I think it's the only choice because entropy exists. "Everyone should be retired" doesn't work when you need sewage workers, or even sewage robot maintenance workers.
That said, you don't have to work 120 hours a week just because you're employed, and hours worked has also been trending down over time.
> the average person isn't forced to compromise their values or submit themselves to abuse just to afford rent and food.
This is what happens without full employment; full employment means you don't have to do this because it's hard to hire new people (they're all already employed) so it's easy to change jobs.
Just because you'd be uncomfortable working on sewers when you could be sitting on your couch watching TV doesn't mean we will run out of sewer workers.
Full employment comes with a whole host of other problems for the kind of economy we inhabit today -- a sure enough sign that things aren't working under the current paradigm. We need a change if something like 'full employment' is expected to be a positive thing.
Near-full employment and full employment are very different, in the same way that carrying a 95% full glass of water and a 100% full glass of water are very different.
The "cushion" of unemployed people, according to economists, is very important for staving off runaway effects that drive bad macroeconomic dynamics.
That said, you don't have to work 120 hours a week just because you're employed, and hours worked has also been trending down over time.
> the average person isn't forced to compromise their values or submit themselves to abuse just to afford rent and food.
This is what happens without full employment; full employment means you don't have to do this because it's hard to hire new people (they're all already employed) so it's easy to change jobs.