We're probably getting wealth wrong. For one, I mostly still act on the interpretation that wealth is some combination of what resources I can get, or maybe create. It's the sort of thought process that says "I need to get a job so I can have money to buy stuff." Which is sort of true, and yet misses the point. It leads to arguments about how much money you should be worth before you're allowed to get health care, and whether "human value" and "economic value" might be incompatible ideas.
Suppose we think of wealth as a measure of our desire, and ability, to take care of one another?
At an individual level, it leads to questions like "who needs my help?" and "who actually wants to help me with ... ?"
More broadly - if we can infer a cultural attitude about wealth based on the approach to generating it, an extremely rough history of the US might look like:
"Wealth is our desire and ability to take care of one another," if broadly adopted, ought to be a much better fit for an age of connection. Assuming it's true enough, it also ought to lead to better results.