But in the second part of my comment I alluded that there is a "firing" overhang. In general managers and owners are overly reluctant to fire people. By having a reluctance to fire a society does itself no favors. It means that people are "trapped" in the the wrong or sub-optimal positions. Not being as fully productive as they might be.
There is significant governmental regulatory interference that causes this overhang. Employers fear -- some despise -- the increase in state unemployment fund fees that results (at least in the states I am familiar with) from terminations. There is an extraordinary excessive burden to the paperwork of replacing an employee with a new one. Then there is the psychological burden of firing.
Yet in some ideal of free-market economics, firing should be welcome -- for the employee because there is no fear of finding a new -- and better -- position or opportunity, and for the employer because of the hope of improving efficiency, and for everybody -- but firing should be win-win-win. Society wins when the number of "salt-mine" jobs are minimal.
In such a happy-to-fire-and-be-fired-thank-you environment people would move quickly to those roles in which they are happy and productive!
Take the argument to the extreme of (a) person doing no work, because the company can't get any for him. Yet no firing him. Versus (b) the same employee being fired, then doing some very productive at his new job.
Its clear that society (b) would have more real work being done. And our wealth is the combined total of the work done.
I would say one problem is many of our social systems. Like the way people purchases houses, or get health insurance are designed for a time when there was lifetime employment with one employer. In this new world of changing jobs and high mobility does it really make sense to buy a home for example if you are very likely to move in 3-4 years? People are also clinging to bad jobs where they aren't using their potential just to keep the health insurance for their family.