Lifelong Wage
"Lifelong wage" () or "personal competency wage" () refers to a form of remuneration proposed by Bernard Friot and the French popular education voluntary association . At its core is the distinction between work and employment. Publicly funded using social contributions, it would be the building block for a new mode of socioeconomic system. Description 
The lifelong wage consists in paying every citizen a wage by socialising wealth through social contributions ( in French). According to this conception of economic value, every citizen is entitled to a lifelong wage which is attached to an irrevocable grade of professional competency. This theory advocates a new common definition of work which establishes a clear distinction from employment. Such a wage would not be tied to a particular post—owned by an employer—but to a political status of value-producing individuals. Incidentally, this would enable to clearly identify, in the GDP, the value produced by workers presently considered as unproductive such as house workers, retired workers, unemployed people, volunteers, and students. It is therefore a profound challenge and alternative to the capitalist logic concerning the fundamental relationship between work and remuneration: instead of paying someone after they have realized a certain number of subordinated tasks for a capitalist or company owner, citizens are paid first as a precondition to then be able to work freely. Current existence in the French economy 
According to Bernard Friot, a third of French citizen aged 18 or more already receive a wage based on their competency rather than their emloyment status, and are thus, to different degrees, freed from the labour market or market for capitalist goods and services. This fraction includes  (5.5 millions in 2017), retired people (7.5 millions receiving a lifelong pension greater than 75% of their last wage), self-employed , employees from various formerly nationalised companies—SNCF; ; Orange; La Poste—and finally employees who benefit from a minimum wage negotiated through a branch agreement. Lucrative ownership vs use ownership of the means of production 
According to this economic model, the lifelong wage directly challenges the notion of lucrative private ownership of the means of production in favour of the notion of co-ownership of use. Lucrative ownership 
Lucrative ownership refers to the right to profit or generate an income from private capital, whatever it may be (work tools, pecuniary capital, stock market shares, real estate, rented cars, etc.) Use ownership 
Use ownership refers to an asset that is consumed for personal use and from which no income is derived: a house, a car, a work tool, savings for use...etc. In this model, workers would collaboratively own the means of production and be paid in a socialised manner by a fund of social contributions that all production collectives would feed. The notion of personal competency would thus be accompanied by the end of the exercise of lucrative private ownership of the means of production while generalising the use ownership. Notion of competency 
The notion of personal competency ("qualification personnelle") needs to be distinguished from that of certification or qualification, because a competency would imply a compulsory remuneration from the employer, fixed by the collective agreements of a branch. Having a diploma does necessarily guarantee access to a wage. Instead it provides the legitimacy to claim a post on the labour market. Personal competencies aim at granting irrevocable grades—by passing an exam—following the model of the current French civil service. Thus, according to a democratically chosen wage scale, wage progression would take place through a grade increase throughout an individual's career. Critiques 
Multiple objections have been raised against the lifelong wage. These are often similar critiques to those initially formulated against the idea of universal basic income, and thought by their authors to be equally applicable to the lifelong wage. Moral objections 

Some objections may be of a moral nature, requiring the definition of a standard discerning contribution from idleness, or related to a certain conception of justice: should we remunerate an activity that "does not contribute" to production such as voluntary work? Does this not break the social contract that binds individuals according to a logic of cooperation? Answer to moral objections 
The French economist Frédéric Lordon, drawing on Spinoza's theory of value, points out that Bernard Friot's contribution is precisely to demoralise the notions of economic value and work. He does that by shifting the focus from the economic value of things produced to the individuals who make them, a priori and unconditionally. Freed for the constraints of the labour market, people will continue to produce effects, effects whose objective measurement is fundamentally impossible. Thus remove work from its contribution-focused moral dimension:

Economic objections 
Other objections have an economic motive, and concern the mode of funding for the personal competency wage or its real transformation of the social relations of capitalism. References 

Labour economics
Employment compensation
Critics of work and the work ethic
Labor in France