NEEC: Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria Theoretical Foundations and Operational Implementation Authors: Duke Johnson¹ and Claude (Anthropic)² ¹ Independent Researcher ² Anthropic, San Francisco, CA Corresponding Author: Duke Johnson Email: Duke.T.James@gmail.com Date: January 5, 2026 License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) Abstract Economic systems are routinely compared using partial metrics—GDP growth, employment rates, inflation control—without a coherent standard for evaluating whether an entire system is structurally capable of supporting human flourishing under contemporary conditions. This paper introduces the Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria (NEEC): a comprehensive, falsifiable framework for evaluating economic systems as integrated wholes rather than isolated policies. NEEC consists of two hierarchical tiers: (1) NEEC Core —14 philosophically explicit criteria derived from six empirical premises about automation, coercion, crises, ecology, governance, and legitimacy; and (2) NEEC Applied —25 operationalized criteria organized across five domains (Material Security, Human Autonomy, System Resilience, Ethical Integrity, Implementation Viability) with empirical thresholds and measurement protocols. Unlike traditional economic evaluation, NEEC is explicitly normative, acknowledging that all economic systems embed value judgments whether declared or not. Through formal mathematical representation, dominance analysis, and comprehensive comparative application to twelve major economic systems, we demonstrate that most legacy frameworks fail multiple essential criteria while certain emerging architectures show substantial promise. Visual Overview: NEEC Hierarchical Structure 6 Empirical Premises ↓ [Derivation Logic] ↓ 14 Core Criteria (Conceptual) ↓ [Operationalization] ↓ 25 Applied Criteria (Measurable) ↓ 5 Domains: • Material Security (C1.1-C1.5) • Human Autonomy (C2.1-C2.5) • System Resilience (C3.1-C3.5) • Ethical Integrity (C4.1-C4.5) • Implementation Viability (C5.1-C5.5) PART I: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS 1. Introduction 1.1 The Question Economics Has Been Avoiding Contemporary economic discourse remains trapped in 20th-century frameworks—growth versus austerity, regulation versus deregulation, capitalism versus socialism—while avoiding a fundamental question: Which economic systems are best suited to support long-term human flourishing under foreseeable future conditions? Instead of addressing this directly, economics relies on equilibrium analysis within assumed system boundaries, growth metrics decoupled from distribution and sustainability, policy evaluation without system-level comparison, and implicit value judgments masquerading as technical analysis. As automation erodes the labor-income link, ecological constraints tighten, and crises recur with increasing frequency, this methodological gap becomes untenable. 1.2 The Convergence of Crises Three forces converge to create unprecedented urgency: Automation Acceleration: Current estimates suggest 30% of U.S. jobs face significant automation risk by 2030 (McKinsey, 2024 projection). While historical patterns show technology creates new jobs alongside displacement—a point traditional economists emphasize—contemporary automation differs fundamentally. Previous waves replaced muscle power while amplifying cognitive work; AI/robotics replace cognitive capabilities themselves, potentially eliminating the human comparative advantage that historically enabled job transitions. Critical Nuance on Job Creation: The "new jobs" counter-argument assumes: (1) displaced workers can retrain for emerging roles at scale, (2) new jobs emerge at comparable wage levels, (3) geographic mismatches resolve naturally, and (4) transition timelines align with human career spans. Historical evidence shows these assumptions often fail—Rust Belt manufacturing decline produced persistent unemployment despite overall job growth elsewhere. NEEC evaluates systems on their capacity to maintain human dignity during transitions, not merely their theoretical long-run equilibrium. Ecological Hard Constraints: Climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and resource depletion impose non-negotiable boundaries that economic systems must respect. Recurring Systemic Crises: The 2008 financial crisis ($22T loss), COVID-19 pandemic ($28T loss), and ongoing climate disasters demonstrate that crises are structural features, not anomalies. 1.3 The NEEC Contribution NEEC fills this gap through: 1. Hierarchical Integration: NEEC Core provides philosophical foundations through 14 criteria derived from six empirical premises. NEEC Applied operationalizes these into 22 measurable criteria across five domains. 2. Explicit Normativity: NEEC makes value commitments transparent and contestable, rather than hiding them behind claims of technical neutrality. 