that may not always be practical though - how would you go about stripping the power of the employer over the employee? without an employer's power to say, decide whether an employee gets fired or a raise, the relationship would no longer be there.
An alternative is to constrain the power, as is done in more consensus-oriented labor systems like Scandinavia's, treating the company as a kind of partnership of multiple stakeholders, and having many decisions made by committees with both employer and employee representatives. A kind of weak importing of a few ideas from worker's cooperatives, without actually moving all the way there.
And more importantly, I think there is a difference between justified authority and power. Not that I'm automatically accepting employer and employee relationships as desirable, just like with "citizen vs. politician", but for example it's perfectly okay that parents can yank their kids at the arm when those are about to run into traffic, and otherwise curtail their autonomy, as long as it's justified. That's not power, that's authority, and even authority needs to be constantly re-evaluated and justified.
If you're on an expedition and the most experienced person leads it, one would expect that when they get sick, they would pass that job on without any fuss at all, since it's about the well-being of the expedition, not about their personal power, right? Notice how in many cases instead we have people asserting ownership, certainly when it comes to employers, and even in politics. When was the last time you strolled into a place and up to the manager/president, proved you're smarter in all ways, and successfully convinced them they should give you their job and work under you? Thought so :P
Check out Citigroup's leaked Plutonomy paper[1]. It's details, in disgustingly congratulatory terms, such a stronghold. It is also a literal dictionary definition of conspiracy to maintain a political, economical, and societal control of their financial position.
[1] http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ - you will have to check some popular bittorrent sites to find the full paper.
For example: In such a future, farmers might claim that food is a "basic need" and fight to get subsidies, and when their food crop goes out of style, they may get the politicians to subsidize their land to go fallow. Or even to the point where their unhealthy crop would be overproduced relative to demand and sold to the public as a a part of a "healthy diet", leading to obesity and widespread medical problem.
In such a future, doctors may claim that all of their medical procedures are a "basic need", and fight for a billing system that bills by procedure - to the point of requiring people to purchase coverage for procedures they will likely not need, and leading to unnecessary and risky medical procedures being performed on patients, with an untransparent pricing structure, leading to cost overruns that are an albatross on society.
In such a future, bankers may claim that access to financial systems is a "basic need", and when their malfeasance results in systemic economic collapse, they fight for a rescue package that soaks them in money forcibly taken from the public.
And in this future, sadly, the truly needy will always find a way to be unhelped by the wealthy and politically powerful (even some who are well-intentioned) who have captured the machinery and redefined "basic need" to their benefit.
"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat...Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes
Your premise that if people's needs are met they will do nothing I feel is plain wrong - people will be bored then, and there are other societal pressures that can drive people to do, to improve themselves, to be productive. Want to be an attractive mate? Want to be an interesting person? Want to be more attractive (not talking just physical of course) and a more interesting person than other contenders? People and animals through evolution get enough of what they need to perpetuate their species forward - humans with out abilities for creating machines to automate processes and make our own lives practically infinitely more productive (and for the whole world) really changes, and I'd argue, lowers what minimum amount of work each of us actually need to do in service of others (to take care of others) - though we might as well make and incentivize all of the work we do (including education) towards what is good and what is in service for others; If everyone's working towards taking care of everyone else, then you'll be taken care of very well. :)
Capitalism itself we now know and have learned is great for innovation, however not for sustainability - so that is its sickness. It's not difficult to change certain economic cycles to turn capitalism into incentivizing and directing resources into a positive cycle for everyone to benefit - it's a matter of identifying the leading metrics and affecting them through policy.
Land being given away got people being productive, so that's the leading metric there - we need to incentivize and help people be passionate about something, to enjoy doing things, so they do them - become productive. I don't think it's directly either that it giving people a basic income alone really breaks the 'stronghold' the capitalist has. The issue you have to watch out for is if you de-incentivize capitalistic behaviour then people might not do jobs that we need. You have to manage the ecosystem, and not control it - though what businesses do, is control, and that causes problems -- and by managing you allow natural cycles to show themselves, and then can guide them as you discover and need to direct them (if they indeed need some direction due to negative impact / a negative cycle for society exists).
Re: Citigroup Plutonomy paper - Neat. I knew these structures existed, though not the source. The way things got done was whoever has more resources amassed who then can leverage them for their own gain -- if that's what they want (and that's usually only time they'll spend their resources/money, though government should be leveraging resources for their own gain; giving land away initially was useful because it was a strong enough incentive to get activity happening). This is similarly what things like the stock market allows, companies to amass large sums of money. FTA, "But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground." This is language of karma. The effects of karma takes time to happen sometimes, for organization to occur - and of course as they state, you're fighting compliance of a mass market who mostly have enough to just get by - and it's perpetuated this way and always floats around this because businesses will adjust their price points/profit level based on people's demands, and there are certain things people require; We'll really be in trouble when for-profit driven motives cause certain resources to be no longer available - one of which being a healthy environment that we're allowing to be polluted. Capitalistic cycles are in a controlled-negative cycle. It doesn't take a lot of policy to shift this to positive cycles to start being self-perpetuating, however there will be backlash/hate/fear from the status quo who want to maintain. I think the education and awareness required of society is such that it can happen relatively quickly - the internet is providing such a platform.
Also FTA, "To this end, the cleaning up of business practice, by high-profile champions of fair play, might actually prolong plutonomy." This is funny because they're not really doing this to the degree they should in the U.S. - so perhaps they're shooting themselves in the foot - which is good news for society that no one really seems at the wheel of this way of living, they may all be doing their part individually - but without a visionary leading then a plan in the opposite direction can occur with relatively little pushback.
My point wasn't that if people's needs were met, they would do nothing- my point is was that with needs met people wouldn't be forced to choose to either starve or spend the majority of their waking hours working for someone else. And if the profit motive was not the main force driving productivity society, more time and energy can be dedicated to personal pursuits or actual work that 'changes the world' for the better.
Maybe that's just confusing witty sayings with arguments, but until Costco buys out all other companies except Valve et al, I don't see how this changes a lot. I never said you can't work hard or "lead" people, or that big projects don't require coordination and that individuals take themselves back so the undertaking can go smoothly. But power that respects no criticism, no logic, and only bows to equal or greater counter-power, still seems to be the norm, sadly. Kudos to the Costco guy, this bit
“I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits,” says Jelinek. “It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.”
reminds me of Henry Ford, who at least got that bit right, too. But when you generally look at corporate profits vs. wages, the "Costco spirit" seems to be an outlier. That guy is plain not greedy, which helps.