Hypotheticals

After seeing Elon Musk's confusing "comments" about "socialism" (a concept, it appears, he does not understand all that well) I was inspired to think about the following dual hypothetical worlds.

World 1
In World 1, there are 100 inhabitants and 100,000 units of wealth. The thing is, 99,901 units of that wealth sit in the hands of one inhabitant (Group 1A), and the remaining inhabitants each have 1 unit of wealth (Group 1B). Poverty is widespread in World 1, as are the things that generally correlate with poverty: high infant mortality, starvation, dissolution of traditional family structures, low civic engagement, etc.

World 2
World 2 also has 100 inhabitants. World 2 is not nearly as wealthy as World 1 and only has 50,000 units of wealth. The wealth is not distributed equally.

The richest person in World 2 has 8,500 units of wealth (Group 2A).

The next 24 people on the scale have 1,000 units of wealth apiece (Group 2B).

The next 25 poorest inhabitants each have 500 units of wealth (Group 2C).

The poorest 50 inhabitants each have 100 units of wealth apiece (Group 2D).

Without a doubt, I'd rather be the richest person in World 1 than the richest person in World 2. However, if I was one of the other 99 people in either world, I'd prefer to live in World 2. No doubt, World 1 has a higher GDP and a higher "average" level of wealth than World 2. Even if I was in the poorest group in World 2, though, I would be 100X better off than being in the poor group in World 1.

The relevant question, I think, is that if you had no idea which group you would spend your life in in each world, would you rather be born into World 1 or World 2? Which one gives you the best odds of happiness? Doesn't the answer to that question touch on the notion of fundamental justice, at least in part?