Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 09:43 AM Feb 2014

The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

A falsifiable claim, falsified

Derek Thompson

If you've been paying attention to a certain slice of the financial media—see: Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Fox News—you know for a fact that Obama and his health care law have tag-teamed with global economic trends to drive America inexorably toward a part-time economy.

This is a testable claim. So let's test it.

The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.



Okay, but one year is just one year! Let's keep looking.

<...>

Okay, well, raw numbers can be deceiving. After all, the labor force has declined since 2010. So let's graph these part-time workers as a share of the labor force. Surely that will show a rising line...



- more -

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/the-spectacular-myth-of-obamas-part-time-america-in-5-graphs/283674/



29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs (Original Post) ProSense Feb 2014 OP
Will read in depth later JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #1
Thanks. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #2
Thank you for this.. President Obama's getting idiocy Cha Feb 2014 #3
Here's another interesting piece ProSense Feb 2014 #5
So weird that the "liberal media" would get this wrong. Perhaps this has something to do with it .. Scuba Feb 2014 #4
I would say Rex Feb 2014 #10
K & R Liberal_Dog Feb 2014 #6
There is also this. sheshe2 Feb 2014 #7
Yup. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #8
Thanks, ProSense. You're the best of the debunkers here. Facts over fiction. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #9
KnR Hekate Feb 2014 #11
Yep. Almost back to 2006 levels for full time employment econoclast Feb 2014 #12
Here: ProSense Feb 2014 #13
yes, I saw, that was why I posted econoclast Feb 2014 #14
Those ProSense Feb 2014 #16
Actually, no... econoclast Feb 2014 #17
Calculated Risk and the EPI use thd BLS numbers. ProSense Feb 2014 #18
Nope. Numbers exactly correct. econoclast Feb 2014 #19
You're now obfuscating. ProSense Feb 2014 #20
Go to the St Louis Fed and LOOK econoclast Feb 2014 #21
You: "They come from the St Louis Fed who gets then directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistic" ProSense Feb 2014 #22
Oh, but they are econoclast Feb 2014 #24
From your source: ProSense Feb 2014 #23
As i said before econoclast Feb 2014 #25
You are conflating numbers ProSense Feb 2014 #28
You are on the St. Loius fed site econoclast Feb 2014 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author ProSense Feb 2014 #15
I actually conduct one of these surveys Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #27
Question.... econoclast Feb 2014 #29

JustAnotherGen

(31,828 posts)
1. Will read in depth later
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 09:45 AM
Feb 2014

In the meantime - a pleasure to give you a rec for stopping nonsense in it's tracks.

Cha

(297,323 posts)
3. Thank you for this.. President Obama's getting idiocy
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 10:20 AM
Feb 2014

on both sides.. nothing to do with reality and everything to do with profiteering agendas.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
4. So weird that the "liberal media" would get this wrong. Perhaps this has something to do with it ..
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 11:02 AM
Feb 2014

sheshe2

(83,792 posts)
7. There is also this.
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 02:14 PM
Feb 2014

Many full time workers are forced to pick up part time jobs, on top of their workload. Just to make ends meet, they are working 60 plus hours a week. A working wage would help. It's past time.

Thanks PS.

econoclast

(543 posts)
12. Yep. Almost back to 2006 levels for full time employment
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 10:35 PM
Feb 2014

As of the most recent data released by the BLS for January 2014, there were 117,656,000 full time employed in the US. Last time we had this many full time employed was December 2008 when we had 117,096,000 and were heading down to a low of 110,559,000 in December 2010. Last time we hit 117,656,000 on the way up was November 2005 when we had full time employed of 117,580,000. All we have to do is create another 4,200,000 full time jobs and we will be back to the pre-recession high point of 121,875,000 full time employed in November 2007.

?g=rY7
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rY7

So, with 117,656,000 full time employed, we are back to full time employment levels of December 2008. Unfortunately there are over 12,000,000 more people age 20 and over ( the kind of people you might expect to be employed full time ) today than there were in December 2008.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
13. Here:
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 10:47 PM
Feb 2014
When will payroll employment exceed the pre-recession peak?

by Bill McBride

Payroll employment is getting close to the pre-recession peak...this doesn't include population growth and new entrants into the workforce (the workforce has continued to grow), but reaching new highs in employment will be a significant milestone in the recovery.

The graph below shows both total non-farm payroll (blue, left axis) and private payroll (red, right axis) since January 2007. Both total non-farm and private payroll employment peaked in January 2008.

The dashed line is the pre-recession peak.



The pre-recession peak for total non-farm payroll employment was 138.365 million. Currently there are 137.499 million total non-farm payroll jobs, or 866 thousand fewer than the pre-recession peak...The pre-recession peak for private payroll employment was 115.977 million. Currently there are 115.686 million total non-farm payroll jobs, or 291 thousand fewer than the pre-recession peak. It seems likely private sector employment that will be at a new high by March.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/02/when-will-payroll-employment-exceed-pre.html


econoclast

(543 posts)
14. yes, I saw, that was why I posted
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 11:00 PM
Feb 2014

Looking at FULL TIME employment - since there are so few part-timers I assume you want to focus on FULL TIME - we are 4,200,000 full time short of the pre-recession high point of 121,875,000 full time employed in November 2007. 117,656,000 full time employed today ... 121,875,000 full time employed in November 2007. 4.2 Million to go. Then another 12 million or so to make up for the additional population growth since 2007.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
16. Those
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 11:16 PM
Feb 2014

"All we have to do is create another 4,200,000 full time jobs and we will be back to the pre-recession high point of 121,875,000 full time employed in November 2007."

