Most of what you outlined is, in my mind, a compelling argument for UBI.
When we live in a society that matches peoples ability to live (and thrive) based on their value (in-demand skills and abilities), then you are necessarily going to have a situation where a % of the population cannot participate in meaningful ways. To me, that means we need to pay everyone a pre-determined amount to meet basic needs. Any other benefits (money, barter, goods, whatever) they can legally manifest, they can supplement their lifestyle with. This keeps people from dying in gutters and (hopefully) rising against knowledge workers.
Couple of points to the above:
1) Keeping poor people content will take on even more importance as the %'s skew with the "exponential problem" (if you don't know what that is, I can expound, but I assume most people have heard of this issue for modern societies), and
2) the good news is the "product/market fit" of in-demand skills to value is fluid. Luck, forward-thinking bets, ganas--whatever you want to call it-- can change your lifestyle and income bracket, sometimes instantly (with a covid-19 like incident) or sometimes over a lifetime (generational benefits, albeit slower).