Part-time jobs account for 97% of 2013 job growth

posted at 9:21 am on August 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

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.

forbes-pt-ft

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?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If you recall, keeping employer based care was a compromise the left made with right wing elements within the Democratic Party. The left wanted single payer and an end to the employer system. If you also recall, conservatives, including Ed who wrote blogs about it, screamed bloody murder about the loss of employer based care. Know your history.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

If I recall, ObamaCare eliminated the employer incentive for providing health insurance to employees. What sort of compromise is that?

And your ignorant spouting in the first paragraph eliminates the need to analyze the second.

NotCoach on August 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

If you recall, keeping employer based care was a compromise the left made with right wing elements within the Democratic Party. Know your history.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

If you recall, the right didn’t want this law AT ALL. That’s why it had to be passed in the dark of night using accounting tricks and lies.

Know your history.

That’s funny even from you.

hopeful on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

You do realize that in conceding that most employers have no incentive to ever increase wages because of the labor supply you’ve also invalidate supply side theory.
libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

There is NO “incentive” for an employer to pay more than the least they can.

One of the problems with failing to understand supply and demand theory is this simple bit of logic. An employer ALWAYS pays the least he can get away with, based on any number of factors. Factors, such as supply of labor, WILL force an increase at times, but the employer will still pay the least he believes he can for everything he does.
But the employer alone has the responsibility to weigh the factors in such manner as to operate his business to the end he desires, and NO ONE else should be making those decisions for him.

Supply side economics, being a subset of the laws of supply and demand, cannot be invalidated.

questionmark on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Look, if you believe in the free market, again, why are you complaining. This is your utopia, you’ve won.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Damn you are thick and dense.

It is beyond your simple minded brain to understand how the government is distorting the labor market and is creating an unnatural situation that leaves businesses few options.

Businesses are often willing to pay more to get better workers, or to get some better workers. I tried to simplify it as much as I could and you still don’t understand.

Once again, if government forces businesses to pay its lowest level employees either X/hr or 1.5X/hr they will choose X most of the time. Even a g0ddamned pizza restaurant owner will do that. They will become very, very selective about who they hire to pay 1.5X/hr. But they will still pay some people 1.5X. Their overall payroll costs will not change. If they had 300 full time employees they were paying an average of 1.2X/hr and along a spectrum of wages from 1 to 1.5X, and now the government says they must pay either X/hr part time or 1.5X/hr full time they will adjust the mix and keep their payroll the same. That is how most business owners will do it. And in the future they will be more inclined to hire new people at the part time X wage first to see how they do. The people hired at X will, if they do a good job, have an opportunity to move up into the 1.5X full time wage bracket. Paying the X wage in this case requires they hire such people as part timers rather than full timers. They may prefer to have 4 full timers instead of 5 or 6 part timers if they can keep their overall payroll cost the same. But they can’t do that.

I’m sure your eye are now glazing over, because you do not only to not need to understand markets, you do not need to understand basic arithmetic to do your useless non-economically productive job.

The government is creating an unnatural low wage work force that the market would not create on its own without government interference. It is forcing a quantization of the wages paid to low level workers.

In your simple minded Marxist pin headed brain you assume that employers will just use the government regulations to drive down their overall payroll costs. You do not consider that most will keep their overall payroll costs the same, because they need some of the workers they must pay 1.5X, while adjusting the wage mix of employees and who they hire at either X part time or 1.5X full time.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

But you’re also ignoring that increases in part time work and decreases in real wages were falling for the average worker before Obamacare, long before. Even if Obamacare had never passed the job losses from the housing bubble crash has left a workforce on the wrong end of the supply and demand equation, employers know that. Even if know healthcare bill had passed that trend line would be unaltered and if you repeal it there are no reasons employers will pay more. You do realize that in conceding that most employers have no incentive to ever increase wages because of the labor supply you’ve also invalidate supply side theory. Decrease overhead costs produced by regulations, and to not going to employees it’s going to stock holders. And as wages decrease the subset of people who are stockholders will inevitably decrease. You’re own arguments about the free market prove that, left unregulated it will produce a banana republic. Congrats!

