Yet if you proposed introducing a $200 per month Universal Basic Income, people would call you a political extremist. Unfortunately, per capita GDP isn't a goo

Yet if you proposed introducing a $200 per month Universal Basic Income, people would call you a political extremist. Unfortunately, per capita GDP isn't a good measure of whether society is post-scarcity, just whether most people in the society can work hard enough to overcome the scarcity of resources. > If we flattened wealth inequality without destroying the economy AND we cured all diseases AND we invented cold fusion AND we established world peace AND population growth stayed low then we still wouldn't be producing enough value to exhaust interpersonal competition ... Even the citizens of Kardashev Type III civilization can't all date Emma Stone and/or Keanu Reeves at the same time. There might still be competition over real estate and relationships, but I don't think those are good measures of what "post-scarcity" means. Real estate is, in a sense, a commodity that existed before humans and which cannot be manufactured, so it might end up needing a different system of ownership/taxation to other forms of wealth. Moreover, relationships are completely orthogonal to the idea of resource scarcity, as people are not property and we shouldn't judge our economic systems based on whether celebrities fall in love with everyone who is attracted to them.