Welcome, nudnik! Glad to see a new person posting and keeping things lively.

Based on your statement, what would you suggest society does with those who provide no net output?

Provide them with enough resources to not force them into a life of crime, and opportunities for those who are able to become productive members of society to do so.

This has nothing to do with being altruistic or charitable, but acknowledging the fact that there are people who just has nothing to offer to society. Whether they are born incapable, rendered incapable, lazy or otherwise unmotivated, or have skills that are simply obsolete.

We've always had a society where there are individuals who do not contribute. We're always going to have that. We can chose to deal with them as criminals if we want, and confine them to prison or forced labor... but that costs the same as just supplying basic resources outright in the first place. If that even worked I would be all for it. But it doesn't.

In the end I just want to be left alone to live my life in peace. I don't want to be surrounded by people who have basic needs but not means - because that impacts my safety, and frankly my lifestyle. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them. But either way, they're not going to go away.

In the case of (a) I could let the world have access to its bounty at no cost to myself, and the issue of employment is a non-issue because everyone's physical needs can be met and no one starves.

I think this is what will end up happening. Basic needs will be met by products that are almost free. The tricky part is the 'almost'. It's not foreseeable that we will ever have free energy, so even 'almost free' is still not free.

So do you fill this 'almost' gap with a social program? Or do you say 'sing for your supper' even though you have no need for the song?

I'm 65 years old.  I heard the same arguments back in the '60s.  "By the 1990's, robots will be doing all the work and humans will be enjoying a life of leisure".  The only difference is now they are saying humans will be relegated to insignificance.

All those prognosticators refuse to take into effect the fact that humans will be inventing new technologies, and figuring out new ways to use that technology.  I just don't believe that we are going to get to the point where machines become self sufficient and self sustaining.  But we will definitely see many menial jobs become automated, so the people that now do those jobs will have to find some other way to remain relevant.  Perhaps babysitting the machines in case their plug comes loose from the wall.

The people in the 60's weren't wrong - manufacturing jobs today are at half the level of what they were in the 60s. Some were outsourced, some were automated. For the most part even if you bring outsourced jobs backs, it's cheaper to automate them.

Those haven't been replaced by jobs to 'babysit the machines' for the most parts. They've been replaced by minimum wage jobs that's just a tad above welfare. If those jobs get automated, there's nowhere else for those people to go.

Yes, there will be jobs for people who design new machines for the foreseeable future at least, but the menial jobs that people are relegated to now when they get displaced, those ARE going to go away.

I take it (correct me if I'm wrong), you're not in favor of artificially creating jobs where none should rightfully exist right?

Nope.  When you say capitalists prefer the unemployables to starve to death, you don't deserve an elegant or thoughtful response, and I don't spend time watching videos that you post.
I rarely watch videos posted by people I like.

Now, if you want to open a conversation without accusing others of wanting others to starve to death, I may read what you have to say.

Ok, that's something I'm willing to debate on.

Without a social program for the unemployables, what is the alternative to them starving to death?

We all have to come to terms with the fact that the majority of workers will be be replaceable by automation within the next 25 years or so. You'll only truly be employable if you have a special ability that few other people have.

So soon we'll be faced with an ethical dilemma:

Do you:
a) Kill the unemployables outright
b) Tax the employable people and give the unemployables a basic income
c) Have the unemployables starve to death and secure yourself against uprising by using deadly force
d) Regulate industry and force them to hire otherwise unemployables, even though automation is cheaper (i.e. Tax the corporations).

Socialists favor (a) and (b) - though (a) is before birth only, at least for now.
Capitalists favor (c) and (d).

It accomplishes the same thing in the end.