I have read in the guardian that the cost of putting into practice this new policy of community service work for benefits nationwide would be £20 million, which would be paid for with the savings that will be made with the reduction in benefits being paid out under the Universal Credit scheme (although I don't know how much that cost itself), which is interesting to me because in the short term, it seems that they are immediately spending the money they have saved by cutting benefits elsewhere by making the benefits system more restrictive and taxing to make use of. So it would appear that this is not about simply saving the government money, although perhaps with the idea being that this would encourage young people to get off benefits, they would end up paying out less on new claims and discontinued claims going forward. So that all seems to even out to not be very substantial in terms of savings from a glance.
Another reason to do this would be the more utilitarian idea that this will encourage young people to improve their situation by making the undesirable position of a life supported by benefits less appealing, and so they will end up earning their own income and learn how to be an adult. I think this is a good instinct because I agree that this kind of life is not one people should be content with, but it is obviously a very complex thing where you are dealing with people from social backgrounds where there is no aspiration to a better life. These people often come from difficult family backgrounds and languish in substandard and uninvolved education, so their actual prospects are quite limited without being given a meaningful leg up. I don't know that the idea of doing 30 hours a week of community service from the first day they make a benefit claim is going to propel them into the workforce, but it definitely might discourage them from ever claiming benefits. A lot of these people will find it difficult to get a job even if they try due to issues like criminal history, a difficult personality, and so on - so what you might get is a new section of the population who are now even more desperate to get by, and I'd be concerned that this would lead to them falling even further out of society and turning to petty crime to get by.
I don't place much value in the idea of instilling a work ethic in people by the brute force of what will likely end up as ineffectual and meaningless community work, and I definitely don't think the amount of £57 a week is enough to justify it. For those people who are unable to acquire private sector jobs in the places that would be available to them, like retailers and other minimum wage jobs, but who aren't the type who would turn to crime, they might find themselves working for some time in these community jobs, not getting the money they should legally be owed for this work, and coming out at the end of these 3 month placements with very little to show for it. I don't believe that suddenly a generation of people brought up by alcoholic or drug addicted parents who live on benefits themselves, and who have gone to badly run and taught schools, will have a positive revelation about work after 3 months being strong-armed into washing dishes 30 hours a week for less than a third of the minimum wage.
So this particular idea sounds quite bad, and based on a misunderstanding of the kinds of people who this policy will actually impact. However, the policy isn't designed to be appreciated by those people, because they don't vote - but middle and working class people who disdain 'scroungers' do.
Wood and trees my friend, wood and trees
Your using this cliche to cap off your personal anecdote is ironic. I don't think there is as much universal knowledge to be gleaned from your own origin story as you seem to believe.