3. Falsifiability: NEEC can be refuted through: (1) demonstrating internal contradiction among criteria, (2) replacing criteria with superior alternatives, (3) identifying systems that clearly dominate others across all dimensions, or (4) empirical refutation of founding premises. 4. Comprehensive Scope: Unlike partial metrics, NEEC evaluates systems across material security, human autonomy, crisis resilience, ethical integrity, and implementation feasibility—recognizing that excellence in one dimension cannot compensate for catastrophic failure in others. The framework encompasses 25 operationalized criteria across five domains. 2. Scope, Purpose, and Epistemological Position 2.1 What NEEC Evaluates NEEC applies to national and transnational economic systems operating at population scales of millions to billions, hybrid public-private architectures, and theoretical models intended for real-world deployment. NEEC explicitly is NOT: a forecasting model, a microeconomic optimization tool, a universal welfare function reducing all value to single metrics, or a complete theory of human flourishing. 2.2 The Normative Commitment NEEC is explicitly normative. This represents a methodological correction, not a flaw. All economic systems embed normative commitments regarding acceptable coercion levels, distribution of risks and rewards, human worth independent of market participation, obligations to future generations, and legitimate governance authority. Traditional economics claims neutrality while embedding these value judgments implicitly. This creates: 1. Hidden Normativity: Value commitments shape analysis but remain unexamined 2. False Objectivity: Technical expertise suppresses legitimate democratic disagreement NEEC makes normative commitments explicit, inspectable, and contestable. Scholars who disagree can propose alternative criteria, demonstrate superior systems under NEEC standards, falsify empirical premises, or develop competing frameworks. 3. Six Empirical Premises NEEC criteria derive from six empirical premises—observable features of contemporary reality difficult to deny without rejecting substantial evidence. Premise 1: Automation and Labor Decoupling Statement: AI and automation reduce the long-run necessity of human labor for material production. Evidence: ● 47% of U.S. jobs at high automation risk in initial analysis (Frey & Osborne, 2013) ● Task-level analysis shows 45% of work activities currently automatable (McKinsey, 2017) ● Projected 30% job displacement by 2030 (McKinsey, 2024 estimates) ● Entry-level unemployment among tech-exposed workers aged 20-30 risen 2.8 percentage points (BLS, 2024) The Job Creation Counterargument: Traditional economists correctly note that past technological waves created more jobs than they destroyed. The Industrial Revolution, electrification, and computerization each generated new occupations unimaginable before their advent. However, three factors distinguish current automation: 1. Cognitive Displacement: Previous automation replaced muscle power while amplifying human cognitive work (bookkeepers → accountants using computers). AI replaces cognitive capabilities directly, potentially eliminating the human comparative advantage. 2. Transition Speed: Historical transitions occurred over 30-50 years, roughly one career span. Current projections suggest 10-15 year transformation periods, requiring multiple mid-career retraining cycles. 3. Geographic/Skill Mismatches: New jobs often emerge in different locations and require different skills than displaced work. Manufacturing decline in the U.S. Midwest produced persistent regional unemployment despite job growth in coastal tech hubs. NEEC Position: Rather than predict whether net job creation occurs, NEEC evaluates systems on their capacity to maintain human dignity during transitions. Systems requiring full employment for both income distribution and aggregate demand face a structural crisis regardless of whether new jobs eventually emerge—displaced workers and their communities cannot wait decades for equilibrium adjustments. Implication: Labor-income linkage is historical contingency, not universal law. Systems dependent on full employment for both income distribution and aggregate demand face structural crisis as automation advances. Premise 2: Economic Coercion as Distinct Harm Statement: Coercion arising from deprivation produces measurable social harm independent of efficiency considerations. Evidence: ● 48% of trafficking survivors reported inability to pay expenses before exploitation (Polaris Project, 2024) ● 85-95% of survival sex work is economically driven and exits when alternatives exist (Johnson & Claude, 2025) ● "Work or starve" coercion distorts voluntary exchange regardless of formal freedom ● Economic insecurity creates 5.56x trafficking vulnerability for Black women, 8.75x for Native women (USDOJ, 2024) Implication: Exchange freedom requires baseline economic security as a prerequisite. Systems treating "work or starve" as legitimate choice rather than structural coercion fail to respect human autonomy