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Of course employers are willing to do that..,,,sometimes. But if they don’t have to do that, they won’t. Might I remind you that there is no more productive workforce in the West? We work longer hours, for the least benefits, pay and time off than anywhere. Why do you think there’s an explosion in energy drinks in this country? We sleep less than any other first world nation. Jazz’s essay pointed out that we aren’t automatons, but labor competition is doing everything possible to make humans drones for corporations. Look, if you believe in the free market, again, why are you complaining. This is your utopia, you’ve won.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You cannot even accurately represent the conservative or libertarian perspective on these issues. Previous commenters are correct – you build straw men and then destroy them. You also ignore most of the cogent arguments made in this thread.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM

libfreeordie is completely immune to the irony that the system in his head that he decries (“Corporate control of our lives as drones”) is the one that is fostered by government intervention. Government regulation is often steared towards the interests of large corporations who either have the political connections and clout to get special carve outs and/or already have the corporate infrastructure necessary to deal with the massive regulatory state. He completely ignores the burden this places on small businesses, a living wage being the most egregious example of his ignorance.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM

First, tell me why I started working at minimum wage ($1.625/hr) as a teenager, and now as a full adult I make $150/hr, and my employer is happy to pay me that because I support his profitibility.

This is a country of hundreds of millions, your personal story, while great for you, tells us nothing about the overall structure of the economy.

I’m upset because the cause of the rise in part time work is government regulation, ie Obamacare.

Then you and Chuck don’t know your history. The trendline in wage declines and part time work increases precede Obamacare. And, what’s really key is that the real spike in the trend comes after the 2008 crash. Clearly, employers were seeking a way to decrease benefits and wages long before Obamacare and the crash of the speculative bubble gave them that opportunity. There’s no evidence Obamacare is the single and solitary reason for increases in part time pay.

But *either way* you actually shouldn’t care if part time pay is increasing as along as it is keeping the business profitable, right?

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

libfreeordie wants us to turn our eyes to Europe for an example of how big government entitlements and centrally planned economies result in fewer work hours and more prosperity. Which is total bunk. These countries are on an unsustainable trajectory (but so are we with our spending). They also levy massive taxes on the middle class.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Brainfree, your Marxist thought is breathtaking….

I really don’t know why I waste my time trying to educate such a moron who does not want to learn. For a perfesser, you certainly are anti intellectual.

NOMOBO on August 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Really.

Not often, but I too am sometimes foolish enough to waste my time trying educate the stupid ignorant close minded race baiting bigoted Marxist socialist troll.

The dimwit understands nothing and thinks nothing except — Shouldn’t you evil greedy worker-hating poor-oppressing capitalists be happy about this?

It’s nothing but a low IQ high self-esteem troll and a text book example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

This is a country of hundreds of millions, your personal story, while great for you, tells us nothing about the overall structure of the economy.

I’m upset because the cause of the rise in part time work is government regulation, ie Obamacare.

Then you and Chuck don’t know your history. The trendline in wage declines and part time work increases precede Obamacare. And, what’s really key is that the real spike in the trend comes after the 2008 crash. Clearly, employers were seeking a way to decrease benefits and wages long before Obamacare and the crash of the speculative bubble gave them that opportunity. There’s no evidence Obamacare is the single and solitary reason for increases in part time pay.

But *either way* you actually shouldn’t care if part time pay is increasing as along as it is keeping the business profitable, right?

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

You’re full of it.

The reason people make more money is not “anecdotal” it does describe the system. As people acquire more useful skills they make more money. Analysis of IRS data also reveals that instead of looking at economic groups as static if you look at individuals and their economic fortunes most people born into poverty make it out and that the most volatile income bracket is the highest. Income inequality is largely a myth.

And while you can say that wages have declined or stagnated you leave out that over this same time frame the purchasing power of people has increased greatly.

Recent studies of small business owners have revealed that ObamaCare is THE driver of their decisions to higher fewer people and shift people over to part time.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

libfreeordie is completely immune to the irony that the system in his head that he decries (“Corporate control of our lives as drones”) is the one that is fostered by government intervention.

You seem completely immune to literacy. The left’s whole critique of citizens united is that unfettered corporate giving produces a government that, regardless of party, is going to serve the interests of the largest donors, i.e. the largest corporations. You have a pathetically simplistic understanding of the relationship between political ideology and the support for government regulation and intervention into the economy. The very term “political economy” was developed as an explanation and critique of private capital’s influence over the form and function of government.

