MORE ON JOBS
Via Slate's "Today's Papers" feature -- a valuable once-a-day email for anyone who subscribes to it -- there's this report from economist Sung Won Sohn, on the nature of March's encouraging employment numbers.
Also note that the increase in "part-time workers for economic reasons" -- in other words, "this is all I can find, but I'm probably still screwed" -- was around 300 thousand, about equal to the establishment survey's job numbers on the whole. Yes, of course it's much more complicated than that, I know. But at bare minimum, the part-time numbers must have been a significant part of job growth in March, possibly the difference between a numerically good month and a numerically spinnable month.
My question for the administration is, how can the tax cuts be the tonic that fostered March's job growth if all that happened last month is that some people who were unemployed for a really long time have become desperate for whatever low amounts of money they could make and opted for part-time work? If these vaunted "small businesses" and large ones, for that matter, are only able to hire more workers on a part-time basis, how does that either 1) help those workers or 2) show that the tax cuts are "working"?
Anyway, all that being said, I'm interested to see how the April numbers will end up looking, to see where the trends lead.
Via Slate's "Today's Papers" feature -- a valuable once-a-day email for anyone who subscribes to it -- there's this report from economist Sung Won Sohn, on the nature of March's encouraging employment numbers.
Technical factors such as the end of the grocery strike and seasonable weather boosted employment in retail and construction. The report was also helped by the significant jump in part-time workers for economic reasons to 4.7 million from 4.4 million. In fact, the increase in part-timers accounted for the vast majority of the increase in employment. The average duration of unemployment has been lengthening, persuading unemployed workers to accept part-time jobs. This in part explains the reason for the decline in the average workweek and no increase in overtime.Michael Brus of Slate notes that the Post estimates the jobs regained after the end of the UFCW stike to be around 15,000. Unfortunately, that job addition is a one-time-only event, and not really indicative of any economic trends.
Also note that the increase in "part-time workers for economic reasons" -- in other words, "this is all I can find, but I'm probably still screwed" -- was around 300 thousand, about equal to the establishment survey's job numbers on the whole. Yes, of course it's much more complicated than that, I know. But at bare minimum, the part-time numbers must have been a significant part of job growth in March, possibly the difference between a numerically good month and a numerically spinnable month.
My question for the administration is, how can the tax cuts be the tonic that fostered March's job growth if all that happened last month is that some people who were unemployed for a really long time have become desperate for whatever low amounts of money they could make and opted for part-time work? If these vaunted "small businesses" and large ones, for that matter, are only able to hire more workers on a part-time basis, how does that either 1) help those workers or 2) show that the tax cuts are "working"?
Anyway, all that being said, I'm interested to see how the April numbers will end up looking, to see where the trends lead.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home