The punishment isn’t only a punishment for the individual. It’s a deterrent to keep the next person from doing whatever it was that was illegal. You can argue if that’s right or wrong, but that’s one of the points of many sentences — to send a “message” to others who might commit a crime.
“Don’t do crime, but if you do, I guess keep doing crimes forever because we’re going to make it hard for you to get a real job” isn’t really a compelling strategy.
Let’s be clear where the blame sits. The “prison industrial complex” isn’t creating this. Private enterprise is set up to profit from incarceration rates and thus recidivism, but the reason that people can’t get jobs after they finish their sentence is the fault of all of us. Every company that refuses to hire somebody with a record is contributing to the problem, as is every person who looks down on somebody for having been incarcerated.
This is pretty intensely reductive of the actual state of the world. It only works if all people are competing for all jobs, which they are not.
To pick a boring example, see the multitude of companies complaining about labor shortages and also the number of felons who are struggling to find jobs.
We could also argue whether it is effective or ineffective. I understand the incentive being introduced, to tip the scales in a rational decision-making process against a criminal act. However, that assumes that criminal acts are the result of a rational decision-making process, and that the possibility of punishment is high enough to enter into that process. Given the recidivism rate of the US, I don't think it is effective.
You can argue whether a punitive system that effectively provides a deterrent is right or wrong, but a punitive system that isn't effective as a deterrent cannot make the same argument.