regardless of aggregate efficiency. Premise 3: Crises Are Structural, Not Anomalous Statement: Recurrent shocks are features of complex systems, not deviations from normal conditions. Evidence: ● 2008 financial crisis: $22 trillion global economic loss (GAO, 2013) ● COVID-19 pandemic: $28 trillion global economic loss (IMF, 2022) ● Climate crisis: Increasing frequency of compound disasters (IPCC, 2023) Implication: "Normal conditions" thinking produces brittle design vulnerable to cascade failure. Crisis robustness must be designed into systems from inception, not added post-hoc. Premise 4: Ecological Hard Constraints Statement: Biophysical limits are non-negotiable boundaries that economic activity must respect. Evidence: ● 1.5°C warming requires 35-45% carbon reduction by 2030 (IPCC, 2023) ● Planetary boundaries exceeded for climate, biodiversity, nitrogen/phosphorus cycles, land use (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2023) ● Resource extraction rates exceed regeneration capacity (Global Footprint Network, 2024) Implication: Economic growth cannot continue indefinitely through natural resource depletion. Systems requiring perpetual expansion through ecological limits are structurally doomed regardless of temporary success. Premise 5: Governance Capture Without Safeguards Statement: All governance systems are vulnerable to elite capture without explicit institutional design to resist it. Evidence: ● Post-Citizens United: $3.1B → $14.4B political spending (365% increase in 12 years) ● Economic elites and business interests strongly influence policy; average citizens have near-zero independent impact (Gilens & Page, 2014) ● 70% of former congress members become lobbyists (POGO, 2019) ● Regulatory capture systematic across industries (Stigler, 1971; Carpenter & Moss, 2014) Implication: Concentration of wealth produces concentration of power to shape society. Governance structures require explicit anti-capture design. Premise 6: Economic Systems Shape Political Legitimacy Statement: Distribution of economic power affects state capacity and democratic function. System design cannot be separated from governance design. Evidence: ● Welfare state capacity correlates with economic equality (Korpi & Palme, 1998) ● Economic insecurity reduces political participation by 30-40% (Solt, 2008) ● Extreme inequality undermines democratic institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012) Implication: Economic organization is not "pre-political"—it constitutes the material foundation enabling or constraining democratic self-governance. 4. NEEC Core: The 14 Foundational Criteria N1. Human Flourishing Primacy Principle: The system's primary objective is the material, psychological, and social well-being of humans, not derivative proxies. Derivation: If systems exist to serve human welfare (normative foundation), then human flourishing must be the explicit design goal, not assumed byproduct. Mechanism: Traditional systems optimize GDP, profit, or efficiency and assume welfare follows. Historical evidence shows these assumptions fail systematically. NEEC requires systems to directly optimize for human wellbeing. Measurement Approach: Success measured through composite wellbeing indices (WHO-5, capabilities approach, life satisfaction), not GDP. Systems passing N1 demonstrate positive wellbeing trends across income distributions. N2. Labor Non-Necessity Principle: Survival and dignity are not contingent on participation in labor markets. Derivation: From P1 (Automation) - As automation reduces the long-run necessity of human labor, systems requiring employment for survival become structurally untenable. Mechanism: When machines can produce material abundance, tying survival to labor market participation creates artificial scarcity serving power interests, not technical necessity. N2 requires unconditional baseline security enabling people to refuse exploitative terms without survival penalty. Distinction: Labor opportunity (good) from labor compulsion (coercive). Systems can provide work opportunities without making survival contingent on employment. N3. Coercion Minimization Principle: The system minimizes economic compulsion, particularly coercion arising from deprivation. Derivation: From P2 (Coercion Harm) - Economic coercion produces distinct measurable harm. Ethical systems eliminate rather than merely regulate coercive relationships. Mechanism: "Work or starve," "sell or suffer," "submit or be excluded" represent coercion regardless of formal freedom. N3 requires systems to eliminate survival-based compulsion. Measurement Approach: Percentage of decisions made free from survival necessity (validated through revealed preference analysis and standardized autonomy assessments, detailed in Section 7.3). N4. Universal Wealth Access Principle: All participants have access to wealth-building mechanisms, not merely income transfers. Derivation: From P2 & P5 - Wealth represents economic power. Systems limiting wealth accumulation