See that's the thing...do you think people are intrinsically bad? Do people pop out of the womb predestined to be lazy bums who don't want to work? I'd argue that this isn't the case at all. It's important to consider the ways in which someone's material circumstances, that being, the way in which a person's surrounding material conditions have influenced their life, will have a significant impact on a person's development, both genetically and psychologically. I can elaborate on this if needed.
I am going to assume that you and I want the same thing: to create a society which is fair, free, and just. I completely get how you could arrive at the position that those on welfare are a drain on the system, and to continue subsidizing their, as you would put it, failures, would be unfair and unjust towards the workers. That said, I would like you to consider for a moment, that the wealth being drained from the workers isn't being done at the hands of those receiving welfare checks. It is done during the productive process. To fully explain this, we would have to begin a discussion about value and where it comes from. To give us an easier place to start that conversation, I have three questions I'd like you to answer.
1. What creates value?
2. Where does the value embedded in commodities come from? In other words, how do things get their value?
3. If a man made money from owning and overseeing the production of a factory, how exactly does he make his money?
It'll be much more convenient to go from there.
Your point about automation is an interesting and important one! I'd say that it's a problem that workers have been grappling with since we began automating the productive process in the first place. To an extent, I agree with the point you're making. It would absolutely be in the interest of the person working a "low-skill" job (I have my reservations about the term, but I'll get into that later) to attempt to build up some kind of skillset or resume. And, if possible, they should absolutely do so. But you have to ask: "Do they have easy access to resources which would allow them to do so?" I'd argue that while there are always things someone can do to improve their situation, it is not only entirely possible, but very likely, that their options are limited. To paraphrase another excerpt from my previous post:
The material conditions of someone's life are complicated, and to analyze those conditions in isolation is reductive. In other words, everything that exists is in some way being influenced by something else. Events do not exist in isolation, and are subject to the influences of their surrounding material conditions. The same is applicable for all existing phenomena. So, if someone gets stuck with a low-paying job because of their material circumstances, is it really fair to say that it is, without a doubt, because of their individual failures? If someone is stuck in a low paying job with no way out, how will they accrue savings? Almost all of their paycheck must go towards paying for their necessities. What skills can be built when the majority of your time goes to working at McDonalds? What education opportunities are there for you if college is off the table due to expenses? Should this person be required to spend all the free time they have outside of work attempting to educate themselves and build skills, leaving little to no time for anything else? To put it another way: Is your solution universally applicable for everyone in this situation? These are important questions you need to ask when it comes to diagnosing systemic problems and offering solutions. If the problem identified and the solution given aren't universally applicable, then we need to, additionally, look into other explanations and solutions.
People cannot build skills if they are not given the proper resources to do so. It is therefore of extreme importance that we do everything we can to provide as many people as possible with those resources. In a lot of ways, I am referring to far more than things like free education and free healthcare, but I feel like I'm jumping the gun a little bit here. I'll save the conversation of how we can go about this for after we discuss value (consequently, we'll also discuss production, which is really where that ties in here).
I would also like to raise a point about automation that you may or may not have considered. Why is it that automation, a process which reduces the amount of necessary human labor to produce things, causes such a crisis under capitalism? Shouldn't reducing the amount of work needed to complete tasks be a net positive for society? This question isn't asking the specific reasons it happens under the capitalist mode of production, but is rather asking why we have constructed systems that operate this way. Why have we allowed automation to have negative consequences? If this is necessary, why?
To answer your question about wages. If we're to take the term "livable wage" at face value, then a livable wage is the bare minimum amount of money required to pay for the basic needs of the worker. That said, It's important to make the distinction between a living wage and a subsistence wage, the latter of which is the amount of money required to pay for only the bare necessities of life. To put it another way, a livable wage is a wage which will allow the worker to both pay for their needs, as well as lead a life that isn't completely miserable; to allow for a decent, but basic, way of living.
I have my own reservations towards the term "livable wage", as well as the advocation for merely that wage, but we'll get more into that with our discussion surrounding value.
I'm not entirely sure if I missed any of your points, so if I did please point it out to me.