There is some indication this might be the case.
Peak job openings before this hit was around 7.5 million.
That dropped to around 5.0 million but is now back up to around 5.9 million.
Either way, there is job availability (at least in a straight reading of this chart, more on that in a moment) out there at the moment compared to the 2001 recession and the Great Recession last decade.
Complicating factors --
(1.) The "cost" of posting a job (e.g., just throwing it out there on an online job board or two) is lower than ever, which might mean companies have postings up but are less serious about actually using them to fill positions than they were in the past when the job search process was more complex and more difficult.
This would make data in this series over the long-term incomparable, though this would not be a short-term problem.
(2.) So 5.9 million openings out there... but what are the nature of those jobs? Are those generally more high-paying jobs for educated, skilled, and experienced workers and the problem is one of labor supply? That is, we just do not have enough people qualified for them? Or are they cruddy "McJobs" that nobody really wants and, as you said, now that people are being paid to stay home, they are just not taking them because of neetbux and vidya?
(3.) I have no doubt there is some effect of the "stay at home" unemployment payments reducing people's incentives to get off their hindquarters and lock down a job. How strong that effect is we can debate. However, one might argue that this is a feature and not a bug at the current moment. We want as much social distancing and as much to control the spread of the virus as we can, so paying people not to work is one way to do that.
Again, we can debate if that is an efficient or effective way to do it, but that was at least the thought behind it.
