Here's a brief summary of what I think you've written. Tell me if I got it wrong.

Rich people and poor people are socially equal because, while rich people have many material advantages, poor people have a better chance of building good character.

I'll just say I think this represents a very naive understanding of social equality.

Rich people and poor people are socially equal because, while rich people have many material advantages, poor people have a better chance of building good character. — T Clark

I completely understand why you could see it that way. However my point isn't about material over character. That was only meant to be an example.
There is a drawback to everything in a certain situation.
Money can make you a target of bad people for example.
I'm trying to say that there is no value in anything unless you refuse to look at the entirety of everything.
Do you not think that every person has equal value?
If you only look at society in a superficial way, money and what you can buy with it, you can miss other meaning in your life.
Take it this way If i could offer you 1 billion dollars or a loving family what would you choose?
Do you think everybody would choose the same thing?
Is there even the right answer?
Another way to think of it is a cost benefit analysis, to a rich person getting even a couple thousand dollars for their time is ludicrous, but for others they work for even less. I am trying to look past the personal for a different meaning.

I'm not sure what your point is.

If the idea is simply that our external situation (whatever it might be) isn't inherently bad, but rather it's how we choose to view it that determines this, that's a fairly common perspective, often derived from Stoicism.

Another way to think of it is a cost benefit analysis, to a rich person getting even a couple thousand dollars for their time is ludicrous, but for others they work for even less. I am trying to look past the personal for a different meaning. — Red Sky

But human meaning is entirely context-dependent and situational. To try and turn meaning into an abstraction which transcends lived experience would seem fraught.

If the idea is simply that our external situation (whatever it might be) isn't inherently bad, but rather it's how we choose to view it that determines this, that's a fairly common perspective, often derived from Stoicism. — Tom Storm

I thought that this might have been a common idea, but I just didn't really have an support for that idea.

But human meaning is entirely context-dependent and situational. To try and turn meaning into an abstraction which transcends lived experience would seem fraught. — Tom Storm

What I meant by a different meaning was a lack of meaning, and with that lack of meaning equality. And for the abstraction that transcends lived experience being undesirable, of course it would be. I have decided to put my own values on life going forward while considering multiple views. I think it is important to put the fact that this life being equal is only true while being completely objective. Additionally, I think it is important to live personally, or at least to your own values.

Life is absolutely equal — Red Sky

There is no reason to suppose that life is "absolutely" equal; there is far more reason to suppose that life involves significant inequalities. "Life" doesn't set out to be unfair; it is more like randomly unequal. All sorts of variables can work for or against individual success. The children of the rich are often unable to duplicate the financial success of their forebears. John D. Rockefeller, JR who built Rockefeller Center in New York hoped to increase the family fortune. He did, eventually, but not nearly as much as his father, John D. Rockefeller SR, the country's first billionaire. Rockefeller junior's children have produced much less wealth.

Character is built-up in childhood; the comfortable middle and the rich do about as well as the poor. Does hardship build character? Maybe; it depends. One thing that hardship does do is reveal who has the character to survive intact and who doesn't. Many people are ruined by hardship. Some struggle, especially struggle where there is a fair chance of success, can be a good experience. Training for a marathon involves some hardship, but is likely to pay off. Struggling to make it out of the slum, graduate from high school, completing college, and finding a professional job is a struggle that many people fail in -- not just because they don't have enough character, but because the system is stacked against poor people succeeding.

everything is subjective — Red Sky

No, everything is not subjective and life is not absolutely equal. There IS an objective reality. If everything was subjective, how would we begin to cooperate and build a society? Some land is objectively better than other land. It makes an objective difference whether you build on sand or build on rock. Knowing how to read, write, calculate, navigate, and so forth makes an objective difference in a person's life.

I suppose you titled your post "Life is absolutely equal" because you believe it is. Or because it is an extreme statement that is likely to get plentiful responses.

Maybe your experience in life backs up your experience position; maybe not. I can't know the answer to that.

Smells like nihilism to me, OP.

I'm not sure what your point is. — Tom Storm

It's certainly a bit to unpack and then ponder using the given methodologies and justifications OP has provided.

Like I mean, unless I'm wrong, OP would suggest being born into a time period and family where that individual ended up going through the Holocaust "has it's benefits"... and even beyond that, is "no different" than if that person was instead born into a rich family not affected by the war at all and only benefited from it. That's a bit of a "hard sell" to me, to put it lightly, but, I'll let OP answer that. If he would like.

