Obama's job growth were part-time jobs...partially due to Obamacare!

[keepitreal]

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

Let's try this another way....

The BLS shows there were 145 (in thousands) non-farm jobs added last month



Do you think that means there were 145 jobs added?

Or do you realize that means there were 145,000 jobs added?

Do you see now why you looks so fucking rightarded?

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE READING 6,855,000
AS 6 THOUSAND 855 THOUSANDS
INSTEAD OF 6 MILLION 855 THOUSAND

IF I ADD 145,000 TO THE 855,000
WHAT BECOMES OF THE 6 THOUSAND
AND WHAT IS THE 1 MILLION ADDED TO

 

[Faun]

Why is it always the confused Right who tell everyone else that they are the ones confused???
The BLS says the numbers are in thousands which means you add 3 zeros at the end, so 1,000 thousands is 1,000,000.
From your link:
Number in thousands

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55
6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

LOLOLOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit.

6,855 IS in thousands. That converts to 6,855,000.

Here, take a look at total nonfarm employed....



The BLS shows there are currently 152383 employed. Like the numbers you posted, that's in thousands.

So do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

Now cease with your mind-numbing stupidity.

The estimates in this report were obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 eligible households that provides a wide range of information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. Earnings data are collected from one-fourth of the CPS monthly sample. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, using a scientifically selected national sample with coverage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Bitch, it's just like polls

Why not just answer the question? What are you so afraid of?

The BLS shows there are 152383 people employed...

Do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

 

[Faun]

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

Let's try this another way....

The BLS shows there were 145 (in thousands) non-farm jobs added last month



Do you think that means there were 145 jobs added?

Or do you realize that means there were 145,000 jobs added?

Do you see now why you looks so fucking rightarded?

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE READING 6,855,000
AS 6 THOUSAND 855 THOUSANDS
INSTEAD OF 6 MILLION 855 THOUSAND

IF I ADD 145,000 TO THE 855,000
WHAT BECOMES OF THE 6 THOUSAND
AND WHAT IS THE 1 MILLION ADDED TO

"I DONT UNDERSTAND..."

That's an understatement.

 

[keepitreal]

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55
6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

LOLOLOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit.

6,855 IS in thousands. That converts to 6,855,000.

Here, take a look at total nonfarm employed....



The BLS shows there are currently 152383 employed. Like the numbers you posted, that's in thousands.

So do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

Now cease with your mind-numbing stupidity.

The estimates in this report were obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 eligible households that provides a wide range of information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. Earnings data are collected from one-fourth of the CPS monthly sample. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, using a scientifically selected national sample with coverage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Bitch, it's just like polls

Why not just answer the question? What are you so afraid of?

The BLS shows there are 152383 people employed...

Do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

I think it is 152,383,000
152,383 million

 

[IM2]

Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time

How many times are you worthless lying scum POS right-wingers going to mindlessly parrot this LIE?????
As you well know PT jobs for economic reasons went DOWN after the passage of the PPACA!!!!!

And how many times do honest people like ME who put the links and substantiation have to contend with people like YOU that state your own personal, subjective and total ignorant comments? PLEASE provide PROOF as I did to back up my statements. WHERE is your PROOF!!!

If you were honest you would say that Obama was for a national single payer system but turned to a heritage foundation plan in order to get it past congress.

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

 

[edthecynic]

You are just trolling!
Grow up, child.

Just admit your wrong asshole
6,855,000 is 6 MILLION, NOT 6 thousand

YOU were the one claiming it is 6,000.

Liar

Liar!

Well what happened to the 6 thousand

ROFLMFAO

If your brain was made of chocolate
it wouldn't even fill a mini M&M!

Let's start from the beginning, shall we

How many times are you worthless lying scum POS right-wingers going to mindlessly parrot this LIE?????
As you well know PT jobs for economic reasons went DOWN after the passage of the PPACA!!!!!

LIE

Already PROVEN to be true with actual BLS data. Try a new lie!

