[QUOTE=Ravenman]
But to your point, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has numbers readily available on the size of the labor force, the number and percentage of those who are employed, and the number of Americans who are not part of the labor force.
[Teal’C]Indeed.[/Teal’C], and the numbers are remarkably enlightening. I decided to see what my own analysis might produce. Fascinating, quite fascinating.
Instead of using “labor force” as my yardstick, I chose total population. The reason for this is that American jobs to not just support the “labor force”. The reality is that the US population as a whole (in the main) is supported by US jobs. Either directly through spending wages or indirectly through extort-and-redistribute/common-good (take your pick of how to describe them) government programs. From a moral perspective, I don’t just get a job for me, but for my children–so the impact on their lives deserves to be counted. People who consider children to be utterly disposable would not like using the total population as a basis.
In addition, the more commonly used “labor force” is subject to a great deal of diddling. If there are only nine jobs in the entire USA, and all but ten people have given up on the hope of getting work, our labor force is “ten” and unemployment is 10%, even though at least a hundred million people capable of work aren’t in the “labor force” because there is no hope of getting a job. Thus, since it is so prone to political diddling, I’m using total population as a more empirical measure of “distribution of work vs. everybody it benefits”.
Now, just to make sure the most recent two months are added in without too much seasonal effect, I adjusted start-and-end dates for “years” so that a “year” began on March 1 for my analysis. However, I repeated the analysis with a year beginning on January 1, and the trends were identical, if thousandths of a percent might vary. So, when I say “1993”, I actually mean “beginning of March 1993 to end of February 1994”.
So, what have I found?
From 1993 to 1996, total percent population employed rose from 61.86% to 63.28%. From 1997 to 2000, total employment rose from 63.88% to 64.36%. What is very interesting is when I break this down into full time vs. part-time jobs. Anyone with the tiniest lick of common sense will agree that full time work is more lucrative for the worker (and thus better for the overall health of the US economy) than is part time work. McJobs stink on ice when it comes to paying your bills.
When the figures are broken down into part time vs. full time work, it gets, as I said, interesting.
From 1993 to 1996, full-time work went from 50.64% to 52.23% of the total population. Conversely, part-time work FELL from 11.23% to 11.05% of total population. This meant that part-time (crappy) jobs fell as a proportion of total jobs from 18.15% to 17.46%. In other words, from 1993 to 1996, total jobs were climbing, and of those new jobs, the majority of them were full-time work.
From 1997 to 2000, full-time work went from 52.96% to 54.00% of the total population. Conversely, part-time work FELL from 10.92% to 10.36% of total population. This meant that part-time (crappy) jobs fell as a proportion of total jobs from 17.10% to 16.10%. In other words, from 1997 to 2000, total jobs were climbing, and of those new jobs, the majority of them were full-time work.
Now, let’s look at 2000 to 2003. Total jobs fell from 64.36% to 62.24% of total population. When one looks at full-time vs part-time, eyes should open. Full time jobs fell from 54.00% to 51.54% of total population and part time jobs ROSE from 10.36% to 10.70% of total population. As a portion of total jobs, part time ROSE from 16.10% to 17.20%. In essence, the last three years have ERASED all positive job change of the preceding four years. Not only have total jobs fallen, but the portion of jobs that are part-time (and thus pay less) has risen.
Make of that what you will.
Just remember who said that overseas outsourcing is good for America.