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.

A Boston federal judge has handed down a stern rebuke to the Trump administration, ordering officials to bring back a 20-year-old Honduran college student who was deported in flagrant violation of a court order.

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns gave the administration just two weeks to facilitate the return of Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, a Babson College freshman who was yanked from Boston's Logan Airport and flown to Honduras in November despite her lawyer securing a protection order the day before, Reuters reported.

The dramatic ruling came after the administration repeatedly refused to cooperate. The State Department called issuing Lopez Belloza a new student visa "unfeasible," while Immigration and Customs Enforcement flatly declined to help bring her back.

"Wisdom counsels that redemption may be found by acknowledging and fixing our own errors," Stearns wrote in his decision. "In this unfortunate case, the government commendably admits that it did wrong. Now it is time for the government to make amends.

Lopez Belloza, who arrived in America at age 8 with her mother seeking asylum, said she had no idea she faced a deportation order. An ICE officer's failure to properly flag her protection order led to the bungled deportation, which government lawyers admitted was a "mistake."

She's now waiting in Honduras with her grandparents, hoping to return to her studies.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Montana Republicans got some bad news on Friday, as a state court blocked a new law that could have prevented thousands of college students in the state from registering to vote.

The law, HB 413, declared that anyone in Montana for "temporary work, training, or [an] educational program" cannot register to vote "without the intention of making that county or the state the individual’s permanent home at the conclusion" of their temporary purpose for being in the state. The challenge was originally filed by the Montana Public Interest Research Group.

According to the liberal legal group Democracy Docket, "Prior to HB 413, anyone was eligible to register as long as they had the intention of making the county their home at the time of registration. The plaintiffs argue that the new law requires students to speculate where they plan to live years in advance — something that is not required of non-students in the state. The group claims that HB 412 violates Montana and the U.S. Constitutions and asks the court to block enforcement of the requirement."

Missoula County District Court Judge Jason Marks agreed with this assessment, enjoining the law from being enforced while litigation continues.

"The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that students, including those whose declarations are in the record, will not be harmed because HB 413 'does not bar residency for those with genuine intent to make Montana their home post-temporary purpose,'" wrote Marks. "That is not what HB 413 says. HB 413 bars individuals from gaining residency when they are without the intention of making Montana their 'permanent home' at the conclusion of their temporary purpose."

"In other words, genuine intent to live in Montana for some duration after graduation is not enough; even students who genuinely intend to live in Montana after they graduate are harmed under HB 413 because they are barred from gaining residency unless they can say they will make Montana or the county they currently reside in their permanent home," wrote the judge.

College students are allowed to register to vote in the state where they are attending school in all fifty states, but occasionally Republicans have tried to place restrictions on this to prevent the registration of younger and more liberal voters.

In 2017, New Hampshire Republicans attempted to pass a law that barred anyone from registering to vote without providing "proof of domicile," which would mostly affect the state's relatively large out-of-state college student population. The state Supreme Court struck this law down in 2021.

Reactions mounted Friday after news that the White House defended using funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide security for Russell Vought, the architect of Project 2025.

President Donald Trump had named Vought the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and a new Reuters report found that the Trump administration had redirected $15 million in funds from USAID, which had been decimated by Vought, to his security detail. More than one dozen U.S. Marshals were assigned to protect Vought, a source familiar with the arrangement told Reuters.

Social media users reacted to the White House's move.

"Disgusting," Catherine Rampell, economics editor at The Bulwark, wrote on Bluesky.

"So life-saving aid that Russ Vought has cut from poor children, causing many to die, is being used instead to protect the life of Russ Vought - the white Christian nationalist fanatic whose objective is traumatizing other people," journalist John Harwood wrote on Bluesky.

"How many children’s lives does it cost to provide security for Russell Vought?" User Pareto wrote on Bluesky.

"Russ Vought: We should not spend millions of dollars saving the lives of poor children in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else. Also Russ Vought: We should spend those millions instead, on me," user New Yorker in DC wrote on X.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}