Posted on 08/05/2013 7:40:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Being on vacation last week meant that I missed the jobs report for July, which turned out to be as unremarkable as most of those in the four-plus years of the so-called economic recovery. The media reports I did catch while on the cruise focused mainly on the fact that the jobs added in July missed the expectations of analysts, and not on the fact that adding only 162,000 jobs meant another extension of stagnation, as the US economy needs ~150,000 jobs added each month just to tread water, thanks to population growth. That’s not even a decent maintenance number, let alone the kind of job growth needed to put the chronically unemployed back to work.
The media reports also missed another trend in job reports, one caught by a former chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and reported by McClatchy’s Kevin Hall this morning. Almost all of the job growth this year came in part-time work — and when we say “almost all,” we mean 97% of it:
The unemployment rate is measured by the separate Household Survey, and it fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 7.4 percent, its lowest level since December 2008. That’s due in part to slow growth in the labor force. The jobless rate is based on a sample of self-reporting from ordinary people across the nation, and it’s the Labor Department measure that shows a very troubling trend in hiring.
“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.”
And Hall says there has to be something driving that kind of trend, and thinks he knows what it is:
“There is something going on if such a large share of the hiring is part time,” Hall said. …
Hall speculated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, shorthanded as Obamacare, might be resulting in employers shifting workers to part-time status to avoid coming health care obligations.
“There’s been so much talk about the effects of Obamacare on part-time work,” he said. “This is such an unusual thing to see.”
Forbes’ Chris Conover wrote about this trend last week, before the BLS published the July jobs report:
Denialism may be too strong a term.[1] But there seem to be a lot of people arguing that Obamacare has little or nothing to do with the rise in part-time employment. Some deny the rise is even happening, while others are content to deny that Obamacare is the culprit. Admittedly, it takes a little detective work, but if we systematically review the available empirical evidence in an even-handed fashion, the conclusion seems inescapable: Obamacare is accelerating a disturbing trend towards “a nation of part-timers.” This is not good news for America. …
Ratio of New PT Workers to New FT Workers Explodes in 2013. For the most part, an examination of metrics measured in millions (e.g., involuntary PT workers or total PT workers) masks what is really going on. A much better sense is given by comparing the changes in PT employment to the changes in FT employment. Because the monthly Current Population Survey are so volatile, it is easier to see what is going on by calculating an average monthly figure for each calendar year to get a sense of whether the number of PT or FT is rising or falling. We only have six months of data for 2013, but this method allows us to compare the average monthly count for the year to date with the average monthly count from prior years on an apples-to-apples basis. We can then calculate the ratio of new PT workers in an average month to new FT workers in an average month. Obviously this ratio will turn negative in years that either FT or PT workers have declined on average. So over the past decade, there’s only 4 other years with which to compare the 2013 experience.
What should immediately be obvious to even someone without a shred of statistical training is how deviant the 2013 experience is compared to the past. For every new FT job added to the economy, there were 4.3 PT jobs added! In most (non-negative) years, the ratio is the reverse: that is, there are typically 5 FT jobs added for every new PT job. Even in 2004—the year with the second-highest ratio during this time-frame–there were 2 FT jobs for every PT job, yielding a ratio of 0.5. Even if growth in PT vs. FT workers reverted to its historic pattern for the balance of 2013, the year’s average monthly ratio still would be four times as large as the 2nd highest ratio from 2004.
The July report only confirms that trend. Only 92,000 full-time jobs were created, while 172,000 part-time jobs got filled (not net numbers). The only major influence in 2013 that differs from the preceding three years of the recovery is the impending ObamaCare mandate on employers, which the Obama administration will try to postpone for a year. The data shows that businesses have already begun to react by minimizing their risk and costs through part-time employment, thanks to the perverse incentives set up by the ACA, and that this will continue as long as the mandate exists.
Maybe that’s why it’s so difficult to find ObamaCare defenders these days — at least unpaid ones. OFA tried to stage a rally in Centreville, Virginia yesterday, but only one person bothered to attend, and even the organizer took a powder after less than a half-hour on the job:
That means gatherings like today’s in Centreville — although the slow start here is probably not what OFA organizers had in mind. After a scheduling snafu over the start time, a few people showed up and left before it actually started. Just one volunteer stayed to help work the phone bank for the health law, and the event’s organizer bolted after 20 minutes — although he was bound for another Obamacare event, a house party.