What is massively ignorant is your Sean Hannity style claim that if the government does it, than the Left supports it. Or that the Left can not criticize “government.” That you see food stamps, gas and oil subsidies, estate taxes, FDA regulations and invasions of Iraq as the catch all “government” is precisely why so many conservative voters vote for people who have absolutely none of their interests at heart.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

libfree, what would your ideal economic plan look like?

questionmark on August 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Then you and Chuck don’t know your history. The trendline in wage declines and part time work increases precede Obamacare. And, what’s really key is that the real spike in the trend comes after the 2008 crash. Clearly, employers were seeking a way to decrease benefits and wages long before Obamacare and the crash of the speculative bubble gave them that opportunity. There’s no evidence Obamacare is the single and solitary reason for increases in part time pay.

But *either way* you actually shouldn’t care if part time pay is increasing as along as it is keeping the business profitable, right?

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

You still won’t look at the chart, will you?

ObamaCare has created a tremendous incentive to not hire full time employees. This is not in dispute.

Chuck Schick on August 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

There’s a graph right in this very blog post that puts the lie to your ignorant claim about “historical trends”. Unbelievable. Nothing can penetrate the thick that is you.

NotCoach on August 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM

As people acquire more useful skills they make more money

Except for all the times when people acquire more skills and don’t make more money. We can anectdote each other for hours, but the data indicates we’re a more educated populace, a more skilled populace and a more well trained populace and STILL wages are declining.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

libfree, what would your ideal economic plan look like?

questionmark on August 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Skittle sh!tting unicorns in every garage.

NotCoach on August 5, 2013 at 3:04 PM

The CiC, with all the ‘threats’, real and especially made up, to divert from scandals and the NSA taking over 100%, will be in LA and other areas around there tomorrow. He will campaign and market obama’care’…he has to sell what “is so good that all are clamoring for”.

Schadenfreude on August 5, 2013 at 3:05 PM

but the data indicates we’re a more educated populace, a more skilled populace and a more well trained populace and STILL wages are declining.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Jeantel, Detroit, Chicago, and every other shithole…you are a dummy.

Schadenfreude on August 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Except for all the times when people acquire more skills and don’t make more money. We can anectdote each other for hours, but the data indicates we’re a more educated populace, a more skilled populace and a more well trained populace and STILL wages are declining.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

They’ve been declining all through Obama’s presidency.

This we agree upon.

Chuck Schick on August 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Except for all the times when people acquire more skills and don’t make more money. We can anectdote each other for hours, but the data indicates we’re a more educated populace, a more skilled populace and a more well trained populace and STILL wages are declining.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Majors in “Wymyns Studies”, and “White Privilege, You Racist!” does not make for a more educated, skilled or well trained populace.

Example: You.

NotCoach on August 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

libfreeordie wants us to turn our eyes to Europe for an example of how big government entitlements and centrally planned economies result in fewer work hours and more prosperity. Which is total bunk. These countries are on an unsustainable trajectory (but so are we with our spending). They also levy massive taxes on the middle class.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

That’s the dirty little secret of socialist Europe.

The ordinary people there do not even realize how much they are paying in taxes, because much of it comes from a hidden VAT tax. And because of this the average living standard throughout Europe has been much lower than in the US. Prices for everything are almost always much higher in Europe and average wages are at best the same and at worse lower.

The VAT is the Holy Grail for American socialists. They would love to put a VAT in place here.

However, as you point out, the entire system is unsustainable. Europe has to a large extent piggy-backed on and benefitted from the US economic engine and has been able to sustain its socialist system because of it. That is changing.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

The kicker here is that if brainfree went out and tried to get a real job he would fail miserably, and not once would it dawn on him that he is the reason. Yeah, he’s really well educated, isn’t he?

NotCoach on August 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM

The left’s whole critique of citizens united is that unfettered corporate giving produces a government that, regardless of party, is going to serve the interests of the largest donors, i.e. the largest corporations.
libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Really? That’s the left’s whole critique of C U?
Not that corporate giving is an unwelcome counter weight to Unions and Community Organizations?
Wow, so I really misunderstood that ruling.

