When you stated "A third of the economy, in other words, already pays people for owning things, with no work asked of them." you glossed over all the risks and hazards and contingencies that come with capital, especially productive capital like machines or buildings or property. These are nontrivial and recurrent and require careful planning and continuous monitoring. This work, even if contracted out, bears upon the capital as a cost and thus is 'work' by another name that you choose to call 'price'

You also went on about "why a job that somebody is willing to do is assumed to be a job worth doing". This should have been something learned by workers early in their careers. Not sure what is happening in your hypothesis, or even what your hypothesis is in the study regarding the worker's responsibility within this system. You may want to put some bounds on that, or if unbound, be frank about that at the outset.

There were two paragraphs about consumerism that are hanging there unloved starting from "Two things happen..." and ending with "...every drop." but the worst part of those two paragraphs is that you attempt to drive them into a ridiculous conclusion: "Everything we measure about work is a record of what people did when they could not refuse." This is seems to embarrassingly stated as a polemical against human effort, which is ludicrous. Believe it or not, there are many many many many people who are energized each and every day by their careers, and get excited to have the opportunity to contribute to humanity's arrangements whether it is flipping burgers or curing cancer.

Where the paper went after this is really mindbending because it asks the reader to take a leap of faith that unseen models are replicating an entire economic system faithfully, and that hypotheticals can be believed and that the outcomes proposed can thereafter be believed. There is really not enough background or basis to make this leap and it is my assessment that economists will absolutely barbecue you if you try to make a pass. Asking readers to draw from their own anecdotal ["Do the people you know have more free time than their parents had at the same age?] is interesting but not going to move the needle in a meaningful way.

all the formulaic stuff that follows probably comes form the models and well maybe it is hopeful and maybe you could get a piece of land somewhere outside a small town in Oregon and try it all out on a government grant or something.

sorry if this seems harsh. I really want to give constructive feedback but its hard to see anything here that might gain traction.