Another point to bear in mind is that the experience levels some of these pilots present with, would never have found them a "proper jet job" historically. In the past most operators of jet aircraft would have sourced their first officers from both the military and those civilian pilots who had worked their way up through air taxis and later turbo prop operators, presenting themselves with at least 2 years experience and upwards of 1000 hours turbine experience.
This accelerating trend of "vanity publishing" jet co-pilot training is a great revenue set up, in that it not only substantially reduces the flightdeck cost element, but actually generates revenue from a non revenue seat. If companies could do away with 2 pilots they certainly would, but that is a complete non starter. This way is even better. The right hand seat is occupied by a revenue generator who actually subsidises the cost of the left hand seat.
I wonder how long it will be before a way is found to get the left seat to generate revenue in a similar way? I expect it is being seriously thought about. Only when an accident or serious incident occurs where (even though it may not be causal) this practice causes "Daily Mail/SKY News" type public outrage, will the regulators, operators and insurance industry run for the nearest rock, and restrictions to these practices will be brought in. However that will do nothing to provide "jet jobs" for these ridiculously low hour pilots, but will perhaps reverse a dangerous trend.
The advent of new generation jets with sophisticated autopilot/navigation and management/operating systems have made the real time role of a pilot much easier, to the point that the inherent skills and experience are no longer viewed as the pre-requisite they used to be. This is a mistake that will bite from time to time. The industry needs a more "Back to basics" philosophy and it needs to act quickly in my opinion.