April 13, 2009 4:57 PM
- Text
Part-Time Work Helps Hold Down Unemployment
(MoneyWatch) The March report on US employment was grim, and is certain to become worse. The unemployment insurance report on April 9 showed another 600,000 new claims, and U.S. corporations already have announced something like 150,000 future job cuts, according to outplacement consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
But if you look behind the headline unemployment number of 8.5 percent -- the highest since 1982 -- the situation is actually better than you might expect. That's because a surprisingly large number of people have had their hours cut back instead of losing their jobs altogether.
In one sense, the unemployment picture is already much worse than the 8.5 percent official rate. That's because the Bureau of Labor Statistics chooses to leave out of its calculation people who are unemployed but, in the BLS's words, "discouraged" or "marginally attached to the labor force" -- those who have stopped looking for work. Add in today's three million or so disillusioned workers, and unemployment pops to 9.8 percent of the 154 million-strong U.S. work force.
The good news -- or perhaps I should say the glass-half-full perspective -- has to do with the underemployed. The BLS calls describes them as "employed part-time for economic reasons," meaning these are folks who want to work full-time, but have to settle for less. In March this contingent numbered about nine million, or 5.9 percent of the work force. That's well up from its usual level of three percent or so, and roughly as large as the peak official unemployment rate of the 2001 recession.
Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics for Moody's Economy.com, believes the large increase in part-timers may reflect efforts by employers and workers to share the pain, or wealth, by voluntarily cutting back hours. These people are still connected to their jobs, and can quickly move back to full-time schedules when their employers need them.
Consider this: if half the part-timers were out of work altogether, today's official jobless rate would be on the order of 11.5 percent -- well above the high-water mark set in 1982. "You'd rather that the people work full time if that's what they want, but it's better than not working at all," Hoyt told me.
But if you look behind the headline unemployment number of 8.5 percent -- the highest since 1982 -- the situation is actually better than you might expect. That's because a surprisingly large number of people have had their hours cut back instead of losing their jobs altogether.
In one sense, the unemployment picture is already much worse than the 8.5 percent official rate. That's because the Bureau of Labor Statistics chooses to leave out of its calculation people who are unemployed but, in the BLS's words, "discouraged" or "marginally attached to the labor force" -- those who have stopped looking for work. Add in today's three million or so disillusioned workers, and unemployment pops to 9.8 percent of the 154 million-strong U.S. work force.
The good news -- or perhaps I should say the glass-half-full perspective -- has to do with the underemployed. The BLS calls describes them as "employed part-time for economic reasons," meaning these are folks who want to work full-time, but have to settle for less. In March this contingent numbered about nine million, or 5.9 percent of the work force. That's well up from its usual level of three percent or so, and roughly as large as the peak official unemployment rate of the 2001 recession.
Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics for Moody's Economy.com, believes the large increase in part-timers may reflect efforts by employers and workers to share the pain, or wealth, by voluntarily cutting back hours. These people are still connected to their jobs, and can quickly move back to full-time schedules when their employers need them.
Consider this: if half the part-timers were out of work altogether, today's official jobless rate would be on the order of 11.5 percent -- well above the high-water mark set in 1982. "You'd rather that the people work full time if that's what they want, but it's better than not working at all," Hoyt told me.
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Ohio unemployment hits 3-year-low
- Jill on Money: Retirement investing, allocation, long term care
- Could "web-lining" be dangerous?
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Richardson hits nine 3s, Magic top Bucks 99-94
- Smith stops 38 shots, Coyotes top Blackhawks 3-0
- Whitney Houston's voice will never be forgotten
- Reactions to Whitney Houston's death
on Facebook
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Occupy protestors kicked out of CPAC
- CPAC: Will Sarah Palin spring a surprise?
- Beyonce and Jay-Z post first photos of Blue Ivy Carter
on CBS News






