I know this is such a late reply, but for clarity: my foundational point is the exact opposite hypothesis. Free labor enables incentivized labor. Economic theory has a neat concept of externalities, a necessary mechanism that only that which can be valued can be traded. If we removed all economic activity, then after most people die, the remnants would revert to much earlier models of free cooperation existing in small communities. Our world does require huge numbers of people to forcibly cooperate to create resources to then allocate.

My one other point is that incentivized labor is not the same as the value it creates. Indeed, it must be less. Otherwise, our economic system could support only a fixed number of people (subsistence), which would decay inevitably because there is no margin for error. But my point is that margin in reality isn’t fully realized, even by trillionaires, because then there would be no growth to support more people growing in their standard of living. There must be slack in this distributed system and the slack wasn’t valued: it’s free labor. It’s mixed in with incentivized labor, so I understand if you reject the premise entirely, but I do believe this is the essence of modern (specialized) capitalism. If skilled workers try to optimize or invent, more resources will be available for distribution for the same incentive (i.e. “worker productivity”). You can say “yeah that’s their job,” and I can say “that productivity wasn’t fully monetized because otherwise productivity would be lower overall.”

So, incentivized labor presupposes free labor, and economic productivity is a mix of free and monetized labor.