Supply-demand model of labor markets is broken, preventing pay raises
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
First of all, Having a job opening doesn't mean you urgently need a position filled. I've seen companies post the same job opening year after year after year, and get hundreds of applicants and still never hire anyone. Someone i know, (a data analyst) would often apply for these jobs, never ever hearing back or getting any kind of feedback on what they're looking for. There simply isn't any need, the posting is just there because someone forgot about it. If these companies were at all serious about hiring anyone, they'd at least get their career section of the web site straightened out.
Second, I think the total number unemployed may be miscounted. I know the unemployment rate number has huge problems.
Maybe you’re referring to the fact that it only counts people who are actively looking for a job, and ignores those who would like to have a job but have given up looking?
Anyone who's studied the basics of Econ knows that this situation is called a Perfect Competition (as evidenced by nothing less than the admission of perfect elasticity of demand). It's not just that employers became 'more powerful', individual workers became more powerful in the sense that startups have been intruding on economic fiefdoms. What used to be monopolistic competition or even oligopoly (e.g news services) is now facing fundamental market structure changes that bring the cost of labor down to its 'true' value. It turns out the 'true' raw economic value of a lot of labor is what it would be under serfdom: subsistence wages. This is to say that individuals have become more able to enter previously restricted markets, with the consequence that few of them pay very well.
(Exercise for the reader: Consider the correlation between the implicit class-signaling based monopoly of higher education and its effect on wages compared to the rest of the increasingly competitive malthusian economy.)
With advances in medical care, people can keep working until they are 70 or 80, at a lower rate eg. part time. Work keeps the brain active and prevents degeneration.
Finally reduce the cost of land and rents which is the major cost of life for the majority of workers. Do this by limiting immigration and keeping the country at a stable population, not growing endlessly.
If people truly need welfare or Government services, such a subsidised tuition, healthcare or a cash handout, then tally the paid amounts against their individual tax file, and claim the amounts back by increasing their tax level by single digits. If there is still an unpaid amount at death, then claim it from their estate.
Doing all this you can substantially cut the welfare state and encourage work. The end goal shouldn't be a UBI or negative income, it should be that 20 hours of basic work should be enough to allow you to afford a basic life.
Millionaire parents having one child concentrate their wealth into a small part of society. They should instead be having multiple. Success and intelligence has a genetic component, so you're improving the overall health of society through such measures as well.
Otherwise there are far less radical things than breaking up and dividing wealth (which has worked horribly in the past - look at the USSR). Simply breaking up large monopolistic tech companies such as Valve, Google and Amazon for example, as was done for Bell Telecom.
What you propose is not particularly well supported by explanations. There are examples in the past (I'm omitting them) when such an approach lead to bad things.