alt Hacker News> The #1 problem leading to humans not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources.
It really isn't. The raw materials in our lives are a tiny fraction of our living costs in the west. 200 tons of concrete, steel, and plastic etc. in appropriate proportions is enough for a very nice house, yet it would cost less than a tenth of the sale price of that house: what you need to turn it into a nice house is expensive human labour.
The raw materials are cheap because we have machines to help extract them; before we invented them, those materials were also expensive.
The sale price of a house has little to do with labour. It's mostly about the number of humans competing to live in an area vs. how easy it is to get land in that area so that a new house can be built. I.e. the ratio of how many humans are involved vs the most limiting resource for producing the thing in question.
There is the point that how wealthy the competing humans are is also a major factor. But you're trying to bypass an argument about resource scarcity by pretending that resources aren't scarce. If you follow that path to its logical conclusion you're probably going to end up in a very confusing world because then it won't make sense why everyone doesn't just get a house (if someone can't afford a house, why not just upskill and learn how to build one? It isn't that hard and there are a lot of people who don't own a house but really want one and are more than happy to work for the privilege).