Peter Doocy keeps serving himself up as Jen Psaki's sacrificial bomb du jour.
Monday it was his suggestion that the employment and jobs numbers imply that people are simply lazy good-for-nothings who'd rather not work since "the extra unemployment benefits are so good." He wanted to know what the White House had to say about that particular insulting stereotype.
Psaki responded, "Well, first, let me say that we have looked at the data...We don't see much evidence that the extra unemployment insurance is a major driver in people not rejoining the workforce."
Data, Peter. Information. But since for people like Doocy, that requires spelling out, Psaki spelled it out.
"We actually see the data and our analysis shows that lack of vaccination, the lower rate -- which is why I referred to the data in the week that it was taken -- it has an impact. Childcare has an impact. Schools reopening has an impact."
Then, though, she hit him with my favorite argument: "But there is also the need to pay a livable working wage, and that's one of the reasons the President will talk about that this afternoon."
See, if a person earns more on unemployment than at their job, what that means is that their job pays them SH*T. It's their job that's the problem, here. Their employer. The fact that the federal minimum has not increased in 20 years, and still sits at $7.25/hour. NOT that unemployment makes them RICH RICH RICH!
Doocy, clearly not grasping numbers and concepts, went on to prove that very point, asking, "But, as Bank of America economists who were cited in a Bloomberg story say, anybody making less than $32,000 a year is better off financially just taking the unemployment benefits. So is the White House creating an incentive just to stay home?"
With the patience of a kindergarten teacher, Psaki explained, "Well, again, the majority of economists, internally and externally of the White House, don't feel that unemployment insurance, something that was done at a time where, to help unemployed people get through a very difficult economic downturn during a pandemic, is a major driver in our unemployment data."
She continued, "That there are other factors, bigger factor, that were contributing, have been contributing to the numbers we saw on Friday. That's what we're working to address, and that's where we think our solution should be focused."
Even raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which would produce the approximately $32,000 per year income Doocy mentioned, is barely a livable wage — even for a single person. According to CNBC, "The U.S. minimum is less than half the “living wage” for a single adult ($15.41 an hour, or roughly $32,000 a year before tax), according to national data compiled by MIT. It’s a third of what a family of four needs to live — around $21.50 per hour per parent, or almost $90,000 a year combined. And the effects are compounded for single parents." "
Essentially, Doocy is complaining that people (only the single ones, mind you) have the audacity to prefer receiving the bare minimum amount of money they need to scrape by from the government, to going out to bust their a$$es at a job, and getting paid half what they need in order to afford rent and food.
Make it make sense.