> Many would argue that job subsidies like this are the opposite of capitalism. Under a free market, the government wouldn't be subsidizing anything.

Some would argue that this is exactly the point of the phrase.

So it's not capitalism at all. It's something else.

Undue influence of individuals with power (via money or other mechanisms) is hardly unique to capitalist systems. Every socialist country has had the exact same problems with corruption and misuse of power. It's also pretty trivial to argue that such corruptions and abuses are far far more toxic under socialism because there is no "pressure relief valve" in the form of competition. Socialism is predicated on a monopsony, and over time a market with a monopsony will likely result in monopolies on the sell side. You eventually end up with no alternative to the corrupt choices.

"Late stage capitalism" is a political term that was likely created by someone that considers themselves a temporarily embarrassed bolshevik central planner.

Capitalism existing under a state that will subsidize the needs of capital is still capitalism. There never was a period where 'pure capitalism' existed, so it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the system we have isn't capitalism.