2009

Jan-8675
Feb-9053
March-9168
April-8556
May-8663
June-9190
July-8977
Aug-8712
Sept-8134
Oct-8350
Nov-8796
Dec-9222

2010

9161
9108
9210
8830
8392
8734
8610
8509
8540
8279
8526
9029

2011

9027
8633
8537
8305
8144
8600
8372
8463
8423
8151
8161
8259

2012

8747
8302
7753
7581
7736
8268
8218
7723
8003
7768
7898
8038

2013

8506
8163
7598
7590
7523
8328
8207
7567
7437
7628
7478
7848

2014

7617
7269
7321
7120
6917
7706
7568
7021
6618
6698
6597
6855

PPACA passed the end of March 2010 and your numbers show that at 9,210,000 and you end at 6,855,000 which sure seems LOWER to me, which means PT jobs for economic reasons DECREASED after Obama Care passed!!!!!

Your numbers show me you're confused

Not millions, thousands

Those were monthly figures from BLS for PT economic reasons

BLS

I choose non agricultural

Why is it always the confused Right who tell everyone else that they are the ones confused???
The BLS says the numbers are in thousands which means you add 3 zeros at the end, so 1,000 thousands is 1,000,000.
From your link: Number in thousands

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55
6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

Get it?

Damn you are milking the dumb act to death.

That means that every number in every decimal place stands for 1,000, thus 6,855 in the chart is 6,855 thousands, not 6.855 thousand.

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

WHAT?
Let's try this....

Please write it out using letters not numbers
adding 3 zeros like you said

six thousand and 8 hundred and fifty-five THOUSANDS (PLURAL).
Jesus you are thick!!!!!

How can you have 6 thousand and 855 thousands
when the latter is greater than than 6 thousand

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

What would you like me to admit I'm wrong about?

Do you admit 1,000 is not 1,000,000
Do you admit that six thousand, eight hundred fifty five thousands
is factually incorrect

Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

No you won't. you will have 900,000. Geezzz, you can't even do simple arithmetic.

Lol...my bad, you're right

So, if I add 145,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

Isn't 900,000 greater than 6,000

Mind you, this is stemming from 6,855


You claim 6,855,000 is
six thousand eight hundred and fifty five thousands

so, when I asked about adding 45,000 to the 855,000
to make it(6,855) 7 thousand, you corrected me,
It would equal 900,000, 6,900(000)
if 900,000 is greater than 6 thousand
how can a number be
6 thousand 900 thousands

And if I add 145,000 to the 855,000
and that equals 1 million where is that carried over to
when it is preceding a number less than itself

No you will have 1 million.

Well what happened to the 6 thousand

What 6,000?

Again, I'm still on 6,855

It is 6,000 thousands and 855 thousand which = 6,855,000.

So, if I add 145 thousand to the 855 thousand
6 thousand becomes 1 million

It still is 6,000 thousands.

So to make it six million I add 3 more zeros
6,855,000,000

NO, 855 thousands = 855,000 and if you add 145,000 to that you get 1 million

What happens to the million
I'll have 1, 006,000,000

Then what happens to the 6 thousand

You just made it 6 billion, it was already 6 million. you added 6 zeros to the 6,855.

I'll have 6 thousand, 1 million

That is 1 billion 6 million.

But, you wrote 6,855,000 being thousands
How come if I add 3 more zeros to your numbers
I go to billions not millions

No, I wrote 6,855 thousands being 6,855 thousands. You can't read as well as not being able to do simple arithmetic!

Just admit your wrong asshole
6,855,000 is 6 MILLION, NOT 6 thousand

YOU were the one claiming it is 6,000

You were the one who claimed 6855 in thousands
was six thousand eight hundred and fifty five thousands = 6,855,000

When I added 3 more zeros for a total of 10 numbers
you told me that was billions
but, you have 7 numbers and it's thousands


You said if I added 145,000 to the 855,000(6,855)
that would be 1 million...and you're right

But, if I have 6 thousand, 855 thousand (6,855)
and add 145,000 to the 855,000, which equals 1 million
then what happens to the 6 thousand

You can't have 6 thousand 1 million

I asked you, why do you think they say 'in thousands'
instead of 'in millions', you said to round off....

You don't round off thousands to millions
you round off thousands into ten thousands
and ten thousands into hundred thousands
and hundred thousands into millions and so on

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55

6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

OK, you convinced me, you are not PLAYING dumb, you ARE a complete IDIOT.

 

[Faun]

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55
6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

LOLOLOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit.