If the govt stays within constitutional limits, corporate giving-whether by ATT, GE, ACORN, AFL-CIO, or the Salvation Army, can do very little to harm you or me.
Statists exist on both sides of the aisle, but in the long run fall in socialist camp.

questionmark on August 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Majors in “Wymyns Studies”, and “White Privilege, You Racist!” does not make for a more educated, skilled or well trained populace.

Example: You.

NotCoach on August 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Right.

We’re allegedly better educated than in the past, except that a huge percentage of high school graduates, and increasingly college graduates, cannot do basic arithmetic, properly construct simple sentences, or read and comprehend anything longer than a simple two sentence paragraph.

The stats coming out of the government and academia can no longer be believed. Increasingly they are becoming like the stats produced by the communist apparatchiks and bureaucrats in the Soviet Union.

And even many intelligent people do not use their brains except when forced to do it. They just repeat left-wing talking points and slogans, including when confronted with simple almost indisputable facts.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

The left’s whole critique of citizens united is that unfettered corporate giving produces a government that, regardless of party, is going to serve the interests of the largest donors, i.e. the largest corporations libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

And you think the solution to that is more government regulation? So politicians have more control over things they can be influenced by? What about Union donations? Or doesn’t that count?

hopeful on August 5, 2013 at 3:37 PM

And while you can say that wages have declined or stagnated you leave out that over this same time frame the purchasing power of people has increased greatly.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

This.

Also, even assuming “wages” have declined, which I will not concede — considering all of the things that assertion is based on, all of the factors considered, all of the factors left out, all of the underlying soft stats, fuzzy numbers, and suspect data, etc., it almost certainly leaves out government confiscation and redistribution programs and transfer payments of one form or another, things like food stamps. Not to mention increased tax burdens on ordinary people, such real estate tax increases and state and local tax increases.

Only the simple minded will unquestioningly point at some single essentially abstract number and conclude that this means capitalism is running rampant and that corporations are taking over.

The US federal government, and many state governments, are far larger than any corporation. And even larger than most entire industries. And the stats coming out of government(s) increasingly “identify” “issues/problems” that require more government intervention/control/regulation/etc. Ain’t that a coincidence?

Also, the new fascist version of socialism promotes a socialist form of corporate cronyism. More purist Marxist socialists don’t really like it. Socialists often violently disagree. Far more than free enterprise types and capitalists.

Back when the Russian Revolution was getting started the
predominant factions were the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, the Socialists, and the liberals. They disagreed with each other a lot, and often hated each other, but they bonded together against the common enemy. They each had their own ideas about how to create a socialist worker’s paradise. They fought and murdered and killed each other once the old regime was gone for good. Even among the Bolsheviks there was murderous disagreement — Stalin assassinated Trotsy.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

You seem completely immune to literacy. The left’s whole critique of citizens united is that unfettered corporate giving produces a government that, regardless of party, is going to serve the interests of the largest donors, i.e. the largest corporations. You have a pathetically simplistic understanding of the relationship between political ideology and the support for government regulation and intervention into the economy. The very term “political economy” was developed as an explanation and critique of private capital’s influence over the form and function of government.

What is massively ignorant is your Sean Hannity style claim that if the government does it, than the Left supports it. Or that the Left can not criticize “government.” That you see food stamps, gas and oil subsidies, estate taxes, FDA regulations and invasions of Iraq as the catch all “government” is precisely why so many conservative voters vote for people who have absolutely none of their interests at heart.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Getting you to criticize government is like pulling teeth. Obama is one of the biggest crony capitalists in recent history and yet you’re here day in day out defending him and his preferred policies.

And YOU are the one trying to simplify my argument. Conservatives and liberarians are quite specific about which government actions they find odious.

And YOU are the one trying – and failing – to simplify my arguments.