Another part-time worker, eh?
Over the next fourteen months....as we approach the 2014 election, this part-time job trend will be noticed more and more. Even reporters and technicians will end up being told that their full-time occupations are part of the change coming.
It’ll be curious how historians in 2030 stand and explain this era of ‘growth’. There’s nothing of a positive nature and it makes the administration look mostly foolish. Folks stand at the shop and are told...you can only work 25 hours a week....then having to walk out and hustle up a second job where they basically work another 25 hours a week. So you create this new class of worker....the 50-hour a week guy, who continually whines about too much work, and no time off. The Congressional solution? Oh, it’ll be a five-star moment where they have meetings on how to convert the work-force to full-time employees again.
The part time job trend will continue until the middle of 2014, where the rules will be interpreted that any has to pay health care to either of these cases... Any full time worker, or if the business employs more than 50 Full time equivalent workers. There will also be fines for any business who changed their employees to part time to avoid the penalty. When this happens, there will be massive layoffs of these part timers, and the remaining staff will be working 60+ hour work weeks (while suffering cuts in their base pay).
What should immediately be obvious to even someone without a shred of statistical training is how deviant the 2013 experience is compared to the past. For every new FT job added to the economy, there were 4.3 PT jobs added! In most (non-negative) years, the ratio is the reverse: that is, there are typically 5 FT jobs added for every new PT job. Even in 2004—the year with the second-highest ratio during this time-frame–there were 2 FT jobs for every PT job, yielding a ratio of 0.5. Even if growth in PT vs. FT workers reverted to its historic pattern for the balance of 2013, the year’s average monthly ratio still would be four times as large as the 2nd highest ratio from 2004.
The July report only confirms that trend. Only 92,000 full-time jobs were created, while 172,000 part-time jobs got filled (not net numbers). The only major influence in 2013 that differs from the preceding three years of the recovery is the impending ObamaCare mandate on employers, which the Obama administration will try to postpone for a year. The data shows that businesses have already begun to react by minimizing their risk and costs through part-time employment, thanks to the perverse incentives set up by the ACA, and that this will continue as long as the mandate exists.
Part time worker = new third world
Believe me. Obama is doing his best to hold down America by keeping us poorer and under - employed. Part of his plan is to “transform” us into a population that will beg to become socialist. I just hope we are smart enough to see what he is doing. Most other (real) presidents knew how to turn around a recession.....Why not comrade Obama????
Wondering how many of the full-time jobs this administration takes credit for have actually been created by the oil boom on private land he hasn’t been able to destroy.
Kaslin has posted a thread re similar realities:
Full-Time Employment Down Over 5 Million Since 2007
Townhall.com ^ | August 5, 2013 | Mike Shedlock
Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 8:14:13 AM by Kaslin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3051300/posts
First link in Hot Air article says can not be found
My small business is not hired by part-time earners.
” Thanks for this post. I have been asking and musing about the impact of part time hires versus full time hires re the numbers each new month’s employment data. There is a big movement out here in Californicator land to restrict current workers and new hires to 30 hours or less per week.”
Same in AZ
A few business owners who are afraid that they might fall into the 50 and over have a couple of legit concerns:
1. Seasonal business increases like businesses who cater to people on vacation or farm businesses with seasonal harvests and productions. If one hires seasonal people to augment the normal employee roster, will the owners be penalized if they had more than 50 employees for a short calendar period.
2. What if Obozo and his thugs decide that 50 full time employees is too high of a base number and drops the number to 24 to 30 employees?
I mean seriously... the prices for most folks will still be way too high and so there will STILL be an even HIGHER number of Americans without health insurance while the government has inserted it's inefficient self into ALL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICES AND PROCEDURES MAKING THEM COST EVEN MORE THAN EVER!!! (wait till everyone get the "multiplier effect" of THAT!!!)
What in the (BLEEP!) is wrong with these (BLEEPIN!) liberal Demonicrats???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.