Results of ObamaCare: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

As a result of ObamaCare, and what has been forecast by Conservatives of the 953,000 jobs created in 2013, 77%, or 731,000 are part time.

What will we do with all our spare time with so many people working part-time and making up the difference with entitlements paid for by other tax payers.

When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society. This slow conversion accelerated drastically in the last few months, and especially in June, when part time jobs exploded higher by 360K while full time jobs dropped by 240K. In July we are sad to report that America's conversation to a part-time worker society is not "tapering": according to the Household Survey, of the 266K jobs created (note this number differs from the establishment survey), only 35% of jobs, or 92K, were full time. The rest were... not.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time



2013 Full vs Part Time Jobs

We know.

So all in all we have a net gain of 587.5.

Or, put another way, a vast improvement over losing 618,000 private sector, full-time jobs, right?

Do those pt jobs include stats on prn's part time nurses who work 80 hours a week? Just come back later and break down what industry's were hiring pt people so we can debate this.

I think a look at the wages and earnings could tell you what sort of part time or other jobs are being created.

It's unlikely to be increasing the tax base much... the quality of jobs is important.

But obamacare will help... right?

You're right I forgot that summer time brings all the part time jobs, it will fall in the fall. I don't know how many jobs obama care might create, but I suspect some will just be where one left a job to accept one so it equals out.

boards of FL wrote:Or, put another way, a vast improvement over losing 618,000 private sector, full-time jobs, right?

Right....

Labor participation rate...would you like that explained?



http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Or, put another way, a vast improvement over losing 618,000 private sector, full-time jobs, right?

Right....

Labor participation rate...would you like that explained?



http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I think he might need it explained to him. I see a couple of times where hes trying to say unemployment was higher under bush and that is a flat out lie.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Or, put another way, a vast improvement over losing 618,000 private sector, full-time jobs, right?

Right....

Labor participation rate...would you like that explained?



http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Nope.  I actually explained that to you in the thread below.  You know, the thread you ran away from when I pointed out that you don't fully grasp what the labor participation rate or the term 'job' means.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t8664-obamas-economy-two-food-stamp-recipients-for-every-job-created

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Or, put another way, a vast improvement over losing 618,000 private sector, full-time jobs, right?

Right....

Labor participation rate...would you like that explained?



http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Nope.  I actually explained that to you in the thread below.  You know, the thread you ran away from when I pointed out that you don't fully grasp what the labor participation rate or the term 'job' means.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t8664-obamas-economy-two-food-stamp-recipients-for-every-job-created

You were comparing apples with Volkswagens. I'm not playing childish games with you. The employment picture is dismal. The economy is dismal and this is the worst jobs President in the history of our country.

But you are amusing.

Markle wrote:You were comparing apples with Volkswagens.  I'm not playing childish games with you.  The employment picture is dismal.  The economy is dismal and this is the worst jobs President in the history of our country.

But you are amusing.

I wasn't comparing anything to anything.  You simply cannot read.  But for fun's sake, what was I comparing, Markle?  Can you go back and read my post, and then tell me what two things I was trying to compare to each other?  Show me whatever it was that you read that lead you to believe "
Hmm, he is trying to compare these two things that are completely unrelated."

In reality, you were misunderstanding the meaning of the term 'labor participation rate'.  I merely explained the differences between raw jobs numbers and the labor force participation rate.  This bears repeating.  I explained the difference between - I did not compare, but rather - I explained the difference between raw jobs numbers and the labor force participation rate.  And then you ran away.

Even now I still wonder if you fully grasp the difference between these two terms.  Do you?

Markle wrote:Here are a few more very distasteful facts for you to swallow.  This is the DECLINE in the Labor Participation.  In other words, FAR fewer people are working today than when President Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Do you agree that you were wrong there?  You didn't know what you were talking about, did you?  Clearly a decline in the labor force participation rate does not strictly imply that the number of jobs have decreased, does it?