Some of what's being missed is that 'benefits' are wealth redistributors. Tax credits, universal credit, child benefit etc - they're hated on here 'because no-one working should have to rely on benefits' but, actually, they form an important role of moving money from the wealthiest to the poorest. And they do it in a way that doesn't damage small businesses or cost jobs.
The problem with lifting the minimum wage is that it's becoming cost-ineffective to do it, and is contributing to an overall drop in the standard of living. Low wage sectors are seeing roles cut rather than paying increased costs, and these roles are increasingly replaced with technology and higher insurance premiums.
Security is a classic example. Not that long ago, every construction site had guards. Then the minimum wage lifted, and lifted, and sites realised that, for the cost of paying the guards for half a project, they could buy and install a CCTV system, pay an increased insurance premium for the whole thing, and crack on.
And that's what they've done. They gamble the cost saving against the disruption of losses and the insurance overheads and the costs don't stack up. The fact that you get a less-safe environment is a knock on cost. Those jobs are gone, now, for the most part, and they're probably gone for ever. Many remaining security roles needs skills beyond the basics. It's becoming another 'closed' field for the very set of people it once offered lifelong, decent employment to.
Supermarkets are similar. Tech is replacing jobs, and the customer suffers as well as the employee.
And, yes, absolutely people should be offered more training, but its also reality that not everyone in society has (or ever will have) the ability, personality or interest in a 'highly-skilled' role. We need jobs for those people, too, so keeping them cost-viable is necessary, whilst also allowing those people to pay their bills and have a standard of living.
You need available jobs across society, not just highly skilled ones. You also need a reason for people to take on the less-desirable ones, or the stressful ones, or the ones that require years of training and student debt. If you hike the minimum wage, you can get rid of 'benefits', but then cost of living will increase, because wages for the semi-skilled and skilled will also have to jump (see all the strikes from those sectors currently, because they haven't kept pace with the lift in the NMW). You need businesses to be here, to thrive and survive to create those roles, and not all of them are 'viable' but a lot are definitely needed - private care companies, nurseries, shops, garages etc - so we'll need tax-breaks and support for them. We'll need to fund better conditions and perks for roles like nurses, forgive student debt for teachers and doctors, or people won't go into or stay in those roles.
We also need to acknowledge that a percentage of people in society will never 'work', for any number of reasons, and will - financially - always be takers rather than contributors. We need to stop demonising these people.
A previous poster suggested a much more dynamic taxing system. That's a brilliant idea, but would need massive investment in HMRC and DWP, because they aren't fit for purpose now.
There's no way to do this without spending public money somewhere in the system.
Left to me, I would freeze the minimum wage, overhaul both personal and business tax - and business tax rates should be based on a combination of the profit margin of a company, the absolute amount made, and the pay gap between highest and lowest, including director dividends past a threshold - and then increase low wage support via the PAYE system.