One View: Nevada needs full-time recovery, not part-time

​During last week’s “State of the State” address, Governor Sandoval was quick to highlight the impressive number of jobs created under his leadership.

Certainly, 195,000 new positions in just six years is nothing to sneeze at.

What he failed to mention, however, is that an alarming proportion of those jobs have been filled by part-time workers because they’ve been unable to secure full-time employment.

Yes, the state’s unemployment rate is down to 5.1 percent for the first time since 2007.

However, economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics also indicates that, between December 2007 and September 2016, Nevada’s part-time workers as a proportion of employed labor more than doubled, from 2.4 percent to 5.4 percent.

Indeed, Nevada’s unemployment rate itself would nearly double if all those unable to find full-time work were the measure behind its calculations.

In fairness to the Governor and the state’s economy, however, this trend isn’t unique