There may not be post scarcity as there will always people the desire more and thus commerce will exist. However that doesn't necessarily means that everyone needs to contribute to that economy. If we have developed the technology to allow for basic food, shelter, and healthcare then people who don't strive for anything more should be able to acquire these things without additional work and become a basic right. In my mind the idea of basic work isn't to stop people from working, it's to stop requiring it for basic livelihood.

> "People like to trade stuff. This means there will always be things people want to trade. This means money, commerce, and scarcity aren't going anywhere."

Sure, there will continue to be trade, but the need/desire to trade will be reduced.

To look at how/why, you need to look at decentralised production. Technologies like 3D printers promise to be able to produce many of the products we currently trade for, and this goes beyond the plastic trinkets people currently associate with 3D printers (there are already 3D printer devices in the fields of clothing, food, medicine, heavy machinery, etc...). So whilst there will be trade for the raw materials, why would you pay someone else to make something for you when you have access to a machine to do it for you (note that I said access, not ownership, I don't expect everyone will own a device that can create a car, for example)? It makes sense for people to cut out the middle man when the end result is just as good as they could've gotten by paying a premium.

There will still be people wishing to trade for things they can't get for low cost locally, but there will be a lot of industries disrupted by the ability of people to produce their own consumer goods.

The point is that our problems are shifting from physical ("How do we eat?") to psychological ("Where shall we have lunch?").

I've heard it said that, "even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the starving man."