Ugh. To Zuckerman, work is increasingly catch-as-catch-can, with firms relying more “on independent contractors and part-time, temporary and seasonal employees.” He also blames the Affordable Care Act (”ObamaCare”), which has been criticized as discouraging full-time hiring. Companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers don’t have to provide health insurance; nor are part-time employees (defined as working less than 30 hours a week) entitled to company coverage. These are powerful deterrents to adding full-time workers.
On some counts, Zuckerman’s critique is overwrought.
For starters, it belittles genuine job progress. Gains since the recession’s trough in 2009, though inadequate, are still substantial. “Companies [now] seem to be holding on to their employees,” said economist Beth Ann Bovino of Standard & Poor’s. Initial weekly unemployment claims peaked at about 650,000; now they’re about half that, 334,000 in a recent week, she said. The official unemployment rate has dropped from 10 percent in October 2009 to 7.6 percent. A broader measure (called the U-6), which includes involuntary part-time workers and people out of the labor force who want a job, is down to 14.3 percent from 17.1 percent.
Nor is there much evidence that, in the recovery, part-time workers have represented a disproportionate share of new jobs. Economist Scott Anderson of the Bank of the West analyzed employment gains since January 2009 and found that in June part-time jobs accounted for 19.5 percent of total employment, “exactly the average share . . . since January 2009.” Part-time jobs sometimes surge for a few months, he noted, but then the rapid gains have been reversed.
Finally, Zuckerman doesn’t acknowledge that most part-time jobs are desired by workers. Of the 27 million part-time workers in June, slightly more than 19 million were voluntary: students splitting jobs and studies; retirees wanting extra income or human contact; and parents juggling the demands of jobs and child-rearing.
Still, the core of Zuckerman’s argument stands. This recovery, compared to its post-World War II predecessors, has been exceptionally weak. The number of part-time workers who would like full-time jobs (defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as 35 hours a week or more) has dropped very slowly. In May 2009, it peaked at 9.1 million; as of last month, it was 8.2 million. Moreover, the level was almost twice as high as before the recession — 4.2 million in December 2006. As Zuckerman argued, this suggests many companies are quietly shifting employment practices.
Firms seek to minimize fixed labor costs by using contractors, “temps” and part-timers. Obamacare intensifies the pressures, because the incentives against hiring full-time workers are so obvious. A survey by the New York Federal Reserve of manufacturers in the state found that 6.5 percent had already refrained from hiring or had fired workers to stay below the 50-worker threshold; 5.4 percent said they had substituted some part-time for full-time workers. (These firms apparently represented a large share of the companies subject to the threshold, because most firms had more than 50 workers. The average firm employed 218.) A survey by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve produced a similar response.
Up to a point, part-time jobs reflect the flexibility of the U.S. economy — but we are well beyond that point. They increasingly signify weakness.
Read more from Robert Samuelson’s archive.