6,855 IS in thousands. That converts to 6,855,000.

Here, take a look at total nonfarm employed....



The BLS shows there are currently 152383 employed. Like the numbers you posted, that's in thousands.

So do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

Now cease with your mind-numbing stupidity.

The estimates in this report were obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 eligible households that provides a wide range of information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. Earnings data are collected from one-fourth of the CPS monthly sample. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, using a scientifically selected national sample with coverage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Bitch, it's just like polls

Why not just answer the question? What are you so afraid of?

The BLS shows there are 152383 people employed...

Do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

I think it is 152,383,000
152,383 million

"I think it is 152,383,000"

That's correct. 152383 in thousands is 152,383,000. Do you see now why you look like such an idiot by not understanding 6855 in thousands is 6,855,000?

"152,383 million"

LOLOL

That would be 152,383,000,000.

Poor thing, bless your heart. You still don't get it.

 

[IM2]

I don't know about PT jobs....

But I do know the economy took forever to get rolling under Obama.

It has been smoking hot since Trump took over.

Obama sucked.

That's because Trump was handed a growing economy as opposed to the dead one Obama revived.

 

[IM2]

The Brown Clown of Renown introduced "trickle up poverty" to the electorate. As with everything else he introduced, it was the equivalent of taking a big steamer in our living rooms.

And as usual, another mindless incorrect tic of Tourette's from a trumper.

 

[edthecynic]

I think it is 152,383,000
152,383 million

Wrong again!
For your bottom number to match your top, it should be 152.383 million.
Your bottom number is actually 152,383,000,000 as you wrote it.

 

[IM2]

I don't believe you for one second! Post the link where the authors changed the results!

Economists walk back study showing huge increase in gig work - CNN

And here is the actual paper from them..

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25425.pdf

Somebody just got blasted.​

That deserves a

​

 

[healthmyths]

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55
6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

LOLOLOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit.

6,855 IS in thousands. That converts to 6,855,000.

Here, take a look at total nonfarm employed....



The BLS shows there are currently 152383 employed. Like the numbers you posted, that's in thousands.

So do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

Now cease with your mind-numbing stupidity.

The estimates in this report were obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 eligible households that provides a wide range of information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. Earnings data are collected from one-fourth of the CPS monthly sample. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, using a scientifically selected national sample with coverage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Bitch, it's just like polls

Why not just answer the question? What are you so afraid of?

The BLS shows there are 152383 people employed...

Do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

I think it is 152,383,000
152,383 million

No you need to drop the comma and add a period.
152.383 million.
In other words, 152 million and 383 thousand or 152.383 million.

 

[healthmyths]

Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time

How many times are you worthless lying scum POS right-wingers going to mindlessly parrot this LIE?????
As you well know PT jobs for economic reasons went DOWN after the passage of the PPACA!!!!!

And how many times do honest people like ME who put the links and substantiation have to contend with people like YOU that state your own personal, subjective and total ignorant comments? PLEASE provide PROOF as I did to back up my statements. WHERE is your PROOF!!!

You have NO proof of anything only OPINIONS by biased hacks! And you know it. There is no data that supports your lies, the actual data shows that PT jobs for economic reasons, and the PPACA would be such an economic reason as your lying sources claim, DECREASED since the law was passed. And the data is easy to find, so there is no excuse for your sources lies, since the BLS specifically tracks PT jobs for economic reasons every month and reports it every month!!!!!

When the PPACA passed in March 2010 there were 9,126,000 working PT for economic reasons, when Obama left office it was down to 5,664,000. It is now 4,111,000
Here is the link to the BLS data:
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
Scroll down to PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME,
select Part time for economic reasons seasonally adjusted and then scroll down further and click on "retrieve data."

Here are the "biased hacks" Fast forward 6 years, when a report by Harvard and Princeton economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger
YOU depended on BLS data and that was the problem as these economists who have considerable more expertise then you have came to the conclusion based
on more intensive studies. In their study, the duo show that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era, from 10.7% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015.