Liberals love corruption and money in government – they just want it from approved sources like “community groups”, “non profits”, and unions and liberal controlled corporations. Liberals don’t mind owning almost the entirety of the media complex and bending it to their goals. The NYT is a blessed corporation so it gets a pass on influencing the political discourse but if a corporation dares to pay for advertising in the NYT or any other source then liberals think democracy is being undermined. You also miss the biggest conservative/libertarian point about money in politics – any money or special treatment or patronage in the political process means that it will invariably be corrupt. Liberals – like with much else – think that they can get around this fact of human nature with enough “enlightened” legislation. The truth is not that money corrupts the political process but POWER corrupts the political process. You put as much power in the the hands of so few as we do with our federal government and corruption is inevitable. It will be bought and traded. It’s a market just like any other with a valued commodity. You, as a liberal, would like to ignore this reality and would instead like to pretend that some new magical regulation and anti-constitional law will circumvent the natural course of things.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Libfree do you tickle Obama’s nads when you’re sucking with such vigor?

My goodness you’re embarrassing.

CW on August 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM

But you’re also ignoring that increases in part time work and decreases in real wages were falling for the average worker before Obamacare, long before. it will produce a banana republic. Congrats!

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

So that change thing? That was bullshit?

You really are a pathetic you racist perverted dirtbag.

CW on August 5, 2013 at 6:18 PM

That whole feeling that everyone has had the last 2 years, like we really never even LEFT the recession, that it was ACTUALLY a depression and not a recession?

We were right. Again.

Meople on August 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Yes we were. Is this wreckovery summah V? I lost count.

dogsoldier on August 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

And they are poised to warp it further by flooding the market with slave labor, which will in turn destroy the middle class.

dogsoldier on August 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Damn you are thick and dense.

It is beyond your simple minded brain to understand how the government is distorting the labor market and is creating an unnatural situation that leaves businesses few options.

Businesses are often willing to pay more to get better workers, or to get some better workers. I tried to simplify it as much as I could and you still don’t understand.

Once again, if government forces businesses to pay its lowest level employees either X/hr or 1.5X/hr they will choose X most of the time. Even a g0ddamned pizza restaurant owner will do that. They will become very, very selective about who they hire to pay 1.5X/hr. But they will still pay some people 1.5X. Their overall payroll costs will not change. If they had 300 full time employees they were paying an average of 1.2X/hr and along a spectrum of wages from 1 to 1.5X, and now the government says they must pay either X/hr part time or 1.5X/hr full time they will adjust the mix and keep their payroll the same. That is how most business owners will do it. And in the future they will be more inclined to hire new people at the part time X wage first to see how they do. The people hired at X will, if they do a good job, have an opportunity to move up into the 1.5X full time wage bracket. Paying the X wage in this case requires they hire such people as part timers rather than full timers. They may prefer to have 4 full timers instead of 5 or 6 part timers if they can keep their overall payroll cost the same. But they can’t do that.

I’m sure your eye are now glazing over, because you do not only to not need to understand markets, you do not need to understand basic arithmetic to do your useless non-economically productive job.

The government is creating an unnatural low wage work force that the market would not create on its own without government interference. It is forcing a quantization of the wages paid to low level workers.

In your simple minded Marxist pin headed brain you assume that employers will just use the government regulations to drive down their overall payroll costs. You do not consider that most will keep their overall payroll costs the same, because they need some of the workers they must pay 1.5X, while adjusting the wage mix of employees and who they hire at either X part time or 1.5X full time.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

FIFY

HiJack on August 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM

My son started working for Best Buy a month ago. He can’t get more than 29 hours in a week, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with Obamacare establishing the 30-hour work week as full time work and eligible for mandatory enrollment. Nope, nothing to do with it, whatsoever. /

HiJack on August 5, 2013 at 7:55 PM

My son started working for Best Buy a month ago. He can’t get more than 29 hours in a week, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with Obamacare establishing the 30-hour work week as full time work and eligible for mandatory enrollment. Nope, nothing to do with it, whatsoever. /

HiJack on August 5, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Some libs told me that only part time jobs are out there… All three are sucking a gov check and have been for years now. They blame the employers, Bush, anybody but Obanana…

Their brain washing is complete, the dry cycle has finished, and they are doomed when the Shiite hits the fan… cause they will curl up in balls of worthlessness.

I just hired 2 temps who were with me for almost two years each. They are now regulars… One of them was telling me how much better our insurance is than what his wife’s job offers. I hope that holds, but Obama is f’n everything up so time will tell.

