Unemployment wasn't keeping people from work as Republicans claimed — data shows something else could be happening

Unemployment wasn't keeping people from work as Republicans claimed — data shows something else could be happening
Caregiver (Shutterstock)

Republicans promoted the conspiracy theory that Americans weren't going back to work amid the COVID-19 pandemic because they were too busy living the comfortable life on the U.S. dime. Data now shows that they were wrong.

The New York Times reported Sunday that in Missouri when federal pay for the unemployed was scrapped, workers still were being choosy. Gov. Mike Parson (R) proudly proclaimed that his state would be among the first to kill unemployment benefits. It still hasn't worked, however.

"Work-force development officials said they had seen virtually no uptick in applicants since the governor's announcement, which ended a $300 weekly supplement to other benefits," said the report. "And the online job site Indeed found that in states that have abandoned the federal benefits, clicks on job postings were below the national average."

It's early on in the post-pandemic era, but thus far, the GOP claims appear to be false.

"One way you might define normal is when employers and workers have the same idea of what an appropriate package looks like, and then the issue is matching up the people with the jobs," said University of Maryland economist Katharine G. Abraham. "Clearly part of the problem now is that what employers and what workers think is out of whack."

With 9.3 million out of work, surely there would be crowds to beat down the door. But some think it isn't about the jobs but the high cost of other things that make work seem impossible. With fewer child care options, already high costs are soaring. If someone makes less money working and paying for child care, then it makes more sense to stay at home.

For some, the high cost of health and safety is the factor. Work might be great, but if there's no health insurance in the position and they contract COVID from unvaccinated co-workers or customers, they could hurt family members or their children and be bankrupt from health expenses.

Angelic Hobart, a client service manager at American Staffing told the Times that people now know how in-demand they are and are better able to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits and things most good companies provide.

"And I think that is being taken advantage of," said Hobart. But public benefits have made people "very complacent."

It's an ironic statement, given the cost of living demanded of American families.

"In St. Louis, a single person needs to earn $14 an hour to cover basic expenses at a minimum standard," reported the Times citing M.I.T.'s living-wage calculator. "Add a child, and the needed wage rises just above $30. Two adults working with two children would each have to earn roughly $21 an hour."

So, many workers have felt that they were the ones being taken advantage of by companies, now it appears they're refusing to be part of that system.

Of the 34 employers and agencies at a Maryland job fair, many were willing to increase pay by $1 an hour. But as one woman saw it, the wages were still too low.

"They're offering $10, $12, $13," said Elodie Nohone who earns $15 an hour as a visiting caregiver. "There's no point in being here."

Her boyfriend, Damond Green was in a similar boat. He works two jobs, but even his job at McDonald's pays $15 an hour.

"I want to do something where my work is appreciated," he said, "and pay me decent."

While things might change, it appears, at least for now, the free market is delivering a harsh blow to low-paying employers.

Read the full report from the New York Times.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

News item: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer tells Politico that members of his panel are open to a Trump pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to encourage her to provide testimony about Jeffrey Epstein.

Reaction: Oh sure, by all means grant the most notorious sex trafficking accomplice and groomer of underage girls in American history her freedom. That should help seal the fate of Republicans who go along with it for decades to come.

OK, now I know I’ve said stuff like this before. I’m also the guy who believed Trump would never get past pardoning the January 6 convicts en masse. And I apparently mistakenly thought, “Well, surely attacking the Pope – THE POPE! – has got to be a bridge too far.” I realize all too well that none of his transparent criminality has proven a deal-breaker to his brain-dead MAGA-ites. I get it.

But pardoning Epstein’s co-conspirator? I’m sorry, but I just can’t believe that could possibly fly on this or any other planet.

Transferring Maxwell to the minimum security (read: country club) prison in Bryan, Texas last year was one thing. Granting her complete freedom? Quite another.

I’m sorry, but I have to believe there is a low that’s too low even for people whose burners are no longer heating the teapot. You don’t make deals with a convicted felon to supply info on someone who is no longer alive. That’s the thing about these Epstein Files: we do not, in fact, give a rat’s backside about Epstein himself. He’s dead. That ship has more than sailed.

Those whose past abuse and complicity matter are the ones still living who could, just maybe, face justice if those shaping the narrative would permit something resembling real hearings to take place.

I can’t believe I even need to write this sentence, but absolutely nothing that exits the mouth of Maxwell should be seen as the truth. She’s a compulsive liar interested only in saving herself. Her word carries zero credibility. She’s lied before. She will lie again. And again. And again.

So, let’s stop deluding ourselves into believing the woman holds valuable information. She clearly does, but that won’t be what she would be sharing. She’s merely hoping to parlay the illusion of honesty into a Get Out of Jail Free card. Her pardon would come in exchange for shoveling nonsense that steers all lawless behavior away from a certain president and his wealthy cronies.

It's only because Maxwell has played the game of deflection and protection well that she is still alive. If she hadn’t, she would have long ago met an unfortunate end behind bars – and I’m not talking about suicide but the other kind of “cide” that starts with an “h.”

That her being sprung from captivity is even being seriously tossed out as a possibility is unfathomable.

