If this were true, those roles wouldn't exist to begin with. Do you think perhaps there's a reason why those roles have come to be?
You get to a point where there's two product managers and and a product owner per team, with like three or four engineers until someone realises.
If this is not actively kept in check, such a system can deteriorate over time, by a positive-feedback loop of newly created controlling facilities created to control the increasing amount of facilities.
This is not to say that managing roles are not required. Of course they are. Complex systems need control. But the proliferation of that control needs to be kept in check, otherwise, the mechanism that is initially helpful (creating structure to control complexity), will become a problem by creating additional complexity of its own.
There is a good way to do big management, but what usually happens is managers find themselves with time to spare and invent activities which do not directly add value, but eventually snowball into formidable tasks requiring more management.
Sears could have been Amazon.
Oh sweet summer child.
Though to be fair, HR expansion was triggered by the constitution replacement called the civil rights laws and the associated need to shield against discrimination lawsuits, so there is a real need for that.