That's not true at all. The world's average household income is estimated to be about $10,000 a year, meaning that even if you magically solved the distribution problem, people would still only live off of $800 a month. A vast improvement for the global poor that live on a few bucks a day, but certainly not luxurious living.
I want everyone in the world to be able to live the life that the average Texan or Swiss does now; I want everyone to be able to feed their families, enjoy a comfortable house with enough room for a garden, go on a vacation or two a year, save for retirement, develop a hobby that might take time and money, and more. I want everyone to be able to live it up every now and then, if they wanted to. I want everyone to enjoy secure property rights and rule of law. I want everyone to be able to have as many children as would make them happy, and for those children to live even better lives. There is nowhere near enough wealth produced yet that this is possible for everybody on the planet. We are very, very far away from no longer having production problems and only having distribution problems.
Income is not a measure of real wealth or wellbeing. Period
Whenever we analyze the such case, we must consider whole group. Nobody would live in city if the quality life is poor compared other place like rural area. Yes, there are few exceptions like people like to spend money over extravagance stuff. But they represent minority.
I would say Income does indicate a measure of real wealth or wellbeing.
But the distribution is so lopsided that some end up with too much while some end up with not enough.
Adding energy to the system is no guarantee that we will fix the distribution problem.
The problem isn't technical, it's social.
This is the point that Buckminster Fuller made decades ago. One day we'll all listen to him.
https://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/Fall2013Papers/Purcel...