Most (I avoid saying all, because I'm not that smart) animals, when not surviving (finding food, consuming food, finding sex, having sex) are super idle. It's energetically expensive to work, and, so far as I can tell, nothing has evolved to be energetically stressed.
If we're throwing around words like "evolution" we need to understand that we're talking about genetic survival (passing genes on through generations). The state of "struggling to feed ourselves" is directly antithetical to the goal of having sex. At best you could argue that the hypothesis that peacocks attract mates with their flamboyant tail feathers suggests that they've survived to maturity as intact as they are because of their good genes (survival in spite of being an easy, colorful target for predators), but that's a stretch.
"[F]inding food, consuming food, finding sex, having sex" is the work I'm talking about. So, yes, animals are either working or they're "super idle." There's no third mode where they're, like, finding their true selves. They're either working or they're asleep.
I'd love to hear a different argument.
Something I believe, but can't really prove is that this is completely wrong and there's very little about the need for "work" that's socially determined. We are biological creatures that evolved under very specific circumstances. And "work" in the most basic sense is a big part of that. We need to be struggling to feed ourselves (or simulating it) -- every day. Most of us wither and die when that need is removed.