Mary Doria Russell, in her novel The Sparrow, has some interesting and potentially increasingly relevant ideas about professions and work relations of the future.
One of the key characters, Sofia Mendes, is an indentured professional.
Indentured service (in substance if not in form, not so different from student debt), is an time-honored practice, a way of overcoming financial shortfalls in order to access normally inaccessible opportunities. Historically, it was a way for poor people from Europe to pay for their voyage to America. In the novel, the "promised land" means survival, a good education and the consequent well-paying job.
Here is Sofia's story.
Sofia : [As an indentured professional] I receive only a living stipend. The fee goes to my broker. He contracted my services when I was fifteen. I was educated at his expense and until I repay his investment, it is illegal to employ me directly. I cannot remove the identification bracelet. It’s there to protect his interests. [ch. 5][The broker] had mined slums and orphanages for bright, determined children whose feckless or dying parents could provide neither an environment nor an education adequate to develop their offsprings’ potential. "Brazil, of course, was the first to privatize their orphanages," he told her. Burdened by hundreds of thousands of children, abandoned or orphaned by HIV and TB and cholera or just running wild, the government had finally given up pretending that it could do anything with these kids. [The broker] had another way.
"Everyone wins," he explained. "The taxpayers’ burden is reduced, the children raised in a proper manner, fed and educated. In return, the investors receive a percentage of the children’s earnings for life."A lively secondary market had developed, a bourse where one could invest in an eight-year-old who’d tested extraordinarily high in mathematical ability, where one could trade rights to the earnings of a medical student for those of a talented young bioengineer. Liberals were horrified, but men like him knew that the practice gave children a monetary value, which made them less likely to be shot during street-cleaning sweeps through the slums."And yet," [the broker] told her, "I think that the most promising and spirited young people are depressed by the lifelong contracts they are held to. They burn out, refuse to work. You can see perhaps what a waste this is." He proposed that a more equitable contract be drawn, lasting perhaps twenty years, which would include the years of training provided by the investors. "Brokers, such as I, will find work for the talent, who will receive a decent living wage. When released from the contract, mademoiselle, you would have a reputation, experience and contacts—a firm foundation upon which to build." It was necessary that Sofia be tested for various diseases and disabilities that might affect her work, of course. "Should anything untoward be detected," the broker told her, "you would be treated if possible and with your consent, naturally, ma cherie. The medical costs are added to the contracted debt." [ch. 8]
From the outside, this kind of quasi-slavery is repugnant. It is "jungle meritocracy", ruthless exploitation of vulnerable persons, a failure of society. From the inside, from the subject's standpoint, on the other hand, it means access to opportunities and a relatively good life otherwise permanently out of reach. it is forced on the subject by circumstances, not by the broker.
Should we try to prevent such arrangements? Given the alternatives for the subjects and given that society might not be able or willing to offer something even remotely as good in material terms, I would say that we shouldn't. This is definitely not an ideal solution, but at least we are not wasting some top creative and productive capabilities. Are they preventable? Our societies grow increasingly unequal, with ever larger parts of the population being denied quality education and the consequent good jobs and comfortable material situation. There are powerful incentives for all sides of the deal (indentured professional, broker / investor, employer), and I guess it's only a matter of time until all technical and legal details are worked out., I would argue that we should rather prepare for a time when these arrangements become commonplace, and make sure that the indentured professionals get the best out of this deal.