Jared Bernstein and Paul Van De Water have an interesting op-ed at Politico in which they make the case that the PPACA isn’t killing jobs as the president’s political opponents claim:
Recent data provide scant evidence that health reform is causing a significant shift toward part-time work.
The share of part-time jobs rose sharply during the recession, as it always does — employers always cut workers’ hours in downturns. Here’s the question: Has this share continued to grow as we approach the start of the ACA’s employer mandate, which was recently pushed back a year to 2015?
The answer is no. Part-time workers represent 19.0 percent of total employment — below the post-recession peak of 20.0 percent and exactly the same as a year ago.
and they produce a neat graph from the BLS that illustrates that, sure enough, the percentage of involuntary part-time workers relative to all workers has declined a bit since 2009.
I’ve also seen statistics (which I won’t bother to dredge up) which show that quite a substantial portion of the part-time jobs created have been created by the government. I don’t see that in quite the same way that those who’ve mentioned it typically do—as support for the harm that the sequester is doing to the economy. I see it more as a move intended to add more government workers without running afoul of hiring freezes, etc.
Still, is killing jobs the only question about the PPACA? Isn’t whether it’s reducing the number of jobs being created, if only due to uncertainty, just as important a question? And one that the approach that Mssrs. Bernstein and De Water take in their analysis doesn’t answer?
I also don’t think that there needs to be some Unified Field Theory of Slow Job Creation. A percentage point here or a percentage point there and before you know it net job creation is just too small for a robust economy.
This, from Spencer England shows that part time positions for govt work have increased, while they have been decreasing in the private sector. The opposite of what you would expect if Obamacare was pushing people into part-time positions. I went and looked through BLS and FRED stats. Spencer’s data uses part time for economic reasons, which I think is probably the correct metric. However, if you look at unemployed for noneconomic reasons, there is an increase that is slightly larger than accounted for by the govt increase. So, I think this is largely an increase caused by govt part time, but I dont enough about BLS methodology to rule out the possibility it is more than that.
http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/obamacarethe-sequester-and-part-time-employment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Hzoh+%28angrybearblog.com%29
Isnt killing jobs speculation? I can also speculate that it will create jobs because people will be able to leave their current jobs to start new businesses w/o fear that they wont be able to obtain insurance.
Steve
Now you know why I have such disdain for academic studies and amateur statistical analyses. A few posts ago you cited Megan McArdle. The only thing of relevance is those actually making decisions – now.
Part timers have been increasing for a long time now. (I would argue because of the several decades long increase in benefits comp, and making it a variable cost, enabling a nimble reaction to economic reality.) But what the articles and academic studies/stats conveniently (and I would say intentionally) ignore is not gross statistics, but recent trends. ObamaCare has been an inflection point in temp hiring. Ask anyone who hires. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 85% of new to much more. Doesn’t matter. Its huge.
People can stick their academic arguments about “elasticities” etc in their arse. Its not measurable in a scientific sense. This is in the realm of the empirical.
Deny if you want. But its a cruel blow to the underemployed.
steve, I think the proper metric here is total part-time jobs regardless of reason. Whether an employer decides to create a new part-time job or change a full-time job is dependent on that employer’s belief that they can find someone to fill the job. Arguably, the more people that are willing to take a part-time job, the easier it is for the employer to use part-time jobs. Someone who has a part time job because they couldn’t find a full-time job might not be the ideal employee — they may either be disgruntled or will quit shortly. But really, since the question is about the employer’s motivation, I don’t think it matters what the employee’s motivation is.
There have been some recent discussion about whether and why women are leaving the workforce. I don’t know if anybody’s looked at that from a part-time labor perspective, but some of the reasons for women reducing their presence in the labor force, might be noneconomic, such as spending more time with children, something that might be obtainable through part-time.
BTW/ I get why some might focus on the economically-distressed part-time worker, since that might be where the greatest harm might be.
Why do Bernstein and the other guy rely on the household survey to support their assertion? The employer survey would be more useful to determine whether those employers are shifting their employment requirements.
My guess is that it supports their claim better.
I would tend to agree.