Matthew Yglesias applies some of the ideas of Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren to the TV show Jetsons.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/the-economics-of-the-jetsons
So even in a post-scarcity utopia of the Jetsons, we should consider such a world undesirable, because rockstars would be earning a million times of what is earned by the Jetson family, a family sheltered and protected by advanced robots?
Wow.
This goes beyond a natural human desire to help the less fortunate, this is just childish fetishisation of equality.
Good. Now put yourself in the position of those of us who live in the Third World.
Every time I, as an Indian, hear about Americans complaining of income inequality in America, I feel that they have already reached that point of absurdity in which they are already childishly fetishising equality. US has an obesity problem from all the food surplus it has, and there are people who complain about excessive consumerism from everything being too cheap. THEN there are people who complain about inequality?
Egalitarians had already reached that level of absurdity. This Jetson thing was only a higher level of it, but the next logical step of an already absurd position.
Progressivism = Egalitarianism
When your starting premise is as absurd as “everyone should be equal,” your conclusions can only get worse.
Egalitarianism is not a conclusion reached after some thinking about it.
It is an arbitrary starting premise. And people who defend this premise always presuppose it to be valid in order to be prove it to be valid. It’s depressingly circular.
Egalitarianism is a substitute religion, because the end result of egalitarianism is only egalitarianism. Any question about an important meaningful life is irrelevant here.
Are you sure this post isn’t a parody of egalitarianism? Maybe I’ve been giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I’ve always assumed that progressives think that richer people are richer because they’ve robbed or cheated someone to get that way, and that’s why wealth needs to be redistributed. Maybe they erroneously think that “capitalism”, in the greater scheme of things, always involves robbing or cheating someone. Progressives tend to infer, without sufficient inquery, that if you’re poor, you were cheated, and if you’re rich, you are a cheat.
This person genuinely seems to think that someone who chooses to do honest work all day should receive the same social reward as someone who only works for two hours, and spends the rest of the time goofing off and getting into treadmill accidents. What the hell?
They really want to punish work and reward idleness? Is this what they teach their children?
And the bit about the rock star? He’s speculating that popular musicians would be highly successful, even if they didn’t receive any revenue from ‘album sales’. There would never be non-scarcity of the artist’s goods, because there would be massive demand for him to play live gigs. Isn’t this a rather good argument against the primary justification for intellectual property in art? 
It’s not parody. It says, “It raises, I think, a number of interesting issues.” Not something hyperbolic, such as, “It raises serious issues that demand our immediate attention.”
To give him credit, he does accept that there is no need to redistribute resources from harder working people in such a post-scarcity utopia, because absolute living standards should be considered as an obvious sign that we should have some sense of proportion.
It’s that rockstar part where he jumps off the cliff.
I think this man is victim to the simplistic idea that people should be paid based on how hard they work. Of course, by that logic, people in think tanks, such as the one for which he works, perhaps should not be paid anything!