So your gripe is not people's lack of agency? The issue you see is that anyone gets to not work?
No, the problem is still agency.
As Ag3ma pointed out to you earlier, you are insisting on engaging with agency in some kind of absolute sense as something a person either has or doesn't have, and that's fundamentally not how agency works or what the term means.
You asked what the point of reference is for a relative comparison of agency. The fact that most people are forced to work in order to avoid starvation or poverty while others will be born into a world where they could buy a dozen sports cars for every day of their lives and still never need to work is a relative deprivation of agency.
Given the sheer scale of that disparity, it would be a valid criticism of capitalism in and of itself, but the reality is worse, because this is not an accident. It isn't that everyone voluntarily chose to play the lottery and some people won and got all the money. The extreme concentration of wealth and the relative deprivation of welath from much of the population is a deliberate strategy of control. It's the mechanism by which capitalism works.
Do you not see the contradiction between a political system based, in theory, on ideals of equal power, on the principle that everyone is an autonomous, equal and free citizen, and an economic system based on deliberately concentrating power in the hands of a small minority in order to more effectively control and exploit the labour of the majority? Can you not imagine that those two systems might operate in mutually antagonistic ways?
Everyone working makes the world better.
Better for whom?
Cause like, the truth is that it isn't capitalism making people work to survive, it's reality, it's nature, working to survive is the inescapable human experience (at the societal scale).
So, this answers a question I was going to pose to you in response to your obvious and intentional misreading of my point. Namely, why is it necessary
for anyone to be forced to work?
Because "human survival" is certainly a good answer, and there is a grain of truth to it as well. For now at least, work does need to be done, and that means someone has to do it. If noone grows crops, everyone starves, and we don't want everyone to starve so I guess we need to create some way to persuade people to grow crops. If that means threatening those people with starvation if they don't work, you're still forcing them to do something that they need to do and which benefits everyone so I guess it's okay, right?
Except, there is one little problem. Actually two, but let's do the more immediate and obvious one first. If the stakes are literally about human survival, if it's that serious and that important, why are some people exempt from the need to contribute to their own survival? In fact, why are those people allowed to take an enormous
quantity of the resources produced by everyone when they contribute nothing to the "societal scale" prospects of human survival?
Which brings us neatly to the other problem. The reason why that can happen, the reason why some people can take enormous, ridiculous quantities of wealth for themselves without triggering societal collapse is because modern industrial economies are incredibly labour efficient. Most people aren't growing crops any more. In developed countries, most people aren't even producing anything at all, their jobs are simply providing services or helping to move the value of what other people produce around. Only around a quarter of the world's population is growing crops, and that number is declining extremely rapidly. In fact, those people who grow the entire world's food are some of the poorest, despite the fact that their work is necessary to the continuation of human life.
This argument that everyone has to work because that's just the nature of things and we all need to survive is transparently untrue, because most people's jobs aren't contributing to human survival.