*facepalm* In a capitalist society, generally speaking, the more talented you are, the more money you make, the higher your quality of life. In the Communist Star Trek universe, the more talented you are, the more affluent your position, the less drudge/dirty work you do, and the higher your quality of life. *woosh* You're really good at missing obvious points, aren't you? The point is that you can give someone food and medicine, and they can still be poor compared to say some federation noblemen that they transport now and then with highest respect who has people taking orders left and right and gets better accommodations, etc. What gave it away? Was it the part that I said that the writers put in a bunch of nonsensical inconsistencies that don't make sense? Let me break this down again really simple. Star Trek is an inconsistent fiction, where the writers fucked up a lot, in particular in their inability to explain how the economy could work in the Communist utopia propaganda they were peddling. This is quite normal with most socialists, who insist "real socialism hasn't been tried yet" when countries they espoused as socialist examples to strive for like Venezuela collapse in virtually the blink of an eye, and devolve into a Communist dictatorship... again. 1) That's irrelevant, as post-scarcity only means that basic commodities have become cheap. 2) The first-world today is a 'post-scarcity' world already in practice, in that even our poorest welfare queens have food, water, shelter, security, and healthcare provided by the state... so much so that most are overweight. But guess what... 99.9% of people aren't content with that kind of post-scarcity, and will still want big mansions, Ferraris, boats, and, well, MORE. What prevents this, unless you have a draconian Communist government that stops individuals from accumulating "stuff" no matter how hard they work, and if they do, how do they prevent resentment from their hard work being taken away from them and some sloth that wakes up at 10AM, gets a blowjob from a virtual girl in the holodeck, then plays whatever the latest video game is, before eating some ice cream, and taking a nap and lives an identical lifestyle? That's why socialists experiments fail, as its very demotivational and so per-person productivity massively drops and EVERYONE ends up poor. 3) If some resources are still scarce, then they have value (currency), and there is competition for those scarce resources, and that means greater power to those that control it, and people fighting for power and control is what wars and disparities in "haves" vs "have-nots" is all about. Besides, Maslow was full of crap, as based on his views, every welfare queen or socialist state that has existed so far should have people striving towards and eventually achieving self-actualization, but that's not how people work. If people can't satisfy greed and get "more", then they like to conserve energy and be comfortable. That means that when your Star Fleet boss says you have to wake up at 5AM for training, run ten miles, shower, put on your red shirt, and then be cannon fodder towards some alien menace, or alternatively you can say "fuck you" and do whatever the hell you want to do, most will choose the latter.