Youtube, being an effective monopoly due to the network effect, has no incentive to lower its profits by paying the (large) amount of salary to the prospective claims checkers.
That may mean that the present business model of YouTube isn't viable. If not enough revenue comes in to pay for managing copyrights, providing hosting, corporate management, marketing, etc then a new business model may be needed.
Or whether YouTube exists or not as a business may become a philosophical question - is it better to have a YouTube that is inherently unfair and suppresses small creators or to have no YouTube at all?
Personally, I think video hosting is the sort of thing that should be done by an NGO or non profit - one that has defined processes for fairness and transparency and which is required to be equitable to all instead of playing corporate favorites. Kind of like a PBS for the Internet.
The whole Karen notion that "Big Tech should hire armies for my whims" is like saying Amazon should be exact solving Traveling Salesman because it has so much processing power. It fundamentally willfully ignores the scale.