However, I do think the main reason it happens is also because it is accompanied by the ambient message that those who don't work are worthless, drains on society. If not working was more accepted, the death rate of retirement would likely be much lower.
The research shows this is an extremely tiny portion of the population. The vast majority of people will find some kind of productive enterprise.
It seems paradoxical but giving homeless people free housing with no strings attached tends to end with them getting a job and rejoining society. They almost never just lay around all day doing nothing.
It's one of the last great Victorian lies still infecting us today.
His central premise is that the drug policies of the last 100 years have marginalized and disconnected addict populations. His proposal is that connection is the opposite of addiction.
Interesting to hear temporally adjacent to the idea you express -- providing the means for marginalized populations to rejoin society should be priority #1.
[0] http://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_yo...
Sigh. And now to tear down my own thought. Maybe "free basic needs" works (psychologically) for everyone reading HN. But I'm afraid it could destroy a percentage of the population. If someone has no fundamental drive to work, what happens to him/her when work is unnecessary? Hunger is a pretty good motivator. Maybe working any job is better than not working at all (i.e., better for our our mental state). I guess what I'm saying is this: once we meet everyone's basic needs and remove desperation, we still have the problems inherent to idleness.
Crap, let's move to Switzerland...