Keep in mind that the analogy isn't exact. We're talking about workers, not dogs, and jobs, not bones. Workers are productive. They produce when they have jobs.

Keep in mind that the analogy isn't exact. We're talking about workers, not dogs, and jobs, not bones. Workers are productive. They produce when they have jobs. So 92 bones, in this case, means that 8 workers out of 100 are idle. Either society must support them, then, or let them starve. I reject the notion that they should starve. I'm OK with supporting them, but wouldn't it be better, more popular at least, to have them produce something? A resource standing idle is an opportunity so, all else equal, idle resources should not exist. I realize it's more complicated than that. Frictional unemployment, etc. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a significant chunk of the population being permanently idled by structural changes in the economy.