The Job Report Earlier This Week And Part-Time Jobs -- April 6, 2024

Locator: 46934JOBS.

Jobs report: I'm not going to link any articles or do any real analysis but with regard to the stunningly impressive jobs report yesterday, there was one data point that at least a few folks noted. Some folks are noting that the 300,000 new jobs were all part-time jobs. That truly needs to be fact-checked.

It's unlikely that all new jobs were part-time jobs. But, let's assume that's accurate, that the majority of new jobs were part-time jobs.

The pundits noting that are suggesting the economy is not as good as CNBC anchors, panelists, guests, talking heads are suggesting. Most of this "negative" analysis is coming from those associated with a certain political party. In fact, the only interview I saw yesterday was with a "suit" who had been a member of the Trump administration. So, there's that.

But back to the original thesis. Is there anything wrong with an uptick in part-time jobs, or a huge jump in the number of jobs even if some / many / most are part-time?

The conflicting data points come from two different BLS surveys: the BLS household survey and the BLS payroll survey. 

So, a lot of questions.

I would begin with: what is the definition of a part-time job?

Some years ago there was a trend for more experienced physicians and physicians (generally women) who were raising a family, to specifically ask for and be granted the permission to work only from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. I would call that part-time. And in some specialties, notably radiology, and especially sub-specialties, like orthopedists who only operate on right hands, physicians are earning way more than I ever did when I was working an 80-hour pediatric practice. And emergency room docs? Don't even get me started. Routinely, in urban areas, emergency room physicians earn a full week's pay by working one forty-eight hour stretch. Or at least they did at one time. Not sure if that's allowed any more. 

Question: are people looking for part-time jobs because they need the extra income and can't find a full-time job, or are they specifically looking for a part-time job because they like the lifestyle?

In the DFW area, upscale apartment complexes are providing "trash valet" services. Residents no longer schlepp their garbage to some central compacting site on campus, but rather put their trash right outside their door and it's picked up by a "trash valet" between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. My hunch: perfect work for folks with particular needs, desires. Better use of time than sitting at home drinking and watching Netflix. 

Another question: with all the technology, etc., can a person working in some professions -- even landscaping -- be as productive in four hours as he/she used to be in eight hours, thus allowing someone to work two jobs but still working "only" forty hours a week?

Another observation: for an employer, is it financially more beneficial to hire part-time workers? And what if a part-time worker -- and especially one working remotely -- is way more productive than a full-time in-office employee? There are a lot of jobs that can be done at home as we are now finding out. 

And, oh by the way, there are now reports that a lot of folks working remotely can have two full-time jobs. They can be that productive. I can think of many examples. I'll bet 80% of your typical federal government office worker could work from home. 

For me: like anything in life, there are good things to be learned from that data point and bad things to consider.

But if put in context of an incredibly vibrant economy, I find a huge increase in the number of part-time jobs as incredibly bullish for the economy.

Break, break.

I would assume that financial analysts, by the end of the day when the jobs report came out, were all very, very aware of the new jobs breakdown -- full-time vs part-time; sectors with biggest/lowest gains; demographics of employees; etc., etc., and yet at the end of the day, after that incredibly stunning report, the US equity markets posted a similarly stunning day for investors even if it meant the Fed was less likely to cut rates. That speaks volumes for investors.

By the way, four or five of the seven board members of the Federal reserve and then all of the five regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents have all become color commentators, assisting the main commentator, JPow, when he is not testifying before Congress or when he is making some major policy speech.

A color commentator, you ask? Well, if you like Tony Romo you'll love Neel Kashkari.

By the way, of the twelve Federal reserve bank presidents, it's amazing how much influence Kashkari seems to have considering his region encompasses five states -- Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and only part of Michigan (excluding Detroit) -- all of which combined might have the GDP of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area. 

There are captains in the US Navy and colonels in the US Air Force with more responsibility than Neel. 

Wow, what a digression.