Because implicit in the formulation is that we aren't putting holes where people want them, or filling in holes people want filled in. So would you feel better

Because implicit in the formulation is that we aren't putting holes where people want them, or filling in holes people want filled in. So would you feel better if it were a wealthy eccentric ordering the work? How about if we dressed the project up a bit and made it into a 40,000 sq ft home that gets visited a week or two out of the year? Or an ill-conceived manufacturing plant that gets shuttered before it ever opens? If those last two are OK, how about a democratically elected representative who wants your highway to run through his district? Are we talking now? The truth is that much of the activity in our economy is just as 'unnecessary' as your 10 guys digging and filling holes. In fact, strictly speaking, none of it is necessary. Because we are not necessary. Taking efficiency to its logical conclusion, why shouldn't we simply terminate ourselves and save ourselves the inevitable end that awaits us according to the laws of physics? The answer is: because we are not (nor should we be) morally guided by efficiency alone. Life is inefficient. Beauty is inefficient. And real-world economics (which includes politics) is inefficient. And if increased economic efficiency is creating a socially destabilizing imbalance in the distribution of wealth, then some counter-balancing politically-imposed 'inefficiencies' may well be in order.