I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put those responsibilities on individual firms. In the USA, achieving maximum employment has been a mandate for the Federal Reserve to achieve through monetary policy. There are many advantages to allowing individual firms to optimize for productivity. There are also a lot of harms caused by forcing firms to adopt unproductive methods. Even Keynes' joking solution for unemployment was that the treasury might bury bottles of money for private industry to dig up.

> with the fact that humans are a cooperative species and survive the best when they are cooperating.

I dispute that this is a fact. Maybe within a small group, but startups shouldn't be possible if masses of more cooperating people led to better outcomes. A large company should always win there and that does not happen.

> What is the point of organizing socially if not for the benefit of all society members?

We don't come anywhere close to this on a global scale. Most countries aren't this way on a national scale.

"humans are a cooperative species"

Humans are violent, self-centered tribalists. What species are you referring to? Not homo sapiens.

fundamentally you see jobs as more important than the end product. this is a tension i keep finding in many minds.

So you think companies should hire and pay employees they don't have any use for out of charity?

that's not the job of a company. companies are suposed to be profit centered, their purpose is to make money.

what you're talking about is the role of government. govt should be supporting policies like you are suggesting, by for example allowing for universal basic income or uniersal basic land or services, etc.

You are trying to pitch marxist theory to a bunchof liberals. It won't end well. (and it's not, judging by the first comments)