RalphyBoy on August 5, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Certainly squares the circle that is the massive recent disconnect between job growth and what would be expected with the anemic economic growth we’ve been blessed with over the last 18 months.

jarodea on August 5, 2013 at 9:09 PM

If you recall, keeping employer based care was a compromise the left made with right wing elements within the Democratic Party. Know your history.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

If you recall, the right didn’t want this law AT ALL. That’s why it had to be passed in the dark of night using accounting tricks and lies.

Know your history.

That’s funny even from you.

hopeful on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Gotta love Liberalfreak’s game. Now Dems are rightwing. This would suggest in his world that the rightwing supports O-care.

CW on August 5, 2013 at 9:55 PM

If you recall, keeping employer based care was a compromise the left made with right wing elements within the Democratic Party. Know your history.
libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM
If you recall, the right didn’t want this law AT ALL. That’s why it had to be passed in the dark of night using accounting tricks and lies.
Know your history.
That’s funny even from you.
hopeful on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

And several senators had to be bought off. And libfreeordie thinks corporations are the biggest corrupting influence.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 10:00 PM

My son started working for Best Buy a month ago. He can’t get more than 29 hours in a week, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with Obamacare establishing the 30-hour work week as full time work and eligible for mandatory enrollment. Nope, nothing to do with it, whatsoever. /
HiJack on August 5, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Was just in harbor freight yesterday and I overhead two cashiers talking about how they only were scheduled for 29 hours on the upcoming schedule. I thought at the time that it was quite random but now it seems to make sense.

Defenestratus on August 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Gotta love Liberalfreak’s game. Now Dems are rightwing.

CW on August 5, 2013 at 9:55 PM

To a more purist Marxist socialist many Dems are right-wing. To some most Dems are right-wing. To card carrying members of the tiny US Communist (CPUSA: membership 2000) and Socialist (SPUSA: membership 1,500) parties all Dems are right wing.

Think there are really only 3500 communist and socialist true believers in the US? Me neither.

And the more extreme the socialist the more right-wingers it sees.

In 1918 the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks considered the Socialist-Revolutionaries to be right wing. And yet they were all Marxist socialists.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 10:20 PM

And libfreeordie thinks corporations are the biggest corrupting influence.

gwelf on August 5, 2013 at 10:00 PM

The more of a Marxist purist a socialist is the more it dislikes the fascist socialist corporate model (the new socialism hybrid), for that reason. It thinks corporations will ultimately dilute and corrupt the socialism. It considers leftists who adopt this model sell outs. This is the beef many lefties have with Comrade O. He is not trying to push socialism enough and is cooperating with big corporations too much.

The new socialists accept there must be an economic elite in order to try to keep the economic cash cow alive and giving milk. at least for awhile. But they try to keep that elite club small and get everyone on the new socialism team. These economic elites are rewarded with wealth and privilege, as well as access to and influence in the government, much as Central Committee members and senior Communist Party members were in the Soviet Union.

A purist Marxist absolutely hates this.

However, a ruthless practical socialist might also support the fascist socialist corporate model, but would see it as only a transitional phase and a temporary measure. For socialists like that Obamacare is only a means to an end. Its purpose is to kill off the health insurance corporations by driving them out of business.

Even Lenin allied himself with “right-wingers” when it was politically expeditious.

farsighted on August 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Meh. Garbage results from garbage policy. Was this really unexpected? Keep thinking we can coexist with people like lib.

JAGonzo on August 5, 2013 at 10:43 PM

“But *either way* you actually shouldn’t care if part time pay is increasing as along as it is keeping the business profitable, right?”

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

LOL! Typical Lib propaganda.
And the government decides what it “profitable?”
Wow!

shorebird on August 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM

You do realize that in conceding that most employers have no incentive to ever increase wages because of the labor supply you’ve also invalidate supply side theory.
libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I have an entire pay history that makes a complete laughing stock of your assertion. Employers pay more to get and keep competitive employees that help them succeed over their competition. In my role, I led dozens of IT software development projects for a local consulting company. As a result of my work, I received double-digit percent increases for the first 5-10 years I worked there until I leveled out when my pay hit the ceiling for what they could charge for my leadership. It was a great company to work for, and they valued their employees. Sadly, things went downhill after the owners sold the company to someone who didn’t understand the conservative business model.

