Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#41

Post by lotsofpulp »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #35
armenarmen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and these gigs aren't the best thing around for sure. But I wonder where people would be without them, you know? Would it be huge unemployment? Or would conventional employees be the result?

Really depends. If you think about uber then without uber or similar services then people would use taxis. The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous. Most of the gig type companies are able to offer lower prices to consumers at the expense of workers. Also important to note is that uber and lyft sell their gigs as just side income, not a full time job s…

I think there is a huge portion of trips taken with Lyft/Uber that would not be taken at all with a taxi. I would never take a taxi except in the most dire circumstances due to my experience of them being dirty and smoke smelling and questionable drivers, but with Uber/Lyft, I use them all the time now instead of asking family or friends for drop off/pickup at airport, or getting around the city, etc.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#43

Post by lotsofpulp »

1_2__4 wrote: post #33
adventured wrote: post #8

In the time since the end of the article's data was sourced, until now, the U6 rate has fallen from 11% to 8.3% - which is back to where it was in the Summer of 1998. When it gets into the 7.x% levels, the employment market will be the second hottest in roughly 50 years next to the year 2000. The time frame sourced, includes an U6 rate that reached nearly 18% and a U3 rate that hit 10%. It's not surprising that conve…

If there is a labor shortage then why are the jobs being created of the kind that are less advantageous to workers? Isn’t the market supposed to “correct” in favor of labor in that scenario? Because it looks like the opposite has happened.

I think it depends on the flow of money. It doesn’t happen overnight, but if money is flowing unevenly and most of the population is not getting enough to maintain their consumption, then their consumption will fall reducing the need for employees. For now, many people are still reaching into the future and pulling money into the present by buying with home loans, student loans, and car loans.

But once that is unavailable, and demand starts dropping because they’re not seeing the money come back to them (since it’s easier and easier for it to get funneled to the top), then the market will adjust again. However, you never know when it can stop because governments tend to keep pulling money from the future to pay for things like healthcare and retirement welfare for people who didn't save enough.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#44

Post by prklmn »

rtx wrote: post #37
notsohugedeal22 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US It’s something every worker should be fighting tooth and nail for It would go a long way to breaking up the neoliberal corporate hegemony Sadly, and regardless of education and political leanings, Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history. That it was all great 50 yrs ago without universal healthcare (when they were kids and not really…

Government should have its own infra and hire medical professionals. They should leave the private sector alone.

We have that now, it's called the Veteran's Association (VA). It's kind of a mess.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#45

Post by prklmn »

bryan11 wrote: post #20
csours wrote: post #2

> “We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” So, not exactly temp workers, but contract workers who require less overhead and are easy to fire.

Has the increasing cost of health insurance motivated employers to start using more contract workers?

Potentially. But now more than ever, companies with little to no revenue growth don't know how to boost earnings aside from cutting costs.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#46

Post by Mz »

I actually consider this to be good news overall. We do need to keep an eye on structuring things such that gig workers have the ability to grow real careers and have positive experiences (wrt adequate income and quality of life in terms of control over their time etc). We need to make sure these aren't structured in a fuck you way. But, I do gig work and it was a huge saving grace while extremely ill and homeless. It allowed me to develop an income and eventually get off the street.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#48

Post by pcunite »

goodoldboys wrote: post #15
csours wrote: post #2

> “We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” So, not exactly temp workers, but contract workers who require less overhead and are easy to fire.

Pretty much. I fit into this category and my anecdotal experience tells me that hiring managers favor contractors for that reason as well as the fact that the money to pay them sometimes is listed as a different line-item on the budget. I think the combination of the two helps as well - when looking at a large contractor line-item, knowing that it can be scaled back with less headache than a Full Time Employee (FTE)…

Your account was created 1111 days ago.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#49

Post by voidmain »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #35
armenarmen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and these gigs aren't the best thing around for sure. But I wonder where people would be without them, you know? Would it be huge unemployment? Or would conventional employees be the result?

Really depends. If you think about uber then without uber or similar services then people would use taxis. The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous. Most of the gig type companies are able to offer lower prices to consumers at the expense of workers. Also important to note is that uber and lyft sell their gigs as just side income, not a full time job s…

Usually high taxi fares don't go to the drivers, they go to the owners of the licenses. I think a NYC medallion used to cost $1.3 million before Uber; I don't think most of the drivers were shelling that out.

Re: Most US jobs created since 2005 are not conventional full-time work

#50

Post by dmix »

notsohugedeal22 wrote: post #13
csours wrote: post #2

> “We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” So, not exactly temp workers, but contract workers who require less overhead and are easy to fire.

Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US It’s something every worker should be fighting tooth and nail for It would go a long way to breaking up the neoliberal corporate hegemony Sadly, and regardless of education and political leanings, Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history. That it was all great 50 yrs ago without universal healthcare (when they were kids and not really…

> Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history.

This shouldn't be about historical narratives or ideology, that's largely why public health insurance is dead-on-arrival in US politics. Both sides are terribly ideological about it and unrealistic as a result.

The healthcare industry is already the most heavily regulated of all industries in the US. Saying it's been held back from government intervention is equally a myth as the US modern history as a free-market friendly place is a myth.

This debate should be about whether certain market niches make the more sense as public entities. NOT as an example of "free markets" failing as a general rule and trying to sell the idea "you just need to accept that government knows best" (I'm paraphrasing).

Rather it should be sold as an exception to the rule. The simple fact is government should not be in the vast majority of industry. But healthcare (specifically health insurance) has many unique and perverse incentives making it poorly suited for markets and the public alternative offers plenty of benefits to a society, including a capitalist society. Healthy workers are good workers, small business is less burdened with expensive healthcare packages, the morality of treating a seriously sick person who can't work then billing their family $10k, etc, etc.

I believe there is still a good argument to be made in favour of public health insurance without alienating those who put their trust in markets. It's a unique exception and is already far from operating as a free market in the US. So why not bite the bullet and entirely subsidize it for everyone? That is a much smaller ask than the typical democrat "corporations are evil" pitch on this matter.

Messaging is important.

Post reply on HN