to elites concentrate power enabling capture and exploitation. Mechanism: The distinction between income (temporary flow) and wealth (accumulated stock) is crucial. Income addresses immediate needs; wealth provides resilience, intergenerational transfer, and economic power. N4 requires mechanisms enabling all participants to accumulate assets, not just receive temporary support. Distinguishes: Equality of wealth-building access from enforced equality of outcomes. Systems can provide universal accumulation pathways while allowing variation in accumulated amounts. N5. Crisis and Shock Robustness Principle: The system remains functional under recessions, technological shocks, pandemics, financial crises, and compound disasters. Derivation: From P3 (Crises Structural) - If crises are features not bugs, systems must be designed for stress conditions, not just normal operations. Mechanism: Systems optimized for average conditions fail catastrophically during tail events that occur regularly. N5 requires automatic stabilizers that scale with crisis severity without requiring legislative intervention, plus robustness across compound scenarios (recession + pandemic, automation + climate crisis). Stress Test Requirements: Function maintained across: 30% GDP decline, 15% unemployment, 8% inflation, supply chain disruption, infrastructure failure, pandemic response. N6. Ecological Compliance Principle: Economic activity remains within ecological carrying capacities. Derivation: From P4 (Ecological Constraints) - Biophysical limits are non-negotiable. Systems requiring perpetual expansion through limits are structurally doomed. Mechanism: This is not an optimization problem trading environment against other goods—it's a hard constraint. Systems violating planetary boundaries eventually collapse regardless of temporary success. N6 requires absolute emissions reductions, resource use within regeneration rates, and circular economy principles. Expanding Beyond Carbon: The Full Spectrum of Ecological Harm While climate change represents the most immediately catastrophic ecological threat, environmental degradation extends far beyond greenhouse gas emissions. Economic systems must address the full spectrum of biophysical harm: Persistent Pollutants and "Forever Chemicals": PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) represent over 10,000 highly persistent synthetic chemicals that don't degrade in nature, contaminating water supplies globally and accumulating in human tissues. Recent EPA monitoring shows over 143 million Americans face PFAS exposure through drinking water, with the CDC detecting PFAS in 99% of Americans tested, including newborns. The Latency Problem: Many environmental harms reveal themselves only decades after introduction. Asbestos was widely used for 70+ years before its carcinogenic properties were acknowledged. Lead contamination's neurological impacts on children weren't recognized until generations had been exposed. Current technologies—from microplastics to novel pesticide formulations to electromagnetic radiation—may carry unknown long-term consequences that won't manifest for decades. Categories of Ecological Harm Beyond Carbon: 1. Persistent organic pollutants: PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, pesticide residues 2. Heavy metal contamination: Lead, mercury, cadmium in water and soil 3. Radioactive waste: Long-term storage challenges for nuclear materials 4. Microplastic accumulation: Ocean and terrestrial ecosystem penetration 5. Chemical pollution: Industrial effluents, pharmaceutical residues, endocrine disruptors 6. Noise and light pollution: Ecosystem disruption beyond chemical contamination 7. Soil degradation: Topsoil loss, desertification, salinization 8. Water system disruption: Aquifer depletion, wetland destruction, watershed contamination NEEC Position: Ecological compliance requires the precautionary principle when scientific understanding remains incomplete. Economic systems producing large-scale environmental modifications without long-term safety validation fail N6 regardless of short-term economic benefits. The burden of proof rests on demonstrating safety, not on proving harm after populations have been exposed. Systems must implement: ● Comprehensive pollution monitoring across all emission categories ● Long-term impact assessment before widespread technology deployment ● Rapid phase-out mechanisms when harm is discovered ● Remediation capacity for legacy contamination ● Intergenerational precaution protecting populations who cannot consent to exposure Measurement Enhancement: N6 evaluation should incorporate: ● Carbon emissions (existing focus): 35-45% reduction by 2030 ● Persistent pollutant elimination: Phase-out timelines for PFAS and similar compounds ● Heavy metal discharge: Reduction to natural background levels ● Waste management: Closed-loop systems preventing environmental accumulation ● Precautionary assessment: Safety validation protocols for novel technologies ● Remediation