Then you're making a way different argument than what the post is making.

The post says that a baker that bakes a loaf should be able to afford a loaf.

You're now saying that whoever works X hours should be able to buy Y things. This is very different.

First of all, not all hours of labor are worth the same. And if you believe that, you're delusional. In my opinion, a farmer that grows food for 8 hours a day should be able to afford more bread than someone that spends 8 hours a day digging a hole and filling it back up again.

And a farmer that is hardworking and manages to produce 10 kg of grain per hour should be able to afford more than a lazy one producing 0.5kg per hour.

All 3 of those did 8 hours of labor.

The reason your argument is way off the post is that the post is very clear what the labor is (baking 1 loaf). And what the compensation is expected (1 loaf).

You are neither clear about the labor (8h 5 days of unknown kind of labor), nor about the expected compensation (rent, utilities, healthcare, transport, balanced nutrition).

I can agree that all real jobs if done with an acceptable performance for 40h/week should be able to afford all that + more if those expenses are reasonable (a mansion rent and 1bedroom apartment rent are both rent). But how much is "more"?

But that is neither the point of this post, nor the point of the argument.