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.

Different people will have different robots suited to this, based on the resources they've attained on earth. Some people can have robots that are more suitable to mining asteroids, and are more efficient. In your scenario nobody is poor, but not everybody is equal as well. 

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. 

That's the thing, Russia's government interferes with peoples incomes much less then in the USA.

Russia's Corporate tax is 20%, where USA's can go up to 39%. USA has HUGE taxes on property (About 3% of the houses value annually). Russia taxes good more (meaning more money stays within the hands of the rich because everyone pays the same high tax on goods)., etc, etc. Russias tax system affects everyone much more equally then in USA, this makes it easier to accumulate wealth, and is the spirit of Capitalism. In comparision to Russia, USA is very left wing.

Russia being free-market or not has nothing to do with their structure of government. I agree with you, if they went free market, their companies would get crushed, but that has nothing to do with their structure of government. If anything, it shows you a great example of how Capitalism holds back at technological advances, since Russia is so far behind USA and the EU.

As for your example about people getting paid more, thats not Capitalism, that's socialism. Rewarding people more based on the skill of their work is socialist (however they wouldn't use money as currency). This is why Wal-Mart greeters and cashers get minimum wage, but the people who make your cars get paid more.

As for CEO's, they decide their own pay, not the corporation.

I really don't think you get what Capitalism is. You do realise that Capitalism is right wing politics, and USA in comparision to a lot of poorer (more Capitalist) countries is very left wing right?

I already said what I had to say. The economic system in Russia mirrors the ideals of Capitalism much more then the high corporate tax and left wing agenda of USA, Canada, and EU.

My point was technology was the main reason for the improvements in life quality in USA, not the economic structure, and that's largely true. While more people are unemployed now then before, the average lifestyle is better. People don't really starve to death anymore unless they have a serious mental illness and live on the street.

So economic equality and democracy do go hand and hand.