receives.

▶ Open the interactive model — The Fund’s Economics: Two Things You ControlOpens in a new tab, so you can move the sliders and switch back to keep reading.

One thing the model makes unmistakable, whichever way you set it: making the fund bigger does not make each member richer. More members means more money to build with, but also more members to share with, so the dividend per person stays modest across almost every assumption. That is not a disappointment — it is the proof that the fund is not a wealth scheme. Scale buys the fund power to change how industries behave; it does not buy any individual a fortune. [Cross-ref: Article 5-5 — The Fund’s Financials Through the Years.]

And the dividend is yours to control. Members decide together how much profit to reinvest versus distribute, and an individual can let their own dividend accumulate or take it. It is a bonus you steer, not a fixed payout handed down.

The second stream: fair employment

The fund’s companies employ people — and they employ them differently. A fund-owned company pays market wages, but its profits return to the public that owns it rather than to distant shareholders, and it has no incentive to move jobs around the world purely to find the cheapest labor it can. Working for a fund company is not charity; it is ordinary, competitive employment in a transparently-governed enterprise whose reason for existing is not to extract the most from its workers and customers.

There is a larger effect, too, that reaches beyond the fund’s own employees. As the fund grows into an industry as a fair employer, the other employers in that industry have to compete for workers against a company that treats them fairly. Over time, that pressure does for wages and conditions what the fund’s pricing does for prices: it pulls the whole industry toward fairness, whether or not a given worker is employed by the fund at all.

The third stream: innovation that belongs to everyone

Anyone, anywhere, can submit an idea — a product, a service, an improvement. The fund’s information systems surface the viable ones to the membership, and members vote on what they would actually buy and want built. If your idea is chosen, the fund develops it, makes it, and distributes it through its supply chain, and you earn a royalty on every sale for as long as your invention keeps selling. Your royalty is a share of each sale; the rest flows to the fund and so to all its members, so everyone benefits from your idea from the very first unit, for as long as people keep buying it. The market decides how long the reward lasts — it grows when sales grow, fades when they fade, and ends when people no longer want the thing.

This opens invention to people who have never had access to capital, factories, or global distribution — a person with a good idea and no money can, for the first time, bring it to the world — from the palm of their hand — through an institution they already co-own. It is a third way to earn that depends on neither capital nor a job, only on a good idea and the judgment of millions of fellow members.

What this means in a poorer country

Here the picture changes, and it is worth being precise, because the dividend is the smallest of the ways the fund helps a poor country — not the largest. The real help arrives through four channels, and they matter far more than two dollars a year.

Cheaper essentials — the largest effect by far. A family in a poor country spends most of what it earns on the basics: food, medicine, soap, clothing. When a fund company sells those things at a fairer price, that family’s real income rises — not by the dividend, but by everything it no longer overpays. Money saved on the things you must buy every day is worth far more than a small dividend once a year, and it reaches everyone who shops, member or not.

A bank where there was none. Hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries have no bank account at all — no safe place for money, no fair credit, often nothing between them and a predatory lender. A fund bank reaching them brings a first account, fair savings, and access to capital that does not trap them in debt. Financial inclusion of this kind is transformative in a way it simply is not in rich countries, where nearly everyone already has a bank. The bank’s impact falls hardest exactly where poverty is deepest. [Cross-ref: Article 5-7 — The Digital Bank: Why and When.]

Fair jobs. A fund company operating in a poorer country is a fair-employment anchor — market wages, no race to the bottom, profits returning to the public — and a benchmark that pressures other local employers to do better.

Capital for local business. Through the bank’s partnership lending and its member marketplace, local businesses that have always been denied capital can finally get it — on fair terms — which creates more local jobs and keeps value in the community rather than sending it abroad. [Cross-ref: Article 5-7 — The Digital Bank: Why and When.]

Set against those four, the dividend is a modest fourth benefit, not the headline. The fund changes a poor family’s life chiefly by making daily life cheaper and by banking and employing people fairly — a structural, compounding change in the local economy, not a single transfer payment.

One honesty is owed here. These four channels reach a country only once the fund actually operates there — and the fund arrives gradually, country by country, over years and in the bank’s case over roughly a quarter-century. The change is real but it is not instant or everywhere at once. The fund is a long project; its benefits arrive where it has built, when it has built. [Cross-ref: Article 5-6 — What Industries, and in What Order; Article 5-9 — The First Decade.]

And for those who cannot spare a dollar

Some people cannot afford even a dollar a month. They are not left out. A separate solidarity arrangement lets members who have more cover the same standard contribution for one or more people who have less — not a lesser membership, but a full and equal one, paid on their behalf. Everyone is an equal member with one equal vote, whether they paid their own dollar or someone paid it for them.

Over time, as a member’s dividend grows toward covering their own contribution, the need for that help shrinks — the fund increasingly pays a member’s way in out of what the member already owns. The solidarity fund is needed most in the early years and matters less as the dividend rises. [Cross-ref: Article 2-1 — The 99% of Humanity Global Fund; Article 2-5 — The Fund’s Values.]

That is what you earn: a small and growing dividend you control, fair work, a way to turn an idea into income — and, in the places that need it most, a cheaper life, a first bank, and fairer jobs. Not a fortune. A fairer economy, owned in equal measure by everyone who joins it, for a dollar a month.

Join the conversation

This series belongs to everyone, including its critics. Tell us where you were convinced and where you were not — and if you see a way to make the proposal stronger, say so. You'll need a free account with a handle of your choosing.

Sign in Create an account

Be the first to comment.