Nevertheless, we impose the BLS’s classification hierarchy in our analysis below to make the results are as
The survey was conducted online between October 19, 2015 and November 4, 2015. A total of 6,028 subjects were invited to fill out the questionnaire, and a total of 3,850 completed the questionnaire, for a response rate of 63.9 percent
The rise in alternative work arrangements evident in Table 2, especially the increase in the share of workers who indicated that they were “working or self-employed as an independent contractor, an independent consultant, or a freelance worker” from 6.9 percent in 2005 to 8.4 percent in 2015 is a stark contrast to the declining trend in the share of employees who indicate that they are self-employed based on published CPS data.
https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf
The problem is you didn't do enough thorough research as is wont with less educated people evidently like YOU!

Survey Finds that 41 Percent of Small Business Owners Have Frozen Hiring Because of Obamacare
Survey Finds that 41 Percent of Small Business Owners Have Frozen Hiring Because of Obamacare
Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare.
And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."
The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.
Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.

Add the 38% to the 41% you come up with nearly 80% of small business owners said
they pulled back on hiring.

 

[Faun]

Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time

How many times are you worthless lying scum POS right-wingers going to mindlessly parrot this LIE?????
As you well know PT jobs for economic reasons went DOWN after the passage of the PPACA!!!!!

And how many times do honest people like ME who put the links and substantiation have to contend with people like YOU that state your own personal, subjective and total ignorant comments? PLEASE provide PROOF as I did to back up my statements. WHERE is your PROOF!!!

You have NO proof of anything only OPINIONS by biased hacks! And you know it. There is no data that supports your lies, the actual data shows that PT jobs for economic reasons, and the PPACA would be such an economic reason as your lying sources claim, DECREASED since the law was passed. And the data is easy to find, so there is no excuse for your sources lies, since the BLS specifically tracks PT jobs for economic reasons every month and reports it every month!!!!!

When the PPACA passed in March 2010 there were 9,126,000 working PT for economic reasons, when Obama left office it was down to 5,664,000. It is now 4,111,000
Here is the link to the BLS data:
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
Scroll down to PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME,
select Part time for economic reasons seasonally adjusted and then scroll down further and click on "retrieve data."

Here are the "biased hacks" Fast forward 6 years, when a report by Harvard and Princeton economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger
YOU depended on BLS data and that was the problem as these economists who have considerable more expertise then you have came to the conclusion based
on more intensive studies. In their study, the duo show that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era, from 10.7% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015.

Nevertheless, we impose the BLS’s classification hierarchy in our analysis below to make the results are as
The survey was conducted online between October 19, 2015 and November 4, 2015. A total of 6,028 subjects were invited to fill out the questionnaire, and a total of 3,850 completed the questionnaire, for a response rate of 63.9 percent
The rise in alternative work arrangements evident in Table 2, especially the increase in the share of workers who indicated that they were “working or self-employed as an independent contractor, an independent consultant, or a freelance worker” from 6.9 percent in 2005 to 8.4 percent in 2015 is a stark contrast to the declining trend in the share of employees who indicate that they are self-employed based on published CPS data.
https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf
The problem is you didn't do enough thorough research as is wont with less educated people evidently like YOU!

Survey Finds that 41 Percent of Small Business Owners Have Frozen Hiring Because of Obamacare
Survey Finds that 41 Percent of Small Business Owners Have Frozen Hiring Because of Obamacare
Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare.
And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."
The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.
Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.

Add the 38% to the 41% you come up with nearly 80% of small business owners said
they pulled back on hiring.

Shit, show me where there was a hiring freeze....

All employees, thousands, total private, seasonally adjusted​

 

[healthmyths]

Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time

How many times are you worthless lying scum POS right-wingers going to mindlessly parrot this LIE?????
As you well know PT jobs for economic reasons went DOWN after the passage of the PPACA!!!!!

Where is your proof to contradict this study?

Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Part-Time Employment: Early Evidence
June 2016
Marcus Dillender Carolyn Heinrich Susan Houseman Upjohn Institute Vanderbilt University Upjohn Institute​

Using monthly CPS data, we estimate that the ACA resulted in an increase in low-hours, involuntary part-time employment of a half-million to a million workers in retail, accommodations, and food services, the sectors in which employers are most likely to reduce hours if they choose to circumvent the mandate, and also the sectors in which low-wage workers are most likely to be affected.
Additionally, employers may choose to outsource certain tasks to firms with fewer than 50 full-time employees. Ironically, the employer mandate could reduce the quality of jobs for low- and middle-skilled workers by increasing the share of low-hours part-time, temporary, and contract employment—categories that often are associated with relatively low compensation and job instability.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/carolynhe...ffects-ACA-on-Part-time-employment-6-9-16.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

Here are the "biased hacks" Fast forward 6 years, when a report by Harvard and Princeton economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger
YOU depended on BLS data and that was the problem as these economists who have considerable more expertise then you have came to the conclusion based
on more intensive studies. In their study, the duo show that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era, from 10.7% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015.

