the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it
I agree with this analysis; the question becomes: how do we value a person's contribution to society, if not by someone's willingness to pay their wages?
I hope there is a solution in advanced tools for economic cooperation... imagine 90% of the population living off something like "GoFundMe for artists and educators".
If we can't or won't find such an answer, we then have the question: how many lives are we willing to subsidize who are contributing, by our best measures, a net negative to society?
"Contribution to society" is the main problem that needs a paradigm shift - if we look at 1900, then a system where economic subsistence is directly linked to a measurable contribution to society (whether by wages paid in capitalism or full participation in a collective society or whatever) makes sense.
However, if we look at year 2100 then it seems rather clear that a majority of population will not ever be able to make any real contribution to wider society whatsoever, since any job that they can do can be done better and cheaper by someone else (machines or other people - e.g. being a third rate guitarist is of no use if you have many first rate guitarists that also are eager to work for free) so there can be no practical, economic reason to ever choose them for any job.
Subsidizing people who aren't contributing to society seems the only humane option. Having them "contribute" to society in some artificial way is not a solution, since that policy by itself would be a net negative to society; Not subsidizing them is not a stable solution, since in the absence of any reasonable ways to survive they'll either starve to death or manage to violently overthrow the system.
In essence, the likely future involves the unprecedented scenario of billions of people who are, from an economic standpoint, absolutely unnecessary and a net economic negative to society; and the only (?) possible solutions seem to be either to accept that we'll subsidize them or exterminate them. Or, possibly, "others" will subsidize or exterminate us, as it's not set in stone on which side I or my kids will be.
Subsidizing people who aren't contributing to society seems the only humane option.
I think humane is the key word here. We are human, after all. It's human that you would take someone in to your home and feed and care for them, though they might never repay you.
It's not human that you would take 10 people into your home and support them indefinitely while they contribute nothing, and then support their children, their children's children, etc forever.
It never made sense to me that "contribution to society" would be measured by money earned; it functions more as if your vote was proportional to the money you had in your bank account (and of course, the rich vote to get more rich). It ends up being some kind of distorted limit instead of actually reflecting anything resembling the real will of society.
It never made sense to me that "contribution to society" would be measured by money earned
Think of it this way. I am willing to give you money, if you make a significant positive contribution to my life. I am willing to participate in a collective to scheme to give you money, if what you do helps people in a way I can appreciate.
It's certainly a distorted signal, but better than no signal at all.
If we can't or won't find such an answer, we then have the question: how many lives are we willing to subsidize who are contributing, by our best measures, a net negative to society?
If you are posing this question from the implicit position as being one of those who are a net positive, reflect on how trivially chance could intervene and turn you into a net negative.
I imagine a future where 90% of the population must become shills for themselves to make a living, and I do not like it.
reflect on how trivially chance could intervene and turn you into a net negative.
All of us are a net negative some of the time. The question is, how many can be net negatives all of the time? 10x? 100x? One person supporting the entire rest of the human population?
I agree with this analysis; the question becomes: how do we value a person's contribution to society, if not by someone's willingness to pay their wages?
I hope there is a solution in advanced tools for economic cooperation... imagine 90% of the population living off something like "GoFundMe for artists and educators".
If we can't or won't find such an answer, we then have the question: how many lives are we willing to subsidize who are contributing, by our best measures, a net negative to society?