Obamacare hasn't led to an increase in "part-timing", says Urban Institute study

[shira]

Oh, gee, another right-wing, anti-Obamacare talking point determined to be BS.

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf415284

Little Evidence of the ACA Increasing Part-Time Work So Far

There has been considerable public policy debate and media attention over the employment effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and one of the most contentious issues has been whether the ACA has, or will, increase part-time work at the expense of full-time employment. This brief provides new evidence on the question using the latest available data from the Current Population Survey (CPS).

We find no evidence that the ACA had already started increasing part-time work before 2014. We find a small increase in part-time work in 2014 beyond what would be expected at this point in the economic recovery based on prior experience since 2000. This increase in part-time work is fully attributable to an increase in involuntary part-time work. The increase in involuntary part-time work, however, is not specific to the category of part-time work defined by the ACA (i.e., less than 30 hours per week), but applies to part-time work more broadly (also between 30 and 34 hours per week). Moreover, transitions between full-time and part-time work in 2014 are in line with historic patterns. These findings suggest that the increase in part-time work in 2014 is not ACA related, but more likely due to a slower than normal recovery of full-time jobs following the Great Recession.
.
.
.
The CBO addressed the issue directly by undertaking a systematic analysis of the evidence, announcing in February of this year that: “In CBO’s judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time work has increased as a result of the ACA.” The CBO also acknowledged that the “current lack of direct evidence may not be very informative about the ultimate effects of the ACA.”

Similarly, previous studies have found little evidence of a shift toward part-time work in aggregate data. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco examined CPS data since 1976 and showed that the recent trend in part-time work and its current level are not unusual relative to past experience. The study concluded that the effect of the ACA on part-time work (up to June 2013) had been small and would likely remain small in the future.

But - just like the Second Coming - I'm sure the right will tell us to wait, wait, wait. Someday, the part-timing of America will happen. You just gotta believe.

 

[thraashman]

Jeez man, what are you doing here? You TRYING to kill Tea Party people? You KNOW they're allergic to facts!

 

[cubby1223]

Jeez man, what are you doing here? You TRYING to kill Tea Party people? You KNOW they're allergic to facts!

It's more than just "tea party people" who believe their recently reduced hours are due to Obamacare.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Oh look, the Death Panels now have someone to keep them company,.. as they wait to be rolled out or implemented or strike back or whatever the alarmist expect to happen with them.

 

[Greenman]

That says that the ACA didn't increase part time work before 2014. I thought 2014 was the start date for ACA mandated insurance?

 

[michal1980]

lol.

The large employee mandate has been postponed.

 

[shira]

lol.

The large employee mandate has been postponed.

Oh, I see. So all large employers are waiting until January 1, 2015 to change the status of their workers from full time to part time? None of the right-wing-predicted huge number of big corporations who will be making this change are already transitioning their employees? But a sunami of part-timers will hit on January 1, 2015? That's your argument?

 

[fskimospy]

lol.

The large employee mandate has been postponed.

In other threads when part time workers increased we heard it was because of the ACA.

When told that the ACA employer mandate hadn't been implemented yet, conservatives said that employers were adding part-timers in anticipation.

Now that a study comes out and says that's not the case, conservatives pretend they never said that to begin with.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Shhhh....I'm basking in their self-righteous glory.

 

[schmuckley]

Oh,so Obamacare is good? NOT

 

[Spungo]

Obamacare isn't the cause of the problem. The US is still in recession, so of course most new jobs are going to be minimum wage part time or temporary.

btw, Canada is experiencing the exact same problem.
canada is part time too

 

[theeedude]

Obamacare isn't the cause of the problem. The US is still in recession, so of course most new jobs are going to be minimum wage part time or temporary.

btw, Canada is experiencing the exact same problem.
canada is part time too

Obamacare is ruining Canada too? Oh noes.

 

[fskimospy]

Obamacare isn't the cause of the problem. The US is still in recession, so of course most new jobs are going to be minimum wage part time or temporary.

btw, Canada is experiencing the exact same problem.
canada is part time too

This is a deeply, DEEPLY misleading chart. You will notice that both trend lines are proportions. Since the number of full time jobs is so much greater than the number of part time ones, the way the chart is made makes small numbers of part time jobs look larger than adding large numbers of full time ones.

Your post and this chart makes it look like a lot more part time positions have been made in the recovery than full time ones when the reality is precisely the opposite. Either someone lied to you and you didn't notice or you're attempting to mislead people here.

This is a very instructive post though, it provides a great example of how to lie with statistics.

 

[werepossum]

I think it's not an increase in part time jobs, but rather a cut in hours of jobs that already are or would be part time. I've seen a lot of people in part time work whose hours used to be above the new lower maximum for non-benefit paying jobs receiving cuts to their hours which now make them below the new lower maximum, thereby avoiding paying them insurance. Logic suggests that if a company would use part time help to avoid providing insurance, the company would have used part time help anyway to avoid providing other benefits.

 

[michal1980]

Oh, I see. So all large employers are waiting until January 1, 2015 to change the status of their workers from full time to part time? None of the right-wing-predicted huge number of big corporations who will be making this change are already transitioning their employees? But a sunami of part-timers will hit on January 1, 2015? That's your argument?