...numbers are off. The pre-recession high was 138.3 million and the number is currently at 137.4 million, short about 866,000.

To get back to full employment related to population growth would require about 7.6 million jobs.



http://www.epi.org/blog/december-2007-level-employment-benchmark/

econoclast

(543 posts)
17. Actually, no...
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 09:28 AM
Feb 2014

The numbers I quoted are spot on. They come from the St Louis Fed who gets then directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Remember, we are talking about FULLTIME employment. You can look them up at the link in my initial post above. BLS Household Survey ( the survey used to calculate the unemployment rate ) data series is Employed, Usually Work Full Time
(Data series LNS12500000)
Actually, I'm fairly certain that you Did look them up at the link. Then you decided that the actual St Louis Fed/ BLS numbers didn't fit your narrative so you had to find some other series (NOT just FullTime employees) you liked better.

Me, I prefer to face the facts head on. We will never be able to fix the problem if we hide our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

So I stand by the facts. Once we create an additional 4.2 million jobs we will get back to the pre-recession peak of 121,875,000 full time employed from 2007.



ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. Calculated Risk and the EPI use thd BLS numbers.
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 09:35 AM
Feb 2014

"So I stand by the facts. Once we create an additional 4.2 million jobs we will get back to the pre-recession peak of 121,875,000 full time employed from 2007."

Your numbers are wrong.

Job Openings and Employment

The number of job openings, or unfilled jobs, is an important measure of the unmet demand for labor. In the months before the start of the recent recession, the number of job openings, which reached a pre-recession peak of 4.8 million in March 2007, began to decline even while nonfarm employment continued to increase to a peak of 138 million in January 2008 (the month after the start of the recession). During the recession, the number of job openings decreased 44 percent while employment declined 5 percent over that same period.

A month after the official end of the most recent recession, in July 2009, the number of job openings declined to a series low of 2.1 million. Since then, the number of job openings has trended upwards and it has been over 3.0 million each month from May to October 2011. Employment reached its recent low of 129 million in February 2010 and has since increased to 132 million.

http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf

econoclast

(543 posts)
19. Nope. Numbers exactly correct.
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:00 AM
Feb 2014

Is there something about Full Time employment that you are failing to grasp? The numbers are for Full Time employment and come from the very same source as the unemployment rate. Do you think the unemployment rate is wrong? If not, then you have to give credence to the Full Time Employment numbers that come from that very same data set.

The facts speak for themselves. Look them up.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. You're now obfuscating.
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:02 AM
Feb 2014

"Is there something about Full Time employment that you are failing to grasp? "

Clearly, there is something about pre-recession peak and full employment that you're unable to "grasp": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473838#post16

econoclast

(543 posts)
21. Go to the St Louis Fed and LOOK
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:09 AM
Feb 2014

Data series LNS12500000. Household survey. Employed, usually work full time. In thousands:

2007-10-01 121378
2007-11-01 121875
2007-12-01 121609


2014-01-01 117656

Difference 4.2 million

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
22. You: "They come from the St Louis Fed who gets then directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistic"
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:13 AM
Feb 2014

Those are not the BLS numbers. I posted the numbers directly from BLS, and you are ignoring them.

econoclast

(543 posts)
24. Oh, but they are
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:31 AM
Feb 2014

FRED Graph Observations
Federal Reserve Economic Data
Link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2
Help: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/help-faq
Economic Research Division
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LNS12500000 Employed, Usually Work Full Time (LNS12500000), Thousands of Persons, Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Monthly
observation_date LNS12500000

Series ID: LNS12500000
Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Release: Employment Situation
Seasonal Adjustment: Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Monthly
Units: Thousands of Persons
Date Range: 1968-01-01 to 2014-01-01
Last Updated: 2014-02-07 09:36:22-06
Notes:

econoclast

(543 posts)
25. As i said before
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:36 AM
Feb 2014

Are you mot grasping the difference between Total and FullTime? I am quoting Full Time employees. You are looking at Total.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
28. You are conflating numbers
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:57 AM
Feb 2014

"Are you mot grasping the difference between Total and FullTime? I am quoting Full Time employees. You are looking at Total. "

You are posting a number related to employees in response to job creation. The total number of jobs is about job openings. The OP is about full-time vs. part-time job creation. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

The number of people who work full time can change, as people drop out of the workforce.

The total is the total number of jobs. The BLS shows the number of jobs are almost back to pre-recession levels. Taking population growth into consideration means that there is a 7.6 million job shortfall. That is the reality.

Response to econoclast (Reply #12)

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
27. I actually conduct one of these surveys
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:49 AM
Feb 2014

and I can tell you, you are SPOT ON, without even looking at the numbers (which I did).

econoclast

(543 posts)
29. Question....
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 11:27 AM
Feb 2014

I have a question about how the survey is conducted, if you don't mind. You are counted as in the labor force if you dont have a job but are "actively looking for work". How has the i internet impacted this? If i spend all my job search looking at Monster etc and other online sources but never actually filled out an application somewhere, am i classified as actively looking for work, and hence in the labor force?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Spectacular Myth of O...