It's often said that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," meaning that if something is good for or benefits one person, it is likely to benefit the group of which they are a part.
I'm curious about this idea, though. In a situation of limited resources, that doesn't seem to hold up; if I were given my state's entire treasury, for instance, it would undoubtedly be good for me, but disastrous for the state as a whole.
Obviously this is a reductio ad absurdum, but on a more moderate level, I am curious: in a situation of limited resources, does the improvement of one member's well-being tend to improve or deteriorate the well-being of its group?
For instance, increasing a government-mandated minimum wage: individuals being paid more money will be benefited, but the economy as a whole is (or at least could be) harmed. But is this a necessary conclusion or a side-effect of chaotic real-world forces?