I thhink te best option for the world would be to faze out humans as a workforce replace them with robots, use the profits to give everyone a minimum income some kind of score system so those that actually do something for humanity like science or jobs that cant be replaced get more, then slowly faze out money altogether.
What I have noticed is that humans need a job. When we don't have jobs and just sit around the results are pretty ugly. To use one example, there are indigenous tribes in Alaska that receive rather large incomes from mineral rights (i.e. oil money). Each person gets as much as $60k a year for nothing more than existing. What do these communities look like? Alcohol and drug abuse are rampant. Quality of life is piss poor. Education for kids is atrocious.
It seems to me that we humans derive our sense of worth from working. When that is taken away we tend towards destructive behaviors. So how do we supply people with work in a society without money and without a need for people making stuff?
The average income in the United States appears to be going toward $59,000 per person for 2017.
The statistical Naze in me can't help but point out that this is the median income which is different from the average or mean income.
The world average should be over $11,000 for 2017 but that depends on how much worse the dollar gets. (Purchasing power in the world will average over $17,000 per person in 2017).
A truly universal (that is worldwide) income right of $250 per month (PPP or purchasing power parity) might be in order if one wants faster economic growth and the (near)end of abject poverty.
I'm not an economic expert, but it seems like a bad idea to dump a lot of cash into an economy since it could create unmanageable inflation/deflation. It also reminds me of a story my grandfather used to tell about his time in the US Army during WW II. There were quite a few guys who liked to gamble and play poker. Within a few days of getting their paychecks a lot of those guys would be broke, but there were a few card sharks that would be flush with money, and it was usually the same guys each month. Just flooding the economy with money seems like a bad idea, but it might work if it is balanced by building infrastructure that would produce good paying jobs in the long term. Otherwise, all of that money moves into the pockets of barons or an economic oligarchy (think Russia) and stays there.
But I could be completely wrong. Again, I'm not an expert in economics.
Indians in the United States might not be the best examples if one expects to see what typical results will be.
I know where you are coming from, but I don't think they are atypical, either. There is a strong correlation between unemployment and chronic drug use. One could argue which leads to which, but the correlation is there. From what I have seen, this is true across all races. If you look at the current opioid crisis it is really bad in W. Virginia where unemployment is high (i.e. coal miners out of work).
I know that a number of working Indians do have issues with liquor, but most are deeply offended if "their people" are singled out as having worse vices with addiction than whites and blacks. They are very vocal on that note. (dunk Indians often shout out against whites and "their drugs"). Drunk and sober Indians alike dismiss their being singled out as any different.
There is a genetic basis for alcohol tolerance and addiction (e.g. ADH isoforms), but those are tangential to the issues I am referring to.