It's certainly a bit to unpack and then ponder using the given methodologies and justifications OP has provided. — Outlander

It's beyond me. Unfortunately I can't even get through Nietzsche or Heidegger...

No, everything is not subjective and life is not absolutely equal. There IS an objective reality. If everything was subjective, how would we begin to cooperate and build a society? Some land is objectively better than other land. — BC

I can understand your position on land, however I am trying to state that it is our own values that give quality. I will admit that my example with rich vs poor was well poor.
If I were to apply my thoughts to the land example...
It would be something like - the land only has value because of the purpose it is used for. I don't think there is a type of land that we as humans can not use. For example most people would consider a dessert useless land, no water or vegetation. However it provides a lot of room for building. Think of Las Vegas, which my knowledge about isn't great, but I believe that Vegas has to transport in water and other things, gaining almost no benefit from the land.
To your end of the argument, what is objectively better? I could understand a place being better for specific activities, but then that would only be for that activity.

Smells like nihilism to me, OP. — Outlander

Probably is, however I think it is important to state that these are my own thoughts and not that of others.

Like I mean, unless I'm wrong, OP would suggest being born into a time period and family where that individual ended up going through the Holocaust "has it's benefits"... and even beyond that, is "no different" than if that person was instead born into a rich family not affected by the war at all and only benefited from it. That's a bit of a "hard sell" to me, to put it lightly, but, I'll let OP answer that. If he would like. — Outlander

That is a mighty example you used, and a dangerous one. I am going to avoid the Holocaust example.
The basis of my argument is quite bad. Say if you were to die, anyone with normal values would consider it bad. However what about a person who committed suicide, they might consider it good. Now there is a difference in the values. Is it truly better to be dead or alive? Without answering that question we couldn't say dying early is better than dying late.
I don't think we can answer that question because we don't know what happens after you die. You could answer this question with religion.
It is important to note that this completely ignores the personal. If you were to value life, dying would be bad, but without those values... is there a truth?
Which brings me to a question, how do we know a value is correct? Is there a way? Or do we all just have to hold our own values through life unknowingly?

That is a mighty example you used, and a dangerous one. — Red Sky

Not anymore so than the claim of which spawned it, I'd say.

The basis of my argument is quite bad. — Red Sky

It just seems a bit unsound from how I process it in my own head. Not bad. Just, in need of refinement. Perhaps we can do so together? :smile:

Say if you were to die, anyone with normal values would consider it bad. However what about a person who committed suicide, they might consider it good. Now there is a difference in the values. Is it truly better to be dead or alive? Without answering that question we couldn't say dying early is better than dying late. — Red Sky

So basically, people have different opinions when it comes to large existential concepts outside of the reasonable capacity of the average mind and no one person's opinion on such topics can be more right or wrong than the other, is what I gather you're suggesting. Is that right?

If you were to value life, dying would be bad, but without those values... is there a truth? — Red Sky

If one doesn't value life, I doubt they'd have much opinion on anything within it, truth included. You can value life, as an experience to experience just for experience sake, like riding a roller coaster, but then enjoying the fact you eventually get to depart from it, I suppose.

how do we know a value is correct? Is there a way? Or do we all just have to hold our own values through life unknowingly? — Red Sky

Most people can be convinced of anything if a large enough constant (perhaps violent) opposition has a desire to do so. That's not a good measure, believing we "know" things. That is to say, that the knowledge we have "proven" cannot ever be made irrelevant by new. currently undiscovered or otherwise socially non-existent knowledge.

Not anymore so than the claim of which spawned it, I'd say. — Outlander

Cannot disagree with that.

It just seems a bit unsound from how I process it in my own head. Not bad. Just, in need of refinement. Perhaps we can do so together? :smile: — Outlander

I would agree with and to that.

So basically, people have different opinions when it comes to large existential concepts outside of the reasonable capacity of the average mind and no one person's opinion on such topics can be more right or wrong than the other, is what I gather you're suggesting. Is that right? — Outlander

Like you have said it is unrefined, but I would say something similar to that. The parts with capacity of the human mind is something beyond my original thoughts. I think it would be hard to find that line. The thing is that I have a basic understanding that is coming from my own thoughts, but putting that into words is harder than I thought.