In other threads when part time workers increased we heard it was because of the ACA.

When told that the ACA employer mandate hadn't been implemented yet, conservatives said that employers were adding part-timers in anticipation.

Now that a study comes out and says that's not the case, conservatives pretend they never said that to begin with.

So when presented with facts you choose to ignore them.

 

[D-Man]

I think it's not an increase in part time jobs, but rather a cut in hours of jobs that already are or would be part time. I've seen a lot of people in part time work whose hours used to be above the new lower maximum for non-benefit paying jobs receiving cuts to their hours which now make them below the new lower maximum, thereby avoiding paying them insurance. Logic suggests that if a company would use part time help to avoid providing insurance, the company would have used part time help anyway to avoid providing other benefits.

Bingo

 

[Matt1970]

The business mandate isn't even in full effect and we are starting to measure the effects?

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's not an increase in part time jobs, but rather a cut in hours of jobs that already are or would be part time. I've seen a lot of people in part time work whose hours used to be above the new lower maximum for non-benefit paying jobs receiving cuts to their hours which now make them below the new lower maximum, thereby avoiding paying them insurance. Logic suggests that if a company would use part time help to avoid providing insurance, the company would have used part time help anyway to avoid providing other benefits.

How do you explain the fact that the average hours worked had increased since passage of the ACA?

 

[fskimospy]

So when presented with facts you choose to ignore them.

Are you drunk this early? That's the only way this makes sense.

 

[Tombstone1881]

But but but all those record profits enjoyed by the corporations are going to "trickle down" to the workers, lifting all boats, right?

At least that's what we've been hearing from the right for the last 30 years but we are all still waiting to see that theory materialize.

Instead, the corporations cut pay, hours and benefits, which is still more like "trickle up" economics. It's just GREED, plain and simple, and it will always be there. We could wait another 30 years and still see nothing trickle down.

That's one of the reasons why I can never figure out why somebody who needs to work for a living would ever vote for any republicans for any office!

 

[sportage]

If Obamacare was the evil that republicans claim it to be, then maybe the death panels and part timers would be true. But Obamacare isn't really that big of a deal to cause such a topsy turvy in the insurance field as was feared.
Lets be real here...
Obamacare is nothing more than more of private insurance, the same-o same-o system we have had all along, with a twist and a few regulations added in.
Instead of (do i really need to explain this, again?) instead of employer sourced insurance thru major insurance companies like blue cross, what was added was the very same established insurance companies simply "pooled" into exchanges of insurance providers that deal directly with the customer bypassing the employer.

So instead of getting blue cross from your employer, you deal directly with blue cross or any one of the providers taking part in the pool.
And as with employer grouped plans that lower costs for the customer, we now have non employer based grouped "pools" of the very same insurance providers that can also save money and lower costs.

Nothing really has changed except that the employer has been taken out of the equation.
For those previously uninsured that could not get insured thru their employer.
Customers still deal with the very same insurance for profit providers in Obamacare, just as before.
And because so many low wage companies can not or do not offer company health insurance, or more so affordable company health insurance, that low waged worker can now go directly to the exchange i.e. insurance pool and buy a plan.

No government takeover. No universal insurance. Even the Obamacare website is unnecessary since customers can go directly to the exchange for their insurance plan.
All that the Obamacare website did or does is redirect the user into their local exchange.
You can do that on your own. You do not need the website.

So in all reality, thats about it.
No government takeover.
Nothing new except for the exchanges and insurance pools.
Customers can get insured outside of employment, or when self employed, or that low waged worker, where their employer does not offer affordable employee insurance plans.

So where did the idea of death panels come from?
Or all the other nightmare crapola that republicans pushed so hard, that never materialized?
Ya think someone was maybe pulling your leg?
Acting not in your best interest?
Ticked off with that black man in the whitehouse?
You do realize republicans were pissing down your neck while trying to convince you it was raining, as was once quoted in a Clint Eastwood movie.

And more so, if republicans lie about this, what else are they pissing down your neck about?
In hopes that you will believe it is the rain running down your neck?

This should be a huge clue and a good lesson for the confused and easily mislead on how to vote come this November.
You can vote for a democrat that have had your best interest at heart all along.
Or you can vote for more pissing down your neck.
And believe me, republicans have plenty of piss left to go around.
The Koch brothers alone spend billions drilling for piss every single day.
They want to piss you into believing medicare is bad.
They want to piss you into believing social security should be privatized into the 401K scheme left to the whims of the stock market.
They want to piss you into believing they actually care about veterans. The same veterans that Mitt Romney labeled as "the takers" of society.
And they want to piss you into believing voter suppression is a good thing.
Yep! Plenty of pissing down your neck to convince you of anything.
And they want to piss you into believing they have a better plan than Obama's insurance pools. They won't tell you what the plan is, and God forbid yo should ever find out.
So exactly how pissed off will you be come this November 2014?

 

[werepossum]

How do you explain the fact that the average hours worked had increased since passage of the ACA?

