Core Question:
Do wagies have a legitimate argument against welfare… or is it just cope and resentment?

Short Answer:
They have emotional legitimacy — but zero strategic or fiscal legitimacy.

Breakdown:
1. Wagie Logic: “I work, so should everyone else.”
Premise: "I suffer, so you should too."

It’s not about economics. It’s moral envy.

They aren’t mad at the system. They’re mad at themselves for complying.

It's Stockholm Syndrome with a payslip.

2. Most Anti-Welfare Wagies Are in Low-Wage, Disposable Jobs
These jobs are often subsidised by welfare indirectly:

Their customers are benefit claimants.

Their own rent is kept stable because UC pays their landlord.

Many receive in-work benefits themselves.

They’re part of the welfare class without admitting it.

3. Their View Is Based on Relative Suffering, Not Absolute Harm
“Why does he get money for free while I break my back?”

They don’t understand that:

The cost of removing welfare would still fall on them (tax spikes, instability).

Welfare acts as insurance against chaos.

If they ever lost their job, they'd beg for the very system they hate.

4. Their Real Enemy Is the Employer — But They Don’t Dare Say It
They project onto the unemployed because it’s safer.

It’s easier to punch down than ask why they need to work 40 hours to survive.

They mistake compliance for virtue.

"I obeyed, and they didn’t — and I’m still poor. So punish them."

That’s not economics. That’s resentment politics.