I voted yes because economic equality is incompatible with every political system ever devised... Its also a pipe dream.

Would you not say the current safety net found in the United States is not sufficient? I grew up in a family of a single mother who didn't graduate high school, with three sons. I never went without a house to live in, my medical expenses were covered (and I did have high costs when I was hit by a car at the age of ten), an education, food to eat, and even video games to play. I was successful in school, and despite my impoverished origins I attend a top-tier private university, with below-average loans because of mostly private, but also federal and state grants. My mother makes a taxable income of $11,000/ year, for the last few years without child-support, and she would recieve $3,000 - $4,000 back yearly. One must remember that the government safety net isn't the only safety net to exist, There are countless people who have helped us, just to help a friend if she would be late on her bills, or something along those lines. I've seen peers in similar socio-economic situations do the same as I have. According to the OECD, the American public social expenditure is only 15% of GDP, but the private expenditure is also 15% GDP. This makes up a total of 30% GDP, comparable to the Nordic countries, however; in these countries 28% of social expenditure is public and only a miniscule 1-2% is private. When we consider the size and diversity of the U.S compared to the Nordic countries, this is quite the impressive safety net for a federated land that isn't a nation-state.  

The one thing we can learn the most from the Nordic countries, though, in my opinoin, is the reduction of the special priveleges given to the upper middle-class and upper classes in controlling certain markets. That is equality under the law. Don't regulate an industry so that the only people that can afford the risk of entry are large corporations. It's special interests like these which make an economy un-egalitarian, and that isn't the work of a free-market, but rather a controlled one. 

Also with more productivity, we will experience lesser scaricity, and a lesser need for a safety net as the bottom denominator becomes much more prosperous and able to live a better life. 

When I say capitalism, I mean free-market capitalism, with minimal to no government interference. Russia's economy is filled with government involvement, and consequently their markets are not free. Not having a large welfare-state doesn't change that. 

Also, the a reason I'm not working for a dollar is because of things like Ford's assembly line, in which the worker became the consumer and giving out higher wages made the company more profitable. Or certain non-legal aspects of private unions, who demanded higher wages and received them (albeit I oppose their invovlement in laws, because it reduced the economic freedoms of non-union contractors.) But most of all, the free-markets allowed goods to become cheaper (such as Walmart) and the poor to be able to afford more things. You didn't have this with the abolishment of markets (Soviet Union) and you don't have this in controlled economies (Russia.) 

As for your question regarding the CEO, the corporation decided that they need his management and that is what he's worth. Trust me, they're not going to pay him any more than they think he'd work for or how much value he has. He's under the same conditions that the workers are under, the market. 

Economic equality in dictatorships is even worse........so lets keep that in mind here.

Also, one more thing. Capitalism hasn't always been the enemy of the "left." In the 18th and 19th centuries, in fact, the left pushed for free-markets as opposed with mercantilism, because they knew that it was the only way to benefit the poor and common men. It was only with the successes of the free-market that the left realized that redistribution was possible, as production lead to large amounts of wealth-accumulation. This caused a split in the left-wing, and coalitions were formed with the right (true-conservatives), and the left-right scale made much less sense than it had during the French and American revolutions.

There is only one solution to all of that. We need to invent robot workers that can do any work task. That way everybody can be rich.

Only if the state has a monopoly on these workers, the means of production, and redistrubtes the product of their work, equally. All of which would be unlikely. The issue isn't that work isn't being done, but rather how efficiently it is done and the means and numbers by which the product is distributed.

The economic calculation problem acts as an obstacle (some say "makes it impossible") for planners to efficiently determine which areas of production are most valuable. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

It doesn`t matter how the distribution is if there are 10 robot workers per human everybody will be able to consume anything their heart desires. Amassing money will become pointless. If you can build those robots out of easily attainable material you can build workers that build workers they will cost only the energy cost as anything else will be done by the robots themselfs. We could build 100 Billion robot workers for 10 Billion people. They can easily produce enough to make everyone rich by todays standards. Its just a question of energy and technology in the end. Also there is the fear factor of losing control to the robots at one point.

Resources are still limited in your scenario. People would still have to trade. 

Not necessarily. We can easily send those robots into space cheap in tiny capsules without lifesupport and way back to earth who then can mine asteroids and send anything of value back to earth. They could get their energy throúgh the sun in space.  The ressource problem wouldn`t be that big of a deal if we would harness energy and material in space through the robots.

What ressource would we run out of ? Except Oil which can be replaced.