Nevertheless, we impose the BLS’s classification hierarchy in our analysis below to make the results are as
The survey was conducted online between October 19, 2015 and November 4, 2015. A total of 6,028 subjects were invited to fill out the questionnaire, and a total of 3,850 completed the questionnaire, for a response rate of 63.9 percent

First of all the authors already walked back their fake HAND "study" which was already posted in this very thread, so you knew you were lying when you made that post.
And you are obviously lying, as usual, when you falsely claim that an online "study" of only 3,850 is "more intensive" than a BLS study of 60,000 HOUSEHOLDS composed of over 100,000 INDIVIDUALS!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Survey Finds that 41 Percent of Small Business Owners Have Frozen Hiring Because of Obamacare
Survey Finds that 41 Percent of Small Business Owners Have Frozen Hiring Because of Obamacare
Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare.
And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."
The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.
Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.

Another FAKE "study" from the Republican HACKS at the Chamber of Commerce completely disproved by the BLA data.

 

[edthecynic]

Where is your proof to contradict this study?

Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Part-Time Employment: Early Evidence
June 2016
Marcus Dillender Carolyn Heinrich Susan Houseman Upjohn Institute Vanderbilt University Upjohn Institute​

Using monthly CPS data, we estimate that the ACA resulted in an increase in low-hours, involuntary part-time employment of a half-million to a million workers

Already posted BLS data in this very thread for both PT jobs and hours that prove that Right-wing HACK always lie in PACKS.

 

[keepitreal]

6,855 is 6 thousand 8 hundred and 55
6,855,000 is 6 million 855 thousand

LOLOLOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit.

6,855 IS in thousands. That converts to 6,855,000.

Here, take a look at total nonfarm employed....



The BLS shows there are currently 152383 employed. Like the numbers you posted, that's in thousands.

So do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

Now cease with your mind-numbing stupidity.

The estimates in this report were obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 eligible households that provides a wide range of information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. Earnings data are collected from one-fourth of the CPS monthly sample. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, using a scientifically selected national sample with coverage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Bitch, it's just like polls

Why not just answer the question? What are you so afraid of?

The BLS shows there are 152383 people employed...

Do you think there are only 152,383 people working in the U.S.? Or is it 152,383,000?

I think it is 152,383,000
152,383 million

"I think it is 152,383,000"

That's correct. 152383 in thousands is 152,383,000. Do you see now why you look like such an idiot by not understanding 6855 in thousands is 6,855,000?

"152,383 million"

LOLOL

That would be 152,383,000,000.

Poor thing, bless your heart. You still don't get it.

I wrote 152,383 million
after I wrote 'I think it is 152,383,000'
to state how I read 152,383,000

I'm sorry but, even after researching this further
I'm just completely stumped

152,383 in thousands being 152,383,000,
is that equivalent to 152 million 383 thousand

WTF...this is driving me crazy

I know there are more than 152,383 people working
but, the figures they pull from that I assumed were...
'for every 152,383 people, xxxx are white
then from that figure, xxx white men, xxx white women'

Well, even though you're calling me an idiot
and everything else, I do appreciate you
trying to help me understand too, nonetheless

Funny...if this exchange was taking place between Trump and I,
you would be bashing him if he was responding to me
in a similar manner as you and ed have

I dish it out, I can take it

 

[keepitreal]

I think it is 152,383,000
152,383 million

Wrong again!
For your bottom number to match your top, it should be 152.383 million.
Your bottom number is actually 152,383,000,000 as you wrote it.

Let's try this...I am trying to understand but, even after googling this
I DON'T GET IT AND IT IS DRIVING ME CRAZY

What exactly is 'number in thousands' representing
If I have a million dollars, isn't that 1,000,000.00

The difference is , & .