• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
palehorse said:
Wrong answer. In order to make sense of the 97% statistic from the last six months of data, we need a similar statistic demonstrating that percentage over time (in annual or six month increments).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how many times you could have taken a 6 month subset after passage of the ACA and made a similar sort of conclusion either way?

This is why you don't make conclusions from 6 data points. If you want to do that there is nothing more I can say other than no competent analyst would do that.
 
Which workers are most at risk of reduced work hours under the Affordable Care Act? (UC Berkeley Study)
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthcare/reduced_work_hours13.pdf

Economist: Obamacare to Encourage Part-Time Employment, Cost Taxpayers
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...ime-employment-cost-taxpayers.html/?a=viewall

Here's an interesting graph I found as well....unfortunately it's not very current.

Image_5_3_20130727_TFTF.gif



“One thing that we hear in the commentary that we get at the FOMC is that some employers are hiring part-time in order to avoid the mandate, the very high level of part-time employment has been around since the beginning of the recovery, and we don’t fully understand it.” - Ben Bernanke
Click to expand...
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the government states that a business owner will have to pay $5000 extra (value of the health care coverage they must provide) for each employee who works more than 29 hours, what exactly do you think most of them will do? Cut workers hours to 29 hours or less or pay the $5000??

Do you disagree with the topic of this thread that 97% of jobs created in 2013 were part time?

Obamacare is forcing the employer's hand. I wonder how long it will take to change the threshold to 19 hours or possibly removing it outright all together...things will get pretty interesting then.
 
spacejamz said:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/

The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers. The fact is that there is no month during President Obama’s term when the federal workforce was smaller than it was in the first month of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The president took over in January 2009. Every month after January 2009 has seen more federal workers than were employed in January 2009.

On the other hand, total government employment — federal plus state and local — has fallen significantly under President Obama after rising significantly under President Bush.

It’s important not to understate the federal government’s role in the size of state and local governments. The stimulus gave tens of billions of federal dollars to the states in order to prevent cutbacks in the number of state and local workers, and many, including Professor Krugman, argue that that wasn’t enough.

So those are the facts. What to make of them?

I think Senator Paul is overstating his case by using the word “enormous” to describe either the growth of the federal workforce under President Obama or the size of the federal workforce under President Obama relative to President Bush. (It’s unclear which the senator was arguing.) And, of course, if the senator was referring to total government employment and not just federal, then clearly he was wrong.

But the senator is right that there are more federal workers under President Obama than under President Bush, and that there are more federal workers today than there were on the day Mr. Obama was sworn in as president.
Click to expand...

My data says your data is wrong:
See page 21
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...ables/total-government-employment-since-1962/
 
spacejamz said:
If the government states that a business owner will have to pay $5000 extra (value of the health care coverage they must provide) for each employee who works more than 29 hours, what exactly do you think most of them will do? Cut workers hours to 29 hours or less or pay the $5000??

Do you disagree with the topic of this thread that 97% of jobs created in 2013 were part time?

Obamacare is forcing the employer's hand. I wonder how long it will take to change the threshold to 19 hours or possibly removing it outright all together...things will get pretty interesting then.
Click to expand...

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.
 
berzerker60 said:
It's pretty hard to be a saavy consumer if you don't have access to the internet to do research beforehand, and preferably some actual training in personal finance which ought to be taught in schools.
Click to expand...

and yet when McDonald's tries to provide FREE financial planning advice which wasn't custom tailored to fit each of their employees (apparently, the disclaimer that it was just an EXAMPLE of what a monthly budget might look like was not sufficient), they get lamblasted by liberals....
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of this historic data on part time employment will be irrelevant once the effects of Obamacare kick in... Part time jobs under 30 hours will be the new norm.
 
spacejamz said:
All of this historic data on part time employment will be irrelevant once the effects of Obamacare kick in... Part time jobs under 30 hours will be the new norm.
Click to expand...

Historic data on part time employment from the enactment of the ACA to present is directly relevant to what we are discussing. It shows no such trend.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
One would have to be willfully ignorant to not think these part times jobs are overwhelmingly due to our Dear Leader's graciousness.
Click to expand...

