I don't understand this approach to criticism. You are saying that the cost/benefit equation doesn't makes sense. OK. This has been discussed before and you can expect get the same responses you have heard before and found unconvincing. If you do not think that doing these things (full time startup, moving, taking investment, etc.) are a good idea generally, it can easily follow that YC is a bad idea.
Then you seem to take this in a silly direction. You imply that everyone else (or at least most other competent people) will agree with you. That is evidently not true. People apply. Out of those, some are competent and ultimately successful. Obviously the cost/benefit equation made sense to them.
I would be interested hearing about the cost/benefit analysis from YC funded groups after they have been funded and/or moved on.
The only way to move beyond subjective and hypothetical judgements like we're making is (obviously) to measure tangible success. Just like how various scientific fields are painfully aware of 'survivor bias' and maintain journals devoted solely to the topic.
Then you seem to take this in a silly direction. You imply that everyone else (or at least most other competent people) will agree with you. That is evidently not true. People apply. Out of those, some are competent and ultimately successful. Obviously the cost/benefit equation made sense to them.