investment: Funding allocation for legacy contamination cleanup N7. Governance Legitimacy and Anti-Capture Principle: Decision-making structures resist elite capture and maintain democratic legitimacy. Derivation: From P5 & P6 - Without anti-capture safeguards, governance systems inevitably concentrate power. Economic systems shape political legitimacy. Mechanism: Requires multiple simultaneous safeguards: (1) distributed authority preventing single-point capture, (2) transparent operations enabling democratic monitoring, (3) economic independence of decision-makers, (4) rotation/term limits preventing entrenchment, (5) democratic accountability with meaningful citizen voice. Measurement: Power concentration indices, democratic control mechanisms, accountability structures, citizen influence metrics (% of proposals adopted). N8. Epistemic Adaptability Principle: The system can update rules and parameters based on new information without collapse. Derivation: From P3 (Crises) + P4 (Ecological Limits) - Conditions change. Rigid systems that cannot adapt to new information inevitably ossify and fail. Mechanism: Distinguishes stability (maintaining core functions) from rigidity (inability to adapt). N8 requires: (1) parameter flexibility enabling adjustment without system redesign, (2) evidence integration mechanisms updating policy based on data, (3) governance structures allowing democratic adaptation, (4) stability during transitions (no collapse from updates). Measurement: Parameter adjustment ranges, evidence integration speed, governance mechanisms for change, stability during transitions. N9. Partial and Parallel Deployability Principle: The system can be introduced incrementally alongside existing institutions. Derivation: From Implementation Necessity - Revolutionary rupture typically produces chaos and reactionary backlash. Gradual transformation enables learning, adjustment, and coalition-building. Mechanism: Systems requiring universal simultaneous adoption prove politically infeasible and technically risky. N9 requires: (1) function with partial population participation, (2) coexistence with traditional markets/institutions, (3) gradual scaling from pilots to full deployment, (4) inter-jurisdictional coordination protocols. Measurement: Minimum participation threshold, mixed-economy viability, scaling pathways, cross-border coordination mechanisms. N10. Failure-Mode Transparency Principle: Failure states are legible, diagnosable, and correctable rather than hidden or externalized. Derivation: From P3 (Crises) + P5 (Capture) - Hidden failures enable exploitation and prevent adaptive response. Transparent failures enable correction. Mechanism: Traditional systems hide failures through externalization (environmental damage, inequality, suffering), making problems invisible until catastrophic. N10 requires: (1) observable failure indicators, (2) diagnostic capacity identifying causes, (3) correction mechanisms enabling repair, (4) no systematic externalization hiding costs. Measurement: Error detection speed, diagnostic capability, correction success rate, externalization metrics (environmental, social costs). N11. Automation Compatibility Principle: The system remains stable as productivity becomes decoupled from human labor input. Derivation: From P1 (Automation Inevitable) - Labor-income linkage is breaking. Systems dependent on full employment face a structural crisis. Mechanism: As machines replace humans at scale, three problems emerge: (1) income distribution (how do people survive), (2) aggregate demand (who buys output), (3) meaning and purpose (human identity beyond work). N11 requires mechanisms addressing all three: unconditional income (distribution), automatic demand maintenance (purchasing power), contribution recognition beyond employment (meaning). Stress Test: Maintain poverty <5% and aggregate demand 90-110% baseline across: 30% job displacement (2030), 50% (2040), 70% (2050). N12. Intergenerational Equity Principle: Benefits and costs are not systematically shifted onto future generations. Derivation: From P4 (Ecological Limits) + Ethical Commitment - Future persons have moral standing. Discounting their welfare represents ethical failure, not economic rationality. Mechanism: Current systems impose catastrophic costs on the unborn—climate catastrophe, ecological collapse, unsustainable debt. N12 requires: (1) environmental sustainability (resource preservation), (2) economic sustainability (positive intergenerational wealth transfer), (3) institutional sustainability (stable governance and culture). Measurement: 35-45% carbon reduction trajectory, positive intergenerational wealth transfer, debt-to-GDP ratios, resource preservation. N13. Incentive Alignment (Micro ↔ Macro) Principle: Individual incentives align with collective outcomes. Optimization at individual level produces desirable aggregate results. Derivation: From Implementation Necessity - Systems where individual optimization produces collectively