Well no, the alternative is to not work at all. And I know plenty of people (heh, Berkeley) who get along fine without working. Some of them are probably happier than plenty of employed people.
I know this isn't strictly relevant, but I really believe that thanks to technology improvements, we need to work on dispelling the idea that everybody has to work. Unemployment should gradually stop being a horrible fate worthy of pity or derision, but rather a viable career path. One of these days...
I love this topic, because you always have to take the side of those that ARE working and end up having to distribute the fruits of their labors to the non working.
Until we get self sufficient factory farms and power plants (so let us think futuristic here, say 50 years) where robots generate carbon through some means, pattern it into amino acids, and use 3d printing technology to generate plant and muscle matter that is most tasty and nutritious for us to eat, whenever we want. And simultaneously, your power is generated by robots controlling massive solar arrays surrounding the planet siphoning off the suns energy output to power the entire planet, and no human is involved there.
All that is there is an upfront cost. And after singularity, we don't even need to worry about developing the new technologies or knowing how to repair what is already there.
But who do you pay to get there? Who gets the right to say "everything you eat and everything you do is powered by my creation". That is another great question to ponder.
But we will never have a capitalist system where people can consume without producing and expect to be a viable economy. It is actually the reason America is failing so badly right now - as a nation, percentage wise, very few of us actually "produce" anything. Too many are middle men trying to leech off the system through a mirth of means (including myself, as a college student at this time I eat food and make nothing useful yet).
I do not think everything needs to be automated. Rather, we just need to reach a certain level of efficiency: as soon as one person can produce enough of something for, say, several thousand--something completely reasonable with today's technology--you start reaching the point where you do not need everybody working.
Just because your power plant employs some people--and it probably really is just a handful--does not mean everybody has to work. The same is true for agriculture; one farmer is already extremely effective, and with the advent of cheap robotics[1] they are poised to become more efficient yet.
"Whom to pay" is a loaded question--we have already reached, or are rapidly reaching, a point where society can exist happily without everybody pitching in. Why should anybody's saying their creation powers things actually matter?
Of course, my argument isn't really about getting rid of payment or even the capitalistic system. Rather, it is about extending a recent trend: the increasing minimum standard of living. In a perfect world, you would be able to subsist comfortably without working. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to motivate people: status, luxury items...etc.
So, given increases in efficiency and different sources of motivation, I do not see why a capitalist society with plenty of people not working is impossible. Now, I doubt transitioning there would be easy: too many people are emotionally set against freeloaders. If we actually needed everybody to work, this would be great; however, as technology progresses and this is needed less and less, it stops being great.
Of course, there is one glaring whole in my argument (or, at least, one I'm pointing out): we may not be at the requisite level of efficiency yet. However, if recent trends continue, I thin we will reach it some time soon even if we are not there yet. And when we do--and well after--the cultural aversion to "freeloading" will persist even though it is less and less needed. Which is unfortunate.
I think you were originally downvoted because slavery isn't slavery because the person isn't being paid, but because the person is being forced to work against their will.
In fact, if the person was forced to work against their will and paid for it, that's still effectively slavery.
Yes - but the real point is about those 'artists' who work voluntarily on projects of their own choosing for (at best) speculative financial return. Sometimes they might get nothing for their efforts, and this has to be accepted.
I make a distinction between "labor" and "selling 'intellectual property'". Nobody has the right to make money off selling something that doesn't exist.
So yes, it is.