The main hurdle facing post-scarcity economics is not actually scarcity. Rather it is the elitist class, who will do everything it can to ensure continued scarcity in order to keep their socioeconomic positions. We already see this today in a number of ways. For instance, if a commodity isn't scarce, it can be made scarce by effectively creating a monopoly (even if it doesn't appear to be a monopoly from the outside) and hording the commodity. The diamond industry is a good example of this. Another technique is using complex laws to ensure a great deal of labor and supplies are needed to comply. Tax laws are a great example of this. How many accountants would loose their jobs if taxes could be done in five minutes on the back of a napkin? Probably the worst tactic of all is simply the promotion of continued population growth. We really do NOT have enough resources on this planet to give everyone on it a modern life style. And it is imperative for populations to shrink. Until we are well on our way to the stars this is not going to change. But our current economic models crumble in the face of decreasing population. So we can only expect more scarcity in the future, not less.
If you change incentive systems in countries to make children & marriage an economic negative you get population shrinkage. Educate women, reduce infant mortality, free birth control, dual income house holds, expensive rents, etc. Almost every developed nation is reproducing at below replacement levels as a result.
Then perhaps it is time to start looking for an alternative economic system. I've been developing a framework to explore new economic systems for several years. http://babblingbrook.net
There are two pressures in society. One pushing in the direction you say and another pushing towards a post scarcity economy. Which will prevail is difficult to say, but I suspect that in the short term the status-quo definitely have an advantage, but in the long term they will most likely lose.
The reason is due to a little known theory called non equilibrium thermodynamics, which essentially states that if the reconfiguring of a system (an atom, a cell, a solar system, a hurricane, society etc...) can produce more entropy in the universe, then given the opportunity, it will do that.
A moribund restrictive society that inhibits innovation creates less entropy than one where everyone is free to innovate, investigate and have fun in ways that expend energy. This doesn't mean that this will automatically happen, in the same way that biological evolution uses chance to produce more adapted species, so do all forms emergent complexity due to non equilibrium thermodynamics (evolution is just one organising principle). Also, it needs to be possible for the system to organise in this way. Societies organising principle is its socio-economic system. We have had several in the past, such as a monarchic command economy, but today the most successful is free market democracy. There is no reason to presume that this is the best one. Free market democracy became possible due to several inventions and innovations, such as coins, the printing press and debt. Recently we have invented the internet and this makes many new systems possible.
Sorry if this is poorly written. I have just bashed it out and would like to write more, but I have to go and get my daughter from grandmas so I don't have time...