harmful results prove unstable (require constant coercion or collapse). Mechanism: Traditional market failures (externalities, public goods, coordination problems) represent misalignment between individual and collective incentives. N13 requires: (1) incentive structures where individual benefit aligns with social good, (2) minimal negative externalities (costs born by those creating them), (3) public goods provision without free-rider exploitation, (4) coordination mechanisms enabling collective action. Measurement: Externality costs, public goods provision, coordination success rates, alignment metrics (correlation between individual optimization and aggregate welfare). N14. Global Scalability Without Extraction Principle: The system scales across populations and geographies without relying on externalized exploitation or unequal exchange. Derivation: From P4 (Ecological Limits) + P6 (Legitimacy) + Ethical Commitment - Systems requiring permanent periphery exploitation for core prosperity are ethically and practically unsustainable. Mechanism: Historical capitalism scaled through colonialism, resource extraction, and unequal exchange. N14 requires systems scalable through: (1) equitable exchange rather than extraction, (2) mutual benefit rather than zero-sum competition, (3) respect for ecological boundaries rather than endless growth, (4) universal access to wealth-building rather than center-periphery hierarchy. Measurement: Trade balance equity, resource extraction patterns, North-South wealth flows, universal wealth-building access. 5. Formal Mathematical Structure 5.1 Systems as Evaluation Objects Let S be an economic system defined as a tuple: S = (I, G, R, D) Where: ● I = Income and wealth generation mechanisms ● G = Governance and decision structures ● R = Risk allocation and crisis response systems ● D = Distribution and access rules 5.2 Criteria Set and Evaluation Function Let C = {C ₁ , C ₂ , ..., C ₂₅ } represent NEEC Applied criteria across five domains. Define evaluation function: f_i(S) ∈ {0, 0.5, 1} Where: ● 0 = Structural failure (system cannot satisfy criterion) ● 0.5 = Partial/conditional satisfaction (unstable or context-dependent) ● 1 = Structural satisfaction (robust across scenarios) The NEEC Compliance Vector: F(S) = (f ₁ (S), f ₂ (S), ..., f ₁₄ (S)) 5.3 Dominance Relations Definition (NEEC Dominance): System S_A NEEC-dominates system S_B if and only if: ∀ i, f_i(S_A) ≥ f_i(S_B) AND ∃ j : f_j(S_A) > f_j(S_B) Implication: If S_A dominates S_B, then S_A is unambiguously superior under NEEC standards. Rational policy makers should prefer S_A absent non-NEEC considerations. Critical Property: Dominance analysis prevents high performance in one area (e.g., efficiency) from masking catastrophic failure in another (e.g., ecological collapse), addressing a key methodological weakness in scalar aggregate metrics. PART II: OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION 6. NEEC Applied: Five Domains and Twenty-Five Criteria DOMAIN 1: MATERIAL SECURITY Core Question: Can the system provide material necessities reliably and universally? C1.1: Poverty Elimination Capacity Derivation: From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N3 (Coercion Minimization) Requirement: 95%+ poverty elimination within measurable timeframes (10-20 years) Threshold Justification: The 95% threshold acknowledges residual cases (severe mental illness unresponsive to economic support, voluntary rejection of assistance, extreme geographic isolation) while demanding near-universal elimination. This is not arbitrary—it represents: 1. Empirical Ceiling: Best-performing systems (Nordic countries) achieve ~94-96% poverty elimination with comprehensive welfare states 2. Technical Feasibility: The 5% residual accounts for edge cases requiring specialized interventions beyond economic security alone 3. Discrimination Power: Distinguishes between systems achieving modest reductions (30-40%, easily accomplished) versus comprehensive elimination (95%+, requiring fundamental restructuring) Measurement Protocol: ● Poverty Definition: Absolute poverty = inability to afford basic necessities (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) using regional cost-of-living adjusted baskets ● Data Sources: Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure, OECD Better Life Index, regional cost-of-living data ● Calculation: Poverty elimination rate = (Baseline poverty % - Post-intervention poverty %) / Baseline poverty % × 100% ● Temporal Tracking: Measure at baseline, 5-year intervals, distinguishing temporary vs. persistent poverty Current Performance: ● Traditional welfare systems: 15-25% reduction (OECD, 2019) ● Alaska Permanent Fund: 20% reduction (Berman & Reamy, 2021) ● Conditional cash transfers (Brazil): 32 percentage points over decade (Soares et al., 2010) ● No existing system achieves 95% elimination Pass Threshold: ≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario, ≥85% under stress testing C1.2: Wealth Accumulation Pathways