Your story got off to a rough start with me.

"Interestingly, most workers would be happy to work a twenty hour week in return for the basic goods they need. For example, they sould get social housing, a certain number of kilos of food allocated, a public transport pass, free medical, and so on."

Of course they would be happy, they currently need to work 20 hours just to cover the cost of housing and now you suggest we provide them all their basic needs in exchange for 20 hours labor. Of course they will be happy when you give them what amounts to a huge pay rise.

I understand you probably just picked 20 hours for rhetorical purposes but it dodges the issue of, if you decouple labor from currency does that mean that you value all labor equally? Should skilled worker get the same benefits for 20 hours labor as an unskilled worker or would a skilled worker get better housing and food or would the skilled worker get the same accommodations for fewer hours of work.

I am going to read on but the premise seems flawed by the introductory paragraph.

TEK