Most people will want to do something with their lifes instead of sitting around, simply because it's boring not to.
Empirical evidence is not in your favor. Staring at a TV is quite satisfying to a distressingly large fraction of society.
Empirical evidence is not in your favor. Staring at a TV is quite satisfying to a distressingly large fraction of society.
In Germany, according to the Federal Statistical Office (https://www.destatis.de), more hours are spent for unpaid work (100 billion hours) than for paid work (60 billion hours) (as of 2009). This gap seems to keep increasing.
Also in Germany, numerous (sorry, can't find a citation right now) polls showed that about 80% of the people still want (and will) work more or less fulltime with a BIG. Funny enough, also about 80% of the people think that with a BIG the _other_ people won't continue to do so and instead become (or are already) lazy.
Suffice to say, countries don't last when ever more people rely on relative fewer producers. Greece and Spain tried and went too far: they just ran out of other people's money. Much of Europe is heading the same direction. Every communist country grids to a halt, with socialists tending the same. There is a glorious time of high living on other people's efforts, but greed and weariness win out.
And then these workers will cease doing unpaid work (which e.g. encompasses stuff like running theater groups, looking after the elderlies, ...)? Of course they'll do, because now they have to work on underpaid jobs to 'prove their worth' to society and get enough food on the table for their families.
It is widespread thinking here in Germany that those on welfare are 'keeping the welfare coming in and acquiring luxuries; they don't seem particularly motivated to work'. It is 'supported' by numerous shows (for whom? for those on welfare?) on TV.
It is on the other hand clearly refuted by a huge range of studies from various disciplines (economics, social studies).
As far as I understand most essays/reports from 'rather neutral' (yes, difficult to get an unbiased view) institutions here in Germany usually tell the story that nowadays a small minority lives on people's efforts, and this minority is well above welfare level.
Is there any 'proof' for your starting sentence? (countries don't last when ever more people rely on relative fewer producers). After all, automation levels increase ever more, and thus productivity, too. E.g. the number of people working in farming has shrunken dramatically (at least in first world countries), yet we have overall more than enough to eat ('overall'!). The fact that any country runs out of money is not an argument: Did Spain's productivity suddenly (or maybe also slowly) fell to zero? Did the people in Spain suddenly all lose their ability to work and think?
The proof is obvious. If consumption exceeds production, necessities run out eventually. "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." Of course Spain and Greece are more complex than this, but the short version is too many people rely on too few producers; it's not that productivity went to zero, it's that production minus consumption did. The USA is facing the same issue, and driving up hugely infeasible debts to forestall the inevitable.
The point of YCombinator is to work real hard on something clever and create a valuable business and reap the rewards; not motivating if those rewards are taken and given to those who do nothing for them.