> Is that good or bad?

I’m gonna go with bad.

Do you just fire them and let them go on unemployment? If everything else is held constant, then there's nothing done and more people without money. It's an even greater drain on society, not to mention these people's lives.

You fire them and let them get a job where they can do something beneficial for society. There's more than enough work out there, hell just picking up trash would provide more value than they currently do.

I'd rather have people on welfare than in these bureaucratic jobs that actually hamper progress, because well they need to be 'involved'

Indeed. Is a pointless but harmless job worse for society than preventable poverty? I think not.

Is that always the case? No, of course not.

People who want the "star trek future" don't seem to understand that, yes, work is valuable in its own right. It's better to work for your meal than have it handed to you. So, a primary concern of society is indeed keeping its people gainfully employed and we see outcomes that would not make sense were this not the case.