Let’s do a quick recap of what Ms. Maxwell was convicted of in 2022 that led to her being sentenced to 20 years in federal prison:

  • She identified, recruited, and groomed girls as young as 14, vulnerable teenagers with whom she built trust before shattering it by forcing them into sexual bondage.
  • She trained victims to accept inappropriate conduct, often by participating in or being present during the abuse.
  • She arranged travel, scheduling visits to Epstein’s homes/island and creating an environment where the molestation and rape could occur.
  • She helped maintain the network by keeping victims compliant, sometimes encouraging them to recruit other girls and keep the supply chain well-stocked.
  • She was a central organizer of perhaps the most egregious sex trafficking and pedophile ring ever, a person who lowered victims’ defenses through social manipulation and extended the reach and duration of Epstein’s vile operation.
  • She was, throughout her decades by Epstein’s side, a shameless exploiter and far more than just an associate. She was the engine that drove the machine.

How much does Maxwell know? A whole helluva lot. How much is she willing to actually tell? Pretty much nothing. She is, once again, valueless as an information source. Her job at this point is primarily to protect Donald Trump, and if she’s successful, she will be vastly rewarded. In fact, she’s already begun collecting on her silence with the transfer to the much cushier federal lockup.

If we have learned nothing else from Trump’s time as our chief executive, it’s that loyalty isn’t just required, it’s the whole shebang. The more criminally you will cover for Trump, the greater the respect he has for you and — often, not always — the more he will do for you. Until he tosses you under the bus anyway, of course.

But would Trump really go so far as to pardon Maxwell? Absolutely. It isn’t a matter of morality, of course. Were you to look under a moral microscope into Trump’s DNA, there would be no evidence of even the smallest twinge of fiber.

No, the only reason Trump might decline to pardon, or at least delay pardoning, Maxwell has everything to do with whether the blowback might be too intense. It’s mostly a matter of timing. Once the Epstein heat has sufficiently cooled, the odds are pretty good he would see an opening.

Let’s remember that after Maxwell’s original arrest in 2022, Trump was on record saying, “I wish her well.” Really. It was a little bit like wishing Rudolf Hess well in his military tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945.

In this case, wishing Maxwell well was his coded way of saying, “Now you be a good little inmate and we’ll see about helping you out of this mess down the road. If you’re not, we’ll have to take care of you a different way.”

It’s clear that Ghislaine heard that message loud and clear. When she was “deposed” by Trump's lawyer (now Acting Attorney General) Todd Blanche, she “testified” that she never saw Trump do a single thing in Epstein’s presence. He was basically taking naps while everything was going on.

In this administration and with this president, truth is not only dead; it never existed in the first place. Lies are the only currency this corrupt regime accepts. If it ultimately gains Maxwell her freedom, it should bring them all crashing down.

Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

WASHINGTON — Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) harshly criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following his firing of Navy Secretary John Phelan without explanation, while U.S. warships actively blockade Iranian ports.

Ryan, a West Point graduate and Army veteran, described Hegseth as having thin skin, a "joke", and a "performance artist" that military officers don't take seriously.

“It's more score settling. The revenge tour. In the middle of a war. In the middle of a naval blockade," he lamented to Raw Story.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a former Army Ranger who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, also expressed concern amid the sudden changes, pointing out the Armed Services Committee received no advance notice and pledged to investigate the firings.

"So it's very disturbing. We're going to obviously be pressing to get information about why this is happening and what is the basis for these firings," Crow told Raw Story.

Since Trump's return, the chair of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of naval operations, the Coast Guard commandant, and the Defense Intelligence Agency director have all been removed.

Phelan, a billionaire Trump donor who clashed with Hegseth, questioned whether Trump authorized his firing before it was confirmed by White House officials.

Ryan warned the firings would harm troops and Americans at the gas pump, amid $500 billion in new defense spending.

Watch the video below.


A GOP lawmaker who's endorsed by Trump struggled to answer a basic question about why voters should support Trump's call to unseat Republican Indiana state senators with retaliatory gerrymandering.

"Good question, um. Gosh, okay, defining issue. What's it about?" Republican state Rep. Michelle Davis from Indiana responded to a Politico reporter on Thursday. "Well, what I say, what it's about is, that we need real, true conservatives out there. We need someone who's going to stand with the GOP Party."

Davis was speaking at a conservative rally in Indiana hosted by Turning Point USA when the question seemed to catch her off guard. The question came as Trump seeks revenge for Virginia voters siding with Democrats and gerrymandering their state with a ballot measure that passed on Tuesday.

Indiana voters will have to decide during primary elections on May 5 whether to oust eight of their state's GOP lawmakers who refuse to get on board with Trump's demand to redistrict and water down the Democrats' advantage in Virginia. Republicans are looking for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to make a similar counterattack.

After stumbling over a few words, Davis said that primary voters need a candidate campaigning on "stuff like common sense, stuff like making sure that boys aren't in girls locker rooms, boys don't play in girls sports, making sure that we don't stand up for parental rights, yeah, those are the kind of defining things I think are out there."

Davis is running against state Sen. Greg Walker with Trump's endorsement, but she didn't mention him, the Politico article noted. She confessed, however, that "when I'm knocking on doors, not one person was talking to me about redistricting."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}