An idea, presented in fantasy novel form:

"If we were made redundant in the workforce, it was only a matter of time before we'd be socially redundant too." (Wicked, Gregory MacGuire)
Interesting. Is is true? It's a good thought. I mean, workforce can cover a multitude of sins, right? It's not just a 9-5: an artist, paid for his art is working, correct? A writer, a painter, a doodler who makes money is both working AND contributing to society.
But the people who aren't working but still consuming are contributing to the economy. Granted consuming -- television, junk food, whatever -- isn't necessarily socially beneficial...in fact, one could call it detramental as it promotes the idea that a person is - and can be - an island. But having said that, there then must be a huge number of people who work jobs, consume and give nothing back to society.
So who is socially relevant? And WHAT is socially relevant?

to me, people who sit around complaining about politics, policies and people but do nothing to make any sort of change seem irrelevant to me. The armchair politicans who can barely haul their asses out to vote, but think like everybody else at the office/in class/in their family seem sort of pointless. Then again, a lot of politicians seem pointless to me. Is social relevance definied by human interaction? It's our six degrees of separation - that as long as we interact with people we inadvertantly touch the world (or the Western World). I can't decide, because making a decision about this means that the vast majority of people are either way more relevant than I am comfortable admitting, or hopelessly irrelevant -- an idea that seems completely wrong to me.

Hm. Lunchtime.