A Home Divided
Imagine a house where a family lives. This family includes people of all ages and capabilities: older people who once took care of themselves but now need help, young children who still need guidance and support, and adults who act as guardians and leaders responsible for maintaining order and care in the house.
Within this group, a problem arises, how to distribute supplies for the house. Some adults and children from a particular side of the family have their own supply stores. Over the years, they managed to gather and keep these stores, often through means that excluded the others from doing the same. They are not in charge of the house, but they can support themselves independently.
The actual responsibility for managing and distributing the supplies falls on the guardians, those seen as the current leaders. A change happens. New people arrive to assist, and they decide to address the inequality. Their priority becomes feeding those who are disadvantaged, those who cannot support themselves, first, before considering anyone else.
That is the new policy in the house. Now comes the dilemma: how should the supplies be distributed? Should they be shared equally? Or should the distribution prioritise those who have nothing, even if it means excluding those who already have their own store?
It is decided: the supplies will go first to the disadvantaged. Everyone in the house is told this is the new approach, justified by the history of exclusion and injustice. Those who had been left out before are finally included.
Time passes. The group told to fend for themselves starts to worry. They look at their supply stores and begin to realise that, eventually, they will run out. They ask: What will happen then? No one seems to be thinking about that future. They are left to manage on their own, and fear begins to grow.
They raise concerns: “Why are we excluded? We are part of this house too.” But the response is dismissive: “You already have your own store. And the way you got it was through an unfair system. This exclusion is justice.”
That ends the conversation. The system continues for years.
But cracks start to show. The supplies intended for the disadvantaged are not always reaching them. Some of the people responsible for distribution begin keeping supplies for themselves. In some cases, those most in need go without. People begin to suffer. Some die.
When these issues are raised, the ones speaking up, especially those originally excluded, are told to be quiet. “You already benefited,” they are reminded. “Let the leaders handle this.” Even those who are suffering defend the flawed system, clinging to the ideal behind it, even if it no longer works.
As the system persists, the house begins to fall apart. The original idea, support the disadvantaged first, was noble. But its execution failed. No one accounted for change over time. No one asked: What happens when supplies shrink? Or: What if the current method stops working?
The entire strategy was based on a fixed mindset: that the amount of supplies is limited, and the only thing to do is divide them. But there was another path, one that asked: How do we increase the supplies?
If you have ever hosted a party, you will know the difference. When you have just enough food, you worry constantly: Will there be enough? Who should eat first? But if you have an abundance, the worry disappears. You think about storage or leftovers, not scarcity.
The same is true in the house. When supplies are scarce, distribution becomes tense and divisive. But if there is enough for everyone, you do not worry about who gets what. Everyone finds a way to meet their needs.
That leads to the harder question: Why not focus on increasing the total supply? That is the growth mindset. It is not easy, it requires effort, creativity, and cooperation. But it creates a more stable and fair system.
Most people avoid that route. It feels too expensive, too complex. So they focus only on dividing what already exists. They think small.
But thinking small traps you. You create rules and strategies around limitations. You fail to imagine that something better is possible. That is the tragedy of the house.
This is not just about supplies. The same mindset applies to finances, opportunity, justice. When people act from scarcity, they limit themselves and others. But when they act from abundance, they build systems that grow, not just sustain.