I envision the social impacts as being extremely positive from the government’s perspective,
I agree that the employment rate is an extremely important metric of public wellness; however, it isn’t the only one. For example, do you think that the proliferation of two-income households has been more of a benefit or detriment to society?
Depends who you ask. From a government fiscal perspective (looking to have fewer people on programs) it would be a positive. From a democrat/socialist perspective (where they want people to be dependent so they will vote socialist) then no.
especially for entire cultures (and there are two that I’m thinking of) that shun gainful legal employment.
I’m assuming that one of these cultures you mention is the kollel culture, which constitutes a very small percentage of the US population as a whole. In that case, I wouldn’t characterize the culture as shunning gainful legal employment, but rather prioritizing employment in other gainfaul activities that don’t result in money.
As I said, from the government’s perspective, “shunning gainful legal employment”. One could say the same about philosophers, thinkers, homeless people, chess players, graffiti artists, etc. That you consider one activity “gainful” (such as being a member of the society to promote graffiti) means nothing from the government’s perspective.