I believe your perspective is skewed because you work for someone that doesn’t understand the conservative business model for competition. You compete with others, using your best employees, to build the best product, to secure the best customers.

The questions that you refuse to see or answer is…
1) Why should exceptional companies pay exceptional wages for mediocre employees?
2) Why should mediocre companies pay exceptional wages for exceptional employees?

dominigan on August 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Except for all the times when people acquire more skills and don’t make more money. We can anectdote each other for hours, but the data indicates we’re a more educated populace, a more skilled populace and a more well trained populace and STILL wages are declining.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Wages are declining because government regulations on everything related to running a business suck opportunity and tax money off the wages. Those things occur regardless of the skillsets of employees, before money is even earned off those skillsets. This is a very leftist way of thinking. The “right” way of thinking taxes the results, not the labor and business inputs.

And I disagree about a well trained populace. When I was in consulting, I taught bootcamp classes to those hired straight out of college. Those Computer Science graduates ALWAYS thought they knew more, until we got done with them. Experience trumps paper diplomas from academics who have never worked in the real world, every.single.time.

In fact the worst disaster of a software project I’ve ever been on was where the VP of development, who was an academic who taught CS classes on the side at a local university, thought he would inject the design ideas into the project. It was a complete and utter disaster. But he always thought he knew better than those who had been developing for years. After all, he was a college professor!

dominigan on August 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Imagine that for a bit. Imagine being consumed by your academic fetish but being constantly shown as wrong on almost every topic you introduce here outside of a laughably self-limited sort of “the influence of women professors in gay black history and how it influences future gay history of blacks and women” sphere of knowledge.
 
Now imagine knowing that the non-bubble folks you choose to congregate with care very little about your womens-/LBGT-/black-studies knowledge. And, worse, often laugh openly about its perceived value after you prove you haven’t bothered to learn much else.
 
Sadder still is knowing that he comes here and gets knocked around academically by people who probably only graduated high school but who have genuine intellectual curiousity and have educated themselves on different topics, and this forces him to return to the comfort of that little womens-/LBGT-/black-studies bubble where he knows what he’s expected to say to be told he’s smart again.
 
Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
rogerb on February 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM

rogerb on August 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

And have you seen this?

The Lie Must Go On: BLS “Catches” BLS At Misrepresenting 2013 Job Gains By Over 40%

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-06/bls-catches-bls-misrepresenting-2013-job-gains-over-40

Just more proof the BS From the BLS is really BS. Yikes!

dogsoldier on August 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Zero HedgeFund 08-05-13

40% Of US Workers Now Earn Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage

Back in 1968, the minimum wage in the United States was $1.60 an hour. That sounds very small, but after you account for inflation a very different picture emerges. Using the inflation calculator that the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides, $1.60 in 1968 is equivalent to $10.74 today.

If you were to work a full-time job at $10.74 an hour for a full year (with two weeks off for vacation), you would make about $21,480 for the year.

That isn’t a lot of money, but according to the Social Security Administration, 40.28% of all workers make less than $20,000 a year in America today.

In the years between 2002 and 2012, real median wages dropped by at least 5% in five of the top 10 low-wage jobs, including food preparers and housekeepers.

But as I mentioned above, it isn’t just that the number of jobs is not what it should be. The quality of our jobs is declining as well. For example, one study found that between 1969 and 2009 the wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 declined by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

Washington Examiner 08-05-13

Since January 2009 the country has added a net total of 270,000 full-time jobs, but it has added 1.9 million part-time jobs, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.

entagor on August 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM

LOL!!! Do-over:

http://nrn.com/government/bill-introduced-redefine-full-time-employee

FTA:

Industry association officials cheered the introduction of a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives Friday that seeks to establish the Affordable Care Act’s definition of full-time as 40 hours per week.

Anyone care to guess what the outcome of that will be?

ZeroCare(tm) is such a farce.

dogsoldier on August 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Anyone care to guess what the outcome of that will be?

dogsoldier on August 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Businesses cut hours to 36 hours a week (6 hours/day) and tell 0bummer and his entourage to go form a minstrel show, middle and working-class get screwed again.

MelonCollie on August 7, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2