General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 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 mediasee: Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Fox Newsyou 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/
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)In the meantime - a pleasure to give you a rec for stopping nonsense in it's tracks.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Cha
(297,323 posts)on both sides.. nothing to do with reality and everything to do with profiteering agendas.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473998
Scuba
(53,475 posts)that has EVERYTHING to do with it! Good post!
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)sheshe2
(83,792 posts)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.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)econoclast
(543 posts)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)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)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)"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)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)"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.
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)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)"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)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)Those are not the BLS numbers. I posted the numbers directly from BLS, and you are ignoring them.
econoclast
(543 posts)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:
ProSense
(116,464 posts)All Employees: Total nonfarm (PAYEMS)
2014-01: 137,499 Thousands of Persons
The data from 2008 to 2014:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rYZ
econoclast
(543 posts)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)"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.
econoclast
(543 posts)Find Lns12500000 and post it
Response to econoclast (Reply #12)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and I can tell you, you are SPOT ON, without even looking at the numbers (which I did).
econoclast
(543 posts)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?