Employment is not the end. It is a means to an end, which is maximizing wealth and prosperity.
What a great way to put it... Kind of off-topic, but I always laugh when I hear some people say that things would be different if there was no money... Well, yeah, things would be a lot more of a pain in the ass, because you'd be limited in your bartering. Many don't seem to realize that all money was originally intended to be was an easier way to barter by having a medium that works for any 2 parties, not just 2 specific ones. Bartering is essentailly synonymous with money, and will always exist, inevitably becoming money, employers/employment, etc.
Back to your point, it's truly sad that it's become to where you have to work your whole life just to support massive taxes, debts and inflation, and maybe still end up having to rely on government assistance (or rather hope you'll get your SS back) just to get by, rather than having a prosperous nation to where your money has stable value and jobs can be a means, not an end.
As to the OP's question, it's not as if there aren't needs for many of the things the government does in the private sector, and so while them being more efficient might not create more jobs in itself (it will actually cut wasteful jobs of course), it's a net positive for the economy, rather than wasteful debt. So along with a stable currency, a healthy free market economy will always lead to more jobs and more wealth.
That's not jsut for the employers either. People also all too often misunderstand that employees also dictate their wages just as much as an employer's needs & competition do, and further, we have an increasingly consumer-driven economy, so it's not as if it's in anyone's interest to pay crappy wages and leave skilled workers on the unemployment line. The market can work itself out, and all of us here know that government beaurocracy and Keynesian economics only make the situation worse in many cases.