Or as in your case, one would have to be woefully ignorant of the trend that's been happening for the past 30 years.

palehorse said:
I think it's very telling that ivwshane (and others) completely ignored this post after challenging you for sources.

shocker.
Click to expand...

Lol I addressed his propaganda before he even posted his tripe. Part time employment has been increasing (as in increasing the share of part time vs full time) since the 80's.

Perhaps you should read the links and data in the posts you disagree with before making stupid comments.
 
spacejamz said:
nope...

Your 2nd article only reflect Federal jobs, not state/city jobs, so the article I quoted is accurate (at the time it was published)...

My article was published Sep 2012 and your appears to be newer, reflecting the loss of the federal post office jobs...
Click to expand...

Lol, move the goal posts some more!

You guys want government jobs to include state and local (something some posters saus Obama doesn't control) or do you just want federal jobs? Oh and now you are talking about excluding post office jobs?

Lol! You guys are hilarious!
 
eskimospy said:
Historic data on part time employment from the enactment of the ACA to present is directly relevant to what we are discussing. It shows no such trend.
Click to expand...

Obamacare will officially kick in for most part next year (Companies did get a one year extension on the penalties for not complying). We have already seen that some companies have already altered their hiring practices because of it but we won't know the actual effects until it officially goes in.

How can anyone not logically conclude that the number of part time jobs will increase because of this, especially when it will directly affect a company's bottom line???
 
ivwshane said:
Or as in your case, one would have to be woefully ignorant of the trend that's been happening for the past 30 years.



Lol I addressed his propaganda before he even posted his tripe. Part time employment has been increasing (as in increasing the share of part time vs full time) since the 80's.

Perhaps you should read the links and data in the posts you disagree with before making stupid comments.
Click to expand...

jesus can you be anymore of a democrat boot licking shill? the point is that due to ACA people are getting their hours cut. thats a fact and why do you keep wanting to dismiss it as a trend? my wifes hours got cut from her part time job of 38 hours per week to 29 as a direct result of the ACA. I even see it with the part timers who work in my company getting their hours cut. shit is real dude why do you continue to say its nothing and all part of a trend.

the only one making stupid comments is you
 
Last edited:
Obamacare is a huge paradigm shift for many small businesses who happen to be the primary job creators driving this economic recovery. There's tons of anecdotal evidence that Obamacare is affecting their hiring practices and now we're starting to see data that seems to confirm this. I imagine that another 6-9 months of data will give us a much better picture.
 
Last edited:
spacejamz said:
and yet when McDonald's tries to provide FREE financial planning advice which wasn't custom tailored to fit each of their employees (apparently, the disclaimer that it was just an EXAMPLE of what a monthly budget might look like was not sufficient), they get lamblasted by liberals....
Click to expand...
By some, maybe. I don't have any problem with it, and I doubt all that many other people do either. I can see how it could come off a little condescending, I guess.

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.

OutHouse said:
why wouldnt a dumb phone not be good enough?
Click to expand...
It would be, as a phone. That's what the so-called "Obamaphones" are. But if you can scrape together the ~$200 for a decent used smartphone, you can get phone + unlimited internet + the many other capabilities of a smartphone (basically, an entire computer) for much cheaper than paying for internet and basic phone separately, not to mention it can replace buying a laptop/desktop separately.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol, move the goal posts some more!

You guys want government jobs to include state and local (something some posters saus Obama doesn't control) or do you just want federal jobs? Oh and now you are talking about excluding post office jobs?

Lol! You guys are hilarious!
Click to expand...

Can you not comprehend what I posted? what goal posts were moved? I explained why my article which was dated earlier than yours is different.

If you read my article, which is probably safe to say that you did not, explained that the number of federal jobs has increased (slightly) under Obama but the overall number of government jobs (including city/state) has decreased.

The article goes on to explain that many of these state/city government jobs were the recipient's of Obama's stimulus plan and that once the funding stopped, these government jobs were eliminated, which indicates that the stimulus spending was a waste.

Reading is Fundamental, but apparently not in your case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top