"Maybe both are right" is indeed the right answer, I think.
The optimum solution is somewhere in the center - If you go too "pro-business" you get things like unsafe factories where they chain the doors shut and the workers don't make enough money to enjoy what they actually create with their labor. Too much welfare and there's no incentive to produce.
In order to truly increase quality of life you need to increase productivity, keep people working, etc...
It's why I support a welfare system that doesn't have "cliffs" where you lose income from getting a job, but there's enough of a safety net that people can afford to take risks, such as starting their own business. Where you're pro-business enough that when a poor woman decides to open a hair-braiding business, she doesn't drown in regulations, but pro-employee and customer enough to not be generating excessive* injuries and support consumer and employee confidence that utilizing businesses are safe.
By encouraging NEW businesses and competition, the goal would be that businesses would always be a little hungry for employees - which means that they wouldn't be able to offer rock-bottom wages and still get desperate employees, nor mistreat them. But not so hungry that they can't get rid of an underperforming employee. Etc...
One mistake I see the pure pro-business types frequently making is that it doesn't matter how nice you make it for a business, a business only hires people to satisfy a demand. IE they're not going to hire a 3rd shift at the factory if 2 shifts is satisfying the apparent demand.
So, oddly enough, stimulating demand(often in the form of welfare, because poor people spend their money quicker than rich people, on average), will increase employment quicker than any favorable loan program.
*And "excessive" is a sliding scale.