Derivation: From N4 (Universal Wealth Access) + N3 (Coercion Minimization) Requirement: Genuine asset building enabling $70,000+ median household wealth accumulation over 20 years (inflation-adjusted) Threshold Justification: The $70,000 figure represents: 1. Functional Buffer: Approximately 2 years of median household expenses—sufficient for major life transitions, economic shocks, or entrepreneurial ventures 2. Wealth vs. Income Distinction: This threshold requires actual asset accumulation, not merely income sufficient to survive. Wealth provides: (a) resilience against shocks, (b) intergenerational transfer capacity, (c) economic power and security 3. PPP Adjustment: For international comparison, adjust using World Bank PPP conversion rates to maintain functional equivalence across purchasing power contexts 4. Empirical Calibration: Median U.S. household wealth is $121,700 (2019), but bottom 50% hold only ~$3,200. The $70,000 threshold represents substantial improvement for lower-wealth households without requiring top-quintile parity Cultural/Geographic Adaptation: ● High-income countries: $70,000 USD equivalent baseline ● Middle-income countries: Adjust to 150-200% of national median annual household expenses ● Low-income countries: Adjust to 200-300% of median annual expenses (relatively higher threshold due to greater vulnerability to shocks) Measurement Protocol: ● Wealth Definition: Net worth (total assets - total liabilities), including: housing equity, retirement accounts, savings, investment accounts, business ownership, system-specific wealth mechanisms (e.g., PTF acres) ● Data Collection: Longitudinal tracking of same households over 20-year periods using Survey of Consumer Finances methodology ● Inflation Adjustment: All values converted to baseline-year real dollars using CPI-U ● Median Focus: Use median rather than mean to avoid skew from top wealth holders Pass Threshold: ≥$60,000 median wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants (allowing 10-point threshold flexibility while maintaining discrimination power) C1.3: Housing Security Derivation: From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N3 (Coercion Minimization) Requirement: 90%+ housing stability rates resistant to market volatility Rationale: Housing represents the largest expense (30-50% of income) and primary wealth-building mechanism. Systems failing to address housing commodification cannot claim comprehensive security. Stability means maintaining housing over 5+ years without involuntary displacement. Measurement: Housing stability rate = percentage of participants maintaining stable housing over 5-year periods without involuntary displacement from foreclosure, eviction, or inability to afford rent increases. Benchmark: Community Land Trusts achieve 10x lower foreclosure rates than conventional mortgages (0.46% vs 3.26% during 2008-2010 crisis). Current Performance: ● Market rate rental: 72% stability over 5 years ● Traditional homeownership: 85% stability (but excludes those unable to purchase) ● Public housing: 78% stability ● Community Land Trusts: 94% stability Pass Threshold: ≥88% housing stability over 5-year periods, maintaining affordability at 80% area median income C1.4: Automation Resilience Derivation: From N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N11 (Automation Compatibility) Requirement: Maintain material security as human labor becomes increasingly optional. Function across 30%, 50%, 70% job displacement scenarios. Rationale: This criterion alone disqualifies most existing frameworks. When machines replace humans at scale, systems dependent on wage labor for both income and aggregate demand collapse into deflationary spirals that no monetary policy can resolve. Measurement: Stress test across automation scenarios: ● 30% job displacement (2030 projection): Maintain poverty <5%, aggregate demand 90-110% baseline ● 50% displacement (2040 projection): Maintain poverty <7%, aggregate demand 85-110% baseline ● 70% displacement (2050 projection): Maintain poverty <10%, aggregate demand 80-110% baseline Current Performance: ● Market systems: Catastrophic failure. No mechanism for income distribution or aggregate demand maintenance without employment ● UBI proposals: Address income distribution but lack wealth building and contribution recognition ● Job guarantee (MMT): Creates make-work rather than adapting to labor non-necessity Pass Threshold: Poverty <8% and aggregate demand >85% baseline across all three displacement scenarios C1.5: Universal Wealth Access Derivation: From N4 (Universal Wealth Access) + N7 (Anti-Capture) Requirement: All participants access wealth-building mechanisms, not merely income transfers. Prevent permanent wealth-excluded underclass. Rationale: Systems limiting wealth accumulation to capital owners concentrate economic power enabling governance capture. Universal wealth access diffuses power while providing resilience. Measurement: Percentage of population with active wealth accumulation