PDA

View Full Version : Harvard: 95% Of All New Jobs Created During Obama Reign Were Part-Time, Or Contract


Kahn
December 21st, 2016, 02:53 PM
Headline should read: Harvard & Princeton: Nearly 95% Of All New Jobs Created During Obama Reign Were Part-Time, Or Contract

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.
The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.
Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.
The outgoing president believes his administration was a net positive for workers, however.

"Since I signed Obamacare into law (in 2010), our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs," said Obama, during his farewell press conference last Friday, covered by Investing.com.

(Source (http://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057))

---

Thoughts?

BlackParadePixie
December 21st, 2016, 02:58 PM
94% ??? That seems like alot.

Vlerchan
December 21st, 2016, 03:57 PM
First point worth nothing is that the opening claim is misleading. In Katz and Kreuger (2016) it counts the numbers registered as in alternative employment increased from 10% - 15% between 2005 and 2015. That information can't be used to make a claim about a certain proportion of jobs created being alternative jobs. Odds are that it's rather a case that certain sectors transferred from one contract to another.

This isn't surprising. Technological change is skill-biased and is having a negative impact on low-skill employment opportunities. Thus the supply of low-skilled labour has risen and since such labour can't compete on wages - because there's a minimum wage - competetion occurs with regards to conditions.

It's worth noting that alternative employment includes employment that is 'on-call'. That - I imagine - is the basis behind the rise with regards to healthcare. There has also been a noted rise in the number of adjuncts hired at universities - in particular in humanities - so that might explain some proportian of the alternative hiring in education. I have no idea about other levels.

Interesting nonetheless.

Porpoise101
December 21st, 2016, 05:00 PM
Well I think this makes sense a little. By the time Obama acceded to the Presidency, the Recession was in full swing. I'd wager that the majority of those who lost their jobs initially were less-skilled, as they have less value to firms. Then, when things began to improve again, the companies were able to re-hire or find new workers to refill those positions.

Also, as a result of automation, it is believed that this is going to accelerate the growth of 'gig' jobs instead of 'job' jobs. This could explain the 5% increase which was stated in the article. This is because stationary positions are becoming better filled by machinery and capital rather than human labor, which is adaptable and can fill in intermittent positions.

DriveAlive
December 21st, 2016, 06:41 PM
First point worth nothing is that the opening claim is misleading. In Katz and Kreuger (2016) it counts the numbers registered as in alternative employment increased from 10% - 15% between 2005 and 2015. That information can't be used to make a claim about a certain proportion of jobs created being alternative jobs. Odds are that it's rather a case that certain sectors transferred from one contract to another.

This isn't surprising. Technological change is skill-biased and is having a negative impact on low-skill employment opportunities. Thus the supply of low-skilled labour has risen and since such labour can't compete on wages - because there's a minimum wage - competetion occurs with regards to conditions.

It's worth noting that alternative employment includes employment that is 'on-call'. That - I imagine - is the basis behind the rise with regards to healthcare. There has also been a noted rise in the number of adjuncts hired at universities - in particular in humanities - so that might explain some proportian of the alternative hiring in education. I have no idea about other levels.

Interesting nonetheless.
I know we have talked about this before, but could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say that "such labour cannot compete on wages...because there is a minimum wage"

Vlerchan
December 21st, 2016, 08:57 PM
I know we have talked about this before, but could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say that "such labour cannot compete on wages...because there is a minimum wage"
Under typical market conditions, if the supply of a good rises, then the price of that good will fall. If the price of the good can't fall, surpluses will occur. The price of labour is equal to some wage component, W, plus some non-wage component, nW. If the wage component is fixed - as it would be under a condition where it is bounded to the lower bound, has fallen to the minimum wage - then a reduction in the price of the non-wage component will occur, and surplus' will be avoided.

In this scenario, workers might have bid down to less preferable contracting conditions, since competing on the price of the wage-component, or wages, is restricted.

Whilst this ignores complications such as monopsony power, search-frictions, and the rest of modern theory, it still holds, basically. (Or, at the least, I can't think of a reason offhand that it might not hold).

Uniquemind
December 22nd, 2016, 12:58 AM
First point worth nothing is that the opening claim is misleading. In Katz and Kreuger (2016) it counts the numbers registered as in alternative employment increased from 10% - 15% between 2005 and 2015. That information can't be used to make a claim about a certain proportion of jobs created being alternative jobs. Odds are that it's rather a case that certain sectors transferred from one contract to another.

This isn't surprising. Technological change is skill-biased and is having a negative impact on low-skill employment opportunities. Thus the supply of low-skilled labour has risen and since such labour can't compete on wages - because there's a minimum wage - competetion occurs with regards to conditions.

It's worth noting that alternative employment includes employment that is 'on-call'. That - I imagine - is the basis behind the rise with regards to healthcare. There has also been a noted rise in the number of adjuncts hired at universities - in particular in humanities - so that might explain some proportian of the alternative hiring in education. I have no idea about other levels.

Interesting nonetheless.

I am in agreement with the above statement.






Headline should read: Harvard & Princeton: Nearly 95% Of All New Jobs Created During Obama Reign Were Part-Time, Or Contract



(Source (http://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057))

---

Thoughts?

Work in fields like education (Kindergarten through 12th grade) declined because a majority of red-state governments were pushing "budget cuts" which chopped off funding for their state's education, which in turn caused teacher layoffs and hiring freezes.

To place blame of the federal government and the president in office, on decisions that are partisan platform rhetoric based is a fallacy and a misappropriation of blame.

I, a student remember the budget cuts in the K-12 school system (I think it was 2009-2013), it was bad we had reduced school weeks and everything, tutoring available in past years just dried up.

I paid a good $600 to get outside private tutoring for math on what should've been a normal school day but was reduced or cut entirely from the school week.

Let me also state that this was in a blue state which had cash flow but still felt the cash flow problems of the early Obama presidency because of the recession.


My parents are also in high-tech, and so we definitely saw the "contract/gig" economy, but that was already a trend that began when I was very young.

I think 2005 is my earliest recollection of such conversations between my parents at the dinner table, but job-in and job-out was definitely a thing with my family, and luckily the cash flow was maintained but it was a steep learning curve because every tech company had proprietary stuff to learn only to have it be obsolete in the next job you got.

So this is well-before Obamacare was even law, so I reject all arguments saying Obamacare slowed the economy down.


From my family's perspective well into 2009, before Obamacare healthcare was costing $2600 or higher a month, between jobs on COBRA (A President Nixon law), and with Obamacare healthcare costs got lowered for the household back to the hundreds of dollars per month rather than thousands.

So when I hear other people badmouth the law, I'm like "please Obamacare totally worked as a cost savings measure, the healthcare problem is just that big of a problem that even hundreds of dollars is expensive for many families".



(background: I had bad asthma as a kid, and so before Obamacare, healthcare providers would try to exclude me from coverage, and well my mom too because she had pregnancy complications with me, and the insurance companies tried to call that a pre-existing conditions, and even if we as a family succeeded in getting offered a coverage plan, the costs were very high like I cited above).

So if they can't deny you, they'll dangle a carrot cost contract per month until you can't afford the carrot anymore. (That's the pricing you out of the market tactic, legally speaking not a denial but in practical terms denied coverage).