97% of all job creation in 2013 has been part-time.

[ivwshane]

Data far removed from the effects of Obamacare isn't relevant when discussing the effects of Obamacare.

If you want to make conclusions using an old data trend and somehow make it relevant to the current trend...go for it. There is nothing more I can say.

First, I fundamentally agree with you that the employer mandate as it is currently structured is bad and should be modified or removed.

As for the rest of it, what I'm saying is that the data simply does not back up the case that this has been caused by the ACA. 2013 data is based on 6 data points. If you go to the BLS website you can find 6 data points from March 2009 onwards to tell almost any story you want. To base an outcome on so little data would be foolish, particularly in light of trends prior to 2013.

Yeah they don't get it. In their world nothing existed before Obama. Full time jobs were on the rise, part time jobs were on the decline, peoples incomes were growing, healthcare costs were flat, government jobs were declining, and then Obama comes along and BAM! Part time jobs explode and only now (after Obamacare was passed and by passed I mean when part time employment started going up) after Obama got into office has part time job growth out grown full time employment! Of course because of Obama and the ACA healthcare costs have sky rocketed (and by sky rocketed I mean rising at their lowest rate in years). Of course being the socialist he is, Obama, has been growing government jobs like crazy (and by government jobs I mean whatever number will prove my point and not the number that is historically used and by crazy I mean that growth has been flat or declining)!

This all happened once Obama got in office (just don't look at the data before he was in office)!

This thread has gone full retard! Led, of course, by our resident statistician, buckshot and her new side kick spatially unaware, backed up by the always butt hurt doc (stop picking on me) savage!

 

[spacejamz]

Over 90% of NFL players used to declare bankruptcy within 5 years of retiring even with their salaries, so the union started offering financial literacy classes. Now it's down to 78% a few years later. Still a HUGE distance to go, but it shows how some basic education can make a big difference in a short time, and how easy it is for people to get scammed out of their money if they don't ever get taught good money management.

I agree that financial planning/literacy classes should be taught, even as early as high school.

However, it is sad that the concept of spending less than you earn needs to be taught as a class after 4th grade math. If you earn $1000 in a month, add up what you spend and make sure it is less than $1000.

As far as the pro athletes are concerned, it doesn't help when your 'friends/family' are trying to fuck you over while as they smile straight to your face when you are helping them out.

 

[Patranus]

Its funny.

There was a guy on Greta last night bitching and moaning about getting out of school and not being able to find anything other than unpaid interships. He currently works at a bar. The general overtone was that employers 'owe' people a job.

To all those people who bitch and moan about the productive class not creating jobs, maybe they should get off their entitled ass and create their own fucking jobs.

If you don't like working part time for minimum wage then get off your ass and do something about it instead of being some bumfuck entitled ass hat who thinks they deserve more than minimum wage and think that everything should be handed to them

 

[spacejamz]

Yeah they don't get it. In their world nothing existed before Obama. Full time jobs were on the rise, part time jobs were on the decline, peoples incomes were growing, healthcare costs were flat, government jobs were declining, and then Obama comes along and BAM! Part time jobs explode and only now (after Obamacare was passed and by passed I mean when part time employment started going up) after Obama got into office has part time job growth out grown full time employment! Of course because of Obama and the ACA healthcare costs have sky rocketed (and by sky rocketed I mean rising at their lowest rate in years). Of course being the socialist he is, Obama, has been growing government jobs like crazy (and by government jobs I mean whatever number will prove my point and not the number that is historically used and by crazy I mean that growth has been flat or declining)!

This all happened once Obama got in office (just don't look at the data before he was in office)!

This thread has gone full retard! Led, of course, by our resident statistician, buckshot and her new side kick spatially unaware, backed up by the always butt hurt doc (stop picking on me) savage!

Are you too stupid to realize that Obamacare hasn't even kicked in yet (especially the part where companies will see the effects to their bottom line through increased costs to health benefit they will need to provide to their employees who work more than 29 hours or paying the penalty for not providing any coverage at all) and yet you know how employers will react to it.

Brilliant....

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Its funny.

There was a guy on Greta last night bitching and moaning about getting out of school and not being able to find anything other than unpaid interships. He currently works at a bar. The general overtone was that employers 'owe' people a job.

To all those people who bitch and moan about the productive class not creating jobs, maybe they should get off their entitled ass and create their own fucking jobs.

If you don't like working part time for minimum wage then get off your ass and do something about it instead of being some bumfuck entitled ass hat who thinks they deserve more than minimum wage and think that everything should be handed to them

Jeebus

Apparently people out of school need to simply ask themselves "Who the fuck am I?"

And if it is anything but "...just another human amongst 7 billion with no special talents or abilities" then bash yourself with a hammer to the skull. Repeat until the answer is that.

I think this reverts back to the "Every kid gets a trophy" problem a 'la pussification of America.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you too stupid to realize that Obamacare hasn't even kicked in yet (especially the part where companies will see the effects to their bottom line through increased costs to health benefit they will need to provide to their employees who work more than 29 hours or paying the penalty for not providing any coverage at all) and yet you know how employers will react to it.

