I mean, we first need to define what a luxury and what a necessity is. For some things like food, shelter, water, healthcare it's pretty straightforward. But for resources like energy or communications it's less obvious.

I'd argue that the internet is now a necessity rather than a luxury, but many people to this day still don't have or choose not to have internet access (due to geography or religion). Energy is the same way, if we take an obviously bad example, but say you're socializing electricity for everyone, what's to stop someone from mining cryptocurrency on everyone else's dime ? That person would be profiting off of the social net. Where do we put the cursor between "luxurious" energy use and "necessary" energy use ? It's a tough thing to figure out.

Furthermore, for most people you need an incentive to work, right now it's survival, which is not great, but if all of your needs basic, and more are taken care of by the state, you only work for the luxuries, which would greatly reduce the available workforce. It's again a tough balance to find.

[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

If you're socializing electricity for everyone then you can tell when usage is far outside norms and audit usage

I also don't think money is the ultimate incentive, and most people would work whether or not they needed money to survive. Sure they wouldn't work at some crappy unfulfilling job, but people would still be productive according to their idea of productivity.

Also not having people working all these useless jobs would save energy and resources.

There's lots of study on how humans respond to incentives and money and its not a straightforward relationship at all.