pathway (not just eligibility but actual mechanism producing asset growth). Track wealth concentration via Gini coefficient. Distinguishes: Equality of access (required) from equality of outcomes (not required). Systems can enable universal accumulation while allowing variation in amounts accumulated. Current Performance: ● Market capitalism: 60% have any wealth accumulation pathway; Gini 0.85 (extreme inequality) ● Social democracy: 70% with accumulation access; Gini 0.65-0.75 ● Cooperative systems: 85%+ with access; Gini 0.40-0.50 Pass Threshold: ≥80% population with active wealth accumulation pathway, Gini <0.35 for wealth distribution DOMAIN 2: HUMAN AUTONOMY Core Question: Does the system maximize human freedom and self-determination? C2.1: Freedom from Coercion Derivation: From N3 (Coercion Minimization) + N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) Requirement: Eliminate survival-based economic compulsion without creating new forms of control (bureaucratic, social pressure, surveillance) Rationale: "Work this job or face homelessness" represents baseline coercion regardless of formal freedom. But replacing market coercion with bureaucratic control (work requirements, behavior conditions, means testing) or social pressure (community surveillance, conformity enforcement) merely trades cages. Measurement: Percentage of participants reporting decision-making free from survival necessity on standardized autonomy assessment (validated through revealed preference analysis—actual behavior under genuine alternatives). Current Performance: ● Market systems: 15-25% report genuine autonomy in employment decisions ● Welfare systems with work requirements: 10-20% report autonomy ● Basic income pilots: 65-75% report increased autonomy Pass Threshold: ≥70% report genuine autonomy in major life decisions, validated through revealed preference showing acceptance of initially refused employment/living situations when alternatives exist C2.2: Labor Non-Necessity Derivation: From N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N1 (Human Flourishing) Requirement: Survival and dignity not contingent on labor market participation. Unconditional baseline security with voluntary contribution pathways. Rationale: As automation makes labor optional, tying survival to employment creates artificial scarcity. Post-scarcity ethics requires decoupling survival from employment while maintaining contribution recognition and advancement opportunities. Measurement: Provision of unconditional basic security covering essential needs (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) without work requirements, behavior conditions, or means testing. Distinguishes: Labor opportunity (valuable) from labor compulsion (coercive). Systems can and should provide meaningful work opportunities without making survival contingent on employment. Current Performance: ● Market systems: Complete failure—survival entirely dependent on employment or charity ● Welfare systems: Partial—assistance with extensive conditions and cliffs ● Alaska PFD: Partial—universal but insufficient ($1,000-2,000 annually) Pass Threshold: Unconditional provision covering 100% of basic needs (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) for all residents C2.3: Creative Development Opportunities Derivation: From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N13 (Incentive Alignment) Requirement: System enables meaningful contribution beyond mere subsistence. Post-scarcity must value cultural contribution, artistic expression, intellectual development—not just material production. Rationale: Maslow's hierarchy demonstrates humans require more than material security—we seek purpose, mastery, self-actualization. Systems optimized solely for efficiency leave the human spirit impoverished regardless of material abundance. Measurement: ● Participation rates in creative/cultural activities (% engaging in arts, music, writing, innovation at least weekly) ● Time allocation to non-subsistence pursuits (hours per week beyond work/survival) ● Life satisfaction scores across meaning, growth, and contribution domains Current Performance: ● Market systems: 20-30% regular creative engagement (limited by time scarcity) ● Nordic social democracies: 35-45% engagement (more leisure time) ● Cooperative systems: 40-55% engagement (community cultural programming) Pass Threshold: ≥50% regular creative engagement, average 10+ hours weekly on non-subsistence pursuits, meaning/purpose satisfaction scores ≥70/100 C2.4: Democratic Participation Derivation: From N7 (Governance Legitimacy) + N1 (Human Flourishing) Requirement: Genuine citizen voice in governance, not just voting rights. Economic democracy matters as much as political democracy. Rationale: Systems concentrating decision-making—whether in state bureaucracies or corporate boardrooms—cannot claim to maximize human autonomy regardless of material outcomes. Democracy requires actual capacity to shape policy and influence outcomes. Measurement: