Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: 97% of 2013 US job growth is from part-time jobs rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Obamacare's pending mandate is having quite the effect on US hiring this year. 97% of new jobs from this year are part-time.

Quote:
“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,” said Keith Hall, a senior researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. “That is really remarkable.”

Hall is no ordinary academic. He ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs report, from 2008 to 2012. Over the past six months, he said, the Household Survey shows 963,000 more people reporting that they were employed, and 936,000 of them reported they’re in part-time jobs.

“That is a really high number for a six-month period,” Hall said. “I’m not sure that has ever happened over six months before.”


I knew the incentives to hire part-time workers that are built into Obamacare would have a significant effect on hiring, but I wouldn't have dreamed that they would be this dramatic.

Here is a graph borrowed from here which illustrates just how out of whack this is with previous years.



Obamacare is just the latest dumb incentive to provide only part-time work wherever possible. Major flaw in the way our labor laws work now across the board.

What should happen is that all part-time employers should be assessed a tax (like unemployment tax) which should be paid into a fund which provides some portion of the mandatory benefits paid to full-time workers (sick leave, vacation, now Obamacare, etc).

Two part time workers should cost the employer the same as one full time worker, rather than less.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or we should just make them provide benefits to part-time employees, too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
Or we should just make them provide benefits to part-time employees, too.


I'm sympathetic to that perspective but it would be kind of an unduly harsh burden on employers who really don't need full-time help. If you really only need 10-20 hours a week from an employee, you probably shouldn't have to provide all the benefits to that employee that you would provide to a 40 hour per week employee.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
Jythier wrote:
Or we should just make them provide benefits to part-time employees, too.


I'm sympathetic to that perspective but it would be kind of an unduly harsh burden on employers who really don't need full-time help. If you really only need 10-20 hours a week from an employee, you probably shouldn't have to provide all the benefits to that employee that you would provide to a 40 hour per week employee.


None of these regulations apply to companies that small, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a pretty big impact. I'm very curious to see if it is sustained over time.

The chart looks very fishy to me; I'd have to see the data behind it. Ratios can get really screwy when the denominator is small. That chart has 0.0 ratios, for example, in two years -- if the chart was the ratio of full-time to part-time workers then those bars would be infinite, or at least very large (assuming the zeros are rounding).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Jythier wrote:
Or we should just make them provide benefits to part-time employees, too.


Or we should let employees and employers figure out what they think is a fair compensation for labor and keep our noses out of it.


If we did that, we'd need unions.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Full time, part time. Doesn't the nomenclature depend on the required need of the business? If a business thinks it can retain and be successful with just using part time labor, then why wouldn't it? I mean, health care has always been a benefit package to the employee.

So what is the difference between previously hiring one person with no health care benefit full time, and splitting the work up into two employees with no health care benefit for part time?

In the previous way, one person gets more hours no health care, and the other is completely unemployed.

Now two people are employed, underemployed granted, BUT not collecting unemployment benefits from the government.

So why isn't this making you happy, BJ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am with Jay here.
There is a big difference in how workers are treated in times of full employment and in times when having a job at all is a chance.

When there is no shortage of job, the job market is self regulated; part time jobs are a convenience for both the job provider and the worker.
When jobs are scarce, workers take anything, and having two part time job is far from comfortable, for instance.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
That's a pretty big impact. I'm very curious to see if it is sustained over time.

The chart looks very fishy to me; I'd have to see the data behind it. Ratios can get really screwy when the denominator is small. That chart has 0.0 ratios, for example, in two years -- if the chart was the ratio of full-time to part-time workers then those bars would be infinite, or at least very large (assuming the zeros are rounding).


Infinite bars are pretty hard to show on bar graphs. They tend to get rather large.


Exactly. So if we had that chart we'd be like, "Holy crap, how did we get so many more full-time jobs in one year and then how did we lose so many in that other year." It just looks like the kind of graphic comparison that's designed to give a dramatic-looking effect rather than a meaningful one.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
That's a pretty big impact. I'm very curious to see if it is sustained over time.

The chart looks very fishy to me; I'd have to see the data behind it. Ratios can get really screwy when the denominator is small. That chart has 0.0 ratios, for example, in two years -- if the chart was the ratio of full-time to part-time workers then those bars would be infinite, or at least very large (assuming the zeros are rounding).

Agreed. Very fishy. Ratios seem a dumb way to represent the information. For instance, when the ratio is negative either part-time or full-time jobs went up while the other went down -- but you can't tell which! And if 97% of the new jobs are part-time, shouldn't the 2013 bar be 32.3 (=97/3) and not just 4.3?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
That's a pretty big impact. I'm very curious to see if it is sustained over time.

The chart looks very fishy to me; I'd have to see the data behind it. Ratios can get really screwy when the denominator is small. That chart has 0.0 ratios, for example, in two years -- if the chart was the ratio of full-time to part-time workers then those bars would be infinite, or at least very large (assuming the zeros are rounding).


Infinite bars are pretty hard to show on bar graphs. They tend to get rather large.


Looking up into the stars, you are looking out into infinity, but it's not nearly as overwhelming as many finite representations of infinity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
Full time, part time. Doesn't the nomenclature depend on the required need of the business? If a business thinks it can retain and be successful with just using part time labor, then why wouldn't it? I mean, health care has always been a benefit package to the employee.

So what is the difference between previously hiring one person with no health care benefit full time, and splitting the work up into two employees with no health care benefit for part time?

In the previous way, one person gets more hours no health care, and the other is completely unemployed.

Now two people are employed, underemployed granted, BUT not collecting unemployment benefits from the government.

So why isn't this making you happy, BJ?


Welfare from the government. Unemployment benefits come from your own bank saved while you were working. Once your personal bank is empty- you get no more benefits. I'm a little unclear on the extended benefits- they seem to be targeted at people who made so little that they couldn't empty their bank before the time ran out.

But welfare, food stamps, food for children, community health centers are probably more in line with your point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:

Welfare from the government. Unemployment benefits come from your own bank saved while you were working. Once your personal bank is empty- you get no more benefits. I'm a little unclear on the extended benefits- they seem to be targeted at people who made so little that they couldn't empty their bank before the time ran out.


Yeah, I was about to disagree with you there, but there has been a lot of extensions going on with unemployment benefits that I am sure far outweigh contribution. It wasn't "intended" to be a welfare system, but it has become one of late.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:


So why isn't this making you happy, BJ?


BJ didn't express an opinion of happiness or sadness either way. He expressed no such opinion. Instead, he just stated one of the unintended (or intended, as some may contend) consequences that an action such as the PPACA has on businesses.

Business owners are very good at adapting to the environment around them (otherwise, they wouldn't last very long). That adaptation is many times self-inflicted (gosh, I guess that product really did suck...), and at other times, that adaptation is based on what others do (be it competitors, suppliers, or government entities).

In this particular case, business owners are reacting (and adapting) to what they see as a regulation that they do not want to be a part of. This was a no-brainer three years ago when the law was passed, and one would have to be completely stupid, or intentionally obtuse, to have not seen this sort of pending adaption by some businesses long ago. Many businesses keep their "full time" employee levels low to avoid paying benefits. The PPACA only exacerbated the problem by forcing many more businesses that weren't previously behaving that way to begin adapting.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work”


Definitely curious, but hard to say if that's a bad thing. We certainly have seen similar spikes in part-time employment demands back around the real estate bubble, when construction demand was astronomical.

And more and more employers (including mine, for what it's worth) have moved to a policy of hiring on new workers as part-time employees (lower cost, easier to get rid of) through their probation period before deciding to commit to bring them on as full-time staff. And *I'm* in a software development company! My wife's occupation (retail) has done basically the same thing since roughly forever.

So it may well be that this huge spike in part-time jobs is pointing to an acceleration in the economy - and may represent a combination of many new positions potentially transitioning to full-time jobs, alongside an increased demand for short-term labor.

It's something to keep an eye on, but as the article notes, the overall percentage of jobs that are part-time is not a high enough number to be any indicator of a problem.

Jythier wrote:
Looking up into the stars, you are looking out into infinity


Pedantic point: no, actually, you're not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would like to see the source data and an explanation of how the ratios (if that's what they are) were calculated.

What I was able to pull quickly off the BLS website showed net changes in both full-time and part-time employment, but it's hard to tell how the data compares to the chart in the OP. (The annual data is not aggregated for seasonally adjusted figures.)

The monthly values for 2013 through July are

Full Time (seasonally adjusted):
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
1.8 1.4 0.7 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.4

Part Time (seasonally adjusted):
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
-1.0 -0.1 1.8 0.2 -1.3 0.7 1.2

Those are 12-month net percentage changes. The 1-month net changes are:

Full Time (seasonally adjusted):
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.2 0.1

Part Time (seasonally adjusted):
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
-0.1 0.4 -0.5 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.6

So maybe comparing 0.6 to 0.1 is the source of that "ratio"? Impossible to say. It is interesting that in several months this year, there has been a greater increase in PT over FT jobs, but the annual figures show a net year-over-year gain in FT jobs greater than in PT jobs (except for March).

Unfortunately, since the site produces charts and graphs dynamically on each search, I can't link directly to the tables. The page I started from is here; I checked the "Full Time" and "Part Time" boxes in the "Seasonally Adjusted" column, then clicked on "More Formatting Options" in the upper right, and select options in the grey box at the top.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:


936K/963K = 97%

Do you hold a degree in math?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
THANKS ROMNEY and the anti-universal health care republicans~
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
According to the BLS, the gains in part time jobs is in the group of people that are part time for non-economic reasons. That would be people who work part time because of such things as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons (not because they wanted to be full time and couldn't find that type of job).

part time for economic reasons
July 2012 - 8,245,000
July 2013 - 8,245,000

part time for non-economic reasons
July 2012 - 18,846,000
July 2013 - 19,128,000
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Golux13 wrote:
I would like to see the source data and an explanation of how the ratios (if that's what they are) were calculated.


Quote:
Over the past six months, he said, the Household Survey shows 963,000 more people reporting that they were employed, and 936,000 of them reported they’re in part-time jobs.


936K/963K = 97%


I'm not sure what figures he was looking at. I looked at some numbers from the BLS site I linked to earlier, and what they show is that through July 2013, there has been an increase in full-time employees of 222,000 since December 2012 and 1,612,000 since July 2012; compared to an increase of 731,000 part-time employees since December 2012 but only 343,000 since July 2012.

So since December, of what appears to be 953,000 new jobs (or more accurately people added to the employment rolls) in 2013, 731,000 were part-time. That's 77%, which is high but is not 97%. On the other hand, if you look at year-over-year data, you get 343,000 PT out of 1,955,000 total increase in employees, which is only 18%.

Since he was looking (apparently) at "the last six months," I looked at the June numbers, too. Those showed an increase from December 2012 of 130,000 FT and 557,000 PT, or 81% PT. Still high, but not 97%. (And the year-over-year June-to-June increases are 195,000 PT and 1,392,000 FT, for a ratio of about 12% PT-to-FT.)

So yes, it looks like there have been more PT than FT jobs added since December, but it's not as high a percentage as the guy quoted in the article, though it's possible he was looking at different numbers - the BLS site is chock full of data.

What I found interesting is that PT employment has been rising pretty steadily, albeit with monthly fluctuations up and down, since 1968 (the earliest year in the databases) with big jumps in 1994 and 2009.

EDIT: Replacing the graphic link with the actual graphic:
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
That's a terrible graph. It doesn't make Obamacare look bad at all. You should have drawn in a large spike at the right end of it.

And your 81% figure for 1H13 is much more consistent with the original ratio plot: 81/19 = 4.3.



[Edit: Okay, now the graph in the preceding post is gone. I was just kidding; you didn't have to delete it. ]
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


936K/963K = 97%

Do you hold a degree in math?


I'll vouch for him. He's 3rd grade math certified.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
UA Darth
United States
Boca Raton
FL
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This has nothing to do with the healthcare legislation, as employers have been avoiding giving benefits by hiring part time for over a decade. It has everything to do with the fact that people are desperate for work, there is little quality work needed, and unions are dead in this country.

Welcome to the race to the bottom.

Greed for a handful at the expense of everyone else... This is just an extension of american greed which caused the worldwide economy to tank in 2008.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
single sentences wrote:
THANKS ROMNEY and the anti-universal health care republicans~


No kidding. Imagine if even one of those people had voted for Obamacare. Then you could be really pissed at them.


His point was that health care should not have any relationship to employment, it is a stupid system. Either go to a single payer healthcare system, or go to a system where individuals have buy their own insurance. Tying it to employment is the worst solution imaginable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:

His point was that health care should not have any relationship to employment, it is a stupid system. Either go to a single payer healthcare system, or go to a system where individuals have buy their own insurance. Tying it to employment is the worst solution imaginable.


It's not just that it's tied to employment, but that prices for procedures are both extremely variable and invisible. The system is set up in such a way as to not control prices whatsoever: We don't have a big government monopolist holding them down, and the myriad of provides are set up in a way as to make price comparisons very hard. So, we can't have a market either.

Imagine that the only way you could eat was by going to a restaurant. There's many restaurants in town, but each only serves groups of 20. The entire group gets a menu, without any prices on in. Everyone in the group orders whatever they want, but by the end of the month will get a charge on their card exactly 5% of the total bill of the group. You cannot pick who else is in your group, and you'll never see them again.

Would a setup like that make us pay more or less for our food than the current system of 'pay what you want, for what you want', plus food stamps?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.