DJ1725, to answer your question:
If you are looking at the short-term (I.E., this quarter's profit / loss), no DJs = more money staying in the shareholders' pockets.
In the longer term, it is argued no DJs means nobody saying the wrong thing, talking too long, trampling intros, or taking his / her audience with them when they leave.
How can this be healthy for radio? I would argue it isn't. It leaves broadcast radio vulnerable to Sirius / XM, Pandora, podcasts, iPods, etc. etc. etc.
The bean-counters clearly disagree.
To their credit: it WILL allow them to run their stations as cheaply as possible until the bottom completely falls out of broadcast radio & they have to have a "fire sale" for their stable of sticks...
A good selection of music w/o jocks will always beat a bad selection of music &/or annoying jocks. However, good content will always beat any mix of music, even jockless.
That's why AM talk radio beats out so many FMs in so many markets. Ignore the politics; many of the shows are extremely entertaining. They are also highly focused on their target (remember narrow-casting?).
If you had a quality music mix + entertaining content, you would be unbeatable.
Corporations have paid too much for their stations to dare risk it... YET.
(It's also hard to do. If it was easy, everybody would have kept doing it.)