Should be readily apparent that the number of hours worked is dependent on many more things than the ACA. As the economy improves, more hours must be worked to meet the demand. Some people who were moved to part time status will return to full time status because the intent behind the reduction was to balance payroll with workload, not dodge benefits. Others who got maybe one day a week may now be working three days a week in order to keep someone else from meeting the mandatory benefit level.

Take a typical janitorial service working seven part time people, six for 34 hours a week and two for six hours a week by coming in on Sunday to help buff floors, in addition to one full time person. (Anyone working late and weekends and spending some time talking with the cleaning staff will recognize this as a very common situation.) A straight transfer of hours would result in six people working 29 hours and the two Sunday-only people picking up an extra 15 hours each, for a total of 21 hours each. There is no net change in hours worked. With me so far?

Yet assuming the person working 34 hours a week is better at his cleaning job - which he does every day - than the guy who only helps buff floors and does not do the cleaning job unless someone is out seems reasonable, no? Every job has required skills, no matter how low, and these skills like all skills are enhanced by using them. If so, then there will be a net increase in hours for the same workload. This seems counter-intuitive, but clearly could still be cheaper for the employer than working fewer hours but providing six people health insurance, or paying the government to avoid this.

Even if we assume that anyone can do a low wage, no benefits part time job equally well, employers can still work more total hours to meet an increased work load while working some or all individual part time employees less. It only requires hiring more part time employees while keeping the hours worked under the new minimum. The ACA even recognizes this incentive, as witnessed in the calculations of equivalent full time workers, because the significant additional costs imposed by the ACA impose a hugely disproportional cost on the hours above the new maximum for part time work. Recognizing that is in the employer's best interests to keep employees' hours within the new part time limit is just common sense. Therefore the law has mechanisms to discourage this behavior since it doesn't just save the employer money, it also defeats the intent of the new law.

 

[Spungo]

But but but all those record profits enjoyed by the corporations are going to "trickle down" to the workers, lifting all boats, right?
.....
That's one of the reasons why I can never figure out why somebody who needs to work for a living would ever vote for any republicans for any office!

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but Obama is a democrat. This is what 6 years of democrats does: wealth inequality at levels not seen since the 1920's

After 6 years of democrats, the economy has not improved at all

growing pessimism about the economy
This leads to a very obvious question. Why does the Obama administration try to tell people there is a recovery? People don't need to be told the economy is getting better. They would see it in their everyday lives, they would have more job opportunities, more hours to work, higher wages. None of those are true right now.

At least Obama's banker buddies are having a good time. Being able to borrow at 0% interest to buy stocks has pushed the stock market to all time highs.

Thank god loans never need to be paid back. Stocks will remain at a permanently high plateau.

 

[Sea Ray]

If Obamacare's so great then let's see Dems like Mary Landrieu run on it this November. I doubt you'll hear many Dems up for election bragging that the legislation is so great. At best they'll be running on adjusting its flaws but my guess is they'd just as soon not bring it up.

The truth is that Obama has postponed it again and again along with granting countless waivers so the painful parts of it don't hit while he's around. There's no doubt that it did not accomplish its two biggest goals:

1) Lower health care premiums

2) Provide universal coverage

 

[fskimospy]

Should be readily apparent that the number of hours worked is dependent on many more things than the ACA. As the economy improves, more hours must be worked to meet the demand. Some people who were moved to part time status will return to full time status because the intent behind the reduction was to balance payroll with workload, not dodge benefits. Others who got maybe one day a week may now be working three days a week in order to keep someone else from meeting the mandatory benefit level.

Take a typical janitorial service working seven part time people, six for 34 hours a week and two for six hours a week by coming in on Sunday to help buff floors, in addition to one full time person. (Anyone working late and weekends and spending some time talking with the cleaning staff will recognize this as a very common situation.) A straight transfer of hours would result in six people working 29 hours and the two Sunday-only people picking up an extra 15 hours each, for a total of 21 hours each. There is no net change in hours worked. With me so far?

Yet assuming the person working 34 hours a week is better at his cleaning job - which he does every day - than the guy who only helps buff floors and does not do the cleaning job unless someone is out seems reasonable, no? Every job has required skills, no matter how low, and these skills like all skills are enhanced by using them. If so, then there will be a net increase in hours for the same workload. This seems counter-intuitive, but clearly could still be cheaper for the employer than working fewer hours but providing six people health insurance, or paying the government to avoid this.

Even if we assume that anyone can do a low wage, no benefits part time job equally well, employers can still work more total hours to meet an increased work load while working some or all individual part time employees less. It only requires hiring more part time employees while keeping the hours worked under the new minimum. The ACA even recognizes this incentive, as witnessed in the calculations of equivalent full time workers, because the significant additional costs imposed by the ACA impose a hugely disproportional cost on the hours above the new maximum for part time work. Recognizing that is in the employer's best interests to keep employees' hours within the new part time limit is just common sense. Therefore the law has mechanisms to discourage this behavior since it doesn't just save the employer money, it also defeats the intent of the new law.

Sure any of those things are possible, but where's the evidence?