Brilliant....

You quoted me, I don't know why because you clearly missed the point.

 

[berzerker60]

I agree that financial planning/literacy classes should be taught, even as early as high school.

However, it is sad that the concept of spending less than you earn needs to be taught as a class after 4th grade math. If you earn $1000 in a month, add up what you spend and make sure it is less than $1000.

As far as the pro athletes are concerned, it doesn't help when your 'friends/family' are trying to fuck you over while as they smile straight to your face when you are helping them out.

There are entire industries of very smart people trying to trick people into shitty deals, don't blame the victim if he's not given a serious vaccine of knowledge before being exposed. Human brains are terrible at exponential math, so compounding interest is pretty fundamentally contrary to "common sense," which is the basis for a LOT of people losing control of credit card debt. Similarly, the importance of investing as early as possible to take advantage of compounding interest for yourself is really hard to truly grasp even for very intelligent people until you've seen someone run a whole bunch of examples of how $10k can become $1 million given just a few percent interest and a few decades.

Plus credit actually can be an important tool in building up financial security if you're taught to handle it responsibly. Saving until you can buy a car outright isn't a bad idea per se, but if it means you miss out on a job because you can't drive there while you're saving, obviously it's hurting you. Similarly, waiting to buy a house outright rather than having a mortgage (on good terms with a sizable down payment) would be a pretty bad idea, because you're better off with the portfolio diversity of using the rest of the money in various other investments - if the house loses value, you aren't nearly as screwed as if that's where all of your savings and investments now sit. There's a reason even Mitt Romneys often get mortgages for second and third homes they could afford to buy with cash. Lots more to it than just spending less than you're earning (though of course that's the key long-term).

Definitely true about pro atheletes getting screwed by relying on family/'friends' rather than reputable professionals for financial advice.

 

[OverVolt]

@Patranus

College isn't meant to prepare you for a job. But thats what everyone tells each other.

If you want a good job you go to ____________.

Go figure people would think that way after graduating.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This thread has gone full retard! Led, of course, by our resident statistician, buckshot and her new side kick spatially unaware, backed up by the always butt hurt doc (stop picking on me) savage!

OMG...stop picking on me! :biggrin:

 

[OutHouse]

There was a guy on Greta last night bitching and moaning about getting out of school and not being able to find anything other than unpaid interships. He currently works at a bar. The general overtone was that employers 'owe' people a job.

i did not get that from him at all nor did he say that he was owed a job by anybody. cant a guy bitch that there is nothing out there in his interest and is stuck working in a bar? i guess to you bitching = you owe me.

 

[buckshot24]

Wrong answer.

Part-time employment has been generally shrinking since the passage of the ACA. Asking what percentage of jobs it has created over previous years is a nonsensical one as there has been a net loss in part time jobs.

Don't you agree that the further away from implementation of Obamacare the less effect it is going to have on employer's decision?

 

[fskimospy]

Don't you agree that the further away from implementation of Obamacare the less effect it is going to have on employer's decision?

I don't see how the data fits that either.

 

[palehorse]

Wrong answer.

Part-time employment has been generally shrinking since the passage of the ACA. Asking what percentage of jobs it has created over previous years is a nonsensical one as there has been a net loss in part time jobs.

How can you say it's nonsensical to analyze the percentage of created jobs that have been part-time versus full-time?

I'd say that doing so is critical to understanding the true measure of job creation; whereas knowing just the total number of created jobs only tells half of the story.

If the last six months are any indication, and nearly all created jobs are becoming part-time, we're in deep shit in the coming years.

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah they don't get it. In their world nothing existed before Obama. Full time jobs were on the rise, part time jobs were on the decline, peoples incomes were growing, healthcare costs were flat, government jobs were declining, and then Obama comes along and BAM! Part time jobs explode and only now (after Obamacare was passed and by passed I mean when part time employment started going up) after Obama got into office has part time job growth out grown full time employment! Of course because of Obama and the ACA healthcare costs have sky rocketed (and by sky rocketed I mean rising at their lowest rate in years). Of course being the socialist he is, Obama, has been growing government jobs like crazy (and by government jobs I mean whatever number will prove my point and not the number that is historically used and by crazy I mean that growth has been flat or declining)!

Geez shane how big of a strawman do you need to construct? Nobody is saying that the rise in Part time jobs is caused ONLY by Obamacare. It isn't like I think the world was perfect during Bush's years either, I had plenty of problems with W. What is your best explanation for the job growth during 2013?

 

[buckshot24]

I don't see how the data fits that either.

Whether it does or not isn't the question. Do you agree with my contention?

 

[fskimospy]

How can you say it's nonsensical to analyze the percentage of created jobs that have been part-time versus full-time?

I'd say that doing so is critical to understanding the true measure of job creation; whereas knowing just the total number of created jobs only tells half of the story.

If the last six months are any indication, and nearly all created jobs are becoming part-time, we're in deep shit in the coming years.

The number of "created part time jobs" has been negative over the last 4 years.

So I did a quick check of BLS data and my back of the napkin calculations give us a net gain of 2.574 million jobs since March of 2009 since the ACA passed. You had a gain of 5.28 million full time and a loss of 2.706 million part time jobs.

So your question is what percentage of 2.574 million is -2.706 million? -105%. So part time jobs have comprised negative 105% of our job growth. Are you happy now?

 

[Genx87]

I think it is too early to determine if Obamacare is the primary driver in this. However people have been talking about the employer mandate pushing people into part time work and the 49 employee business. It seems to be highly coincidental people were talking about this and supposedly 97% of jobs created in the year before the employer mandate are part time work.

Hopefully this isn't the trend but a blip.

 

[fskimospy]

Whether it does or not isn't the question. Do you agree with my contention?

We have no way of knowing that from the data presented and there are innumerable confounds. The immediacy of its passage, the 2010 and 2012 elections could have mattered, new coverage, etc.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think it is too early to determine if Obamacare is the primary driver in this. However people have been talking about the employer mandate pushing people into part time work and the 49 employee business. It seems to be highly coincidental people were talking about this and supposedly 97% of jobs created in the year before the employer mandate are part time work.

Hopefully this isn't the trend but a blip.

Agree...but damn...it's a scary looking blip! All we can do is hope for the best at this point.

 

[palehorse]

The number of "created part time jobs" has been negative over the last 4 years.

So I did a quick check of BLS data and my back of the napkin calculations give us a net gain of 2.574 million jobs since March of 2009 since the ACA passed. You had a gain of 5.28 million full time and a loss of 2.706 million part time jobs.

So your question is what percentage of 2.574 million is -2.706 million? -105%. So part time jobs have comprised negative 105% of our job growth. Are you happy now?

That might be the fuzziest f'n math I've ever seen, and it's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Let me make this easy for you:

Fact: In 2013, alone, 97% of ALL created jobs (936k of the 963k total) are/were part-time.

Simple question: What was that percentage for all jobs created in 2012?

How about 2011?

 

[fskimospy]

That might be the fuzziest f'n math I've ever seen, and it's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Let me make this easy for you:

Fact: In 2013, alone, 97% of ALL created jobs (936k of the 963k total) are/were part-time.

Simple question: What was that percentage for all jobs created in 2012?

How about 2011?

Fuzzy how? And how is it totally irrelevant? I get the feeling you don't know what BLS data says.

 

[palehorse]

Fuzzy how? And how is it totally irrelevant? I get the feeling you don't know what BLS data says.

I get the feeling you don't understand my question. Forget the "net" this or that, and put aside the concept of jobs lost vs gained.

Using only the TOTAL NEW JOBS CREATED each year, show me the parentage of the JOBS CREATED each year that were only part-time. (IOW, statistics that would be directly comparable to the 97% figure for the first half of 2013).

Edit: Fill in the blank...

There were X new jobs created in 2012. Of those, ___ percent were only part-time.

Example: There were 963k new jobs created so far in 2013. Of those, 97% were only part-time.

Now do the same for 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. Hell, go back as far as you can...

 

[fskimospy]

I get the feeling you don't understand my question. Forget the "net" this or that, and put aside the concept of jobs lost.

Using only the JOBS CREATED, show me the parentage each year of the JOBS CREATED that were only part-time. (IOW, statistics that are directly comparable to the 97% figure for the first half of 2013).

What do you mean by jobs created? What you're asking is nonsensical, and leaving out net numbers makes zero sense.

Think about this rationally. If someone eliminates a full time position and then makes a new full time position, do you consider that a job created? If so, why? If not, why would we not count both?

EDIT: Would it help if I explained that the BLS measures 'jobs created' (or lost) by the number of jobs in a sector in month A minus the number of jobs in a sector in month B? Do you understand that they don't measure 'created' jobs outside of a net result?

 

[palehorse]

What do you mean by jobs created? What you're asking is nonsensical, and leaving out net numbers makes zero sense.

Think about this rationally. If someone eliminates a full time position and then makes a new full time position, do you consider that a job created? If so, why? If not, why would we not count both?

Jesus... this is getting ridiculous.

There have been 963k new jobs created so far in 2013 (a statistic provided by the DoL and listed in the OP's article). Of those new jobs, 936k (97%) were only part-time.

In order to put that statistic into perspective, we need to know the same percentage, using the same equation, for each previous year.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus... this is getting ridiculous.

There have been 963k new jobs created so far in 2013 (a statistic provided by the DoL and listed in the OP's article). Of those new jobs, 936k (97%) were only part-time.

In order to put that statistic into perspective, we need to know the same percentage, using the same equation, for each previous year.

I already gave you those, what aren't you understanding?

EDIT: I'm busy doing other things at work, if there's some output that you want that you aren't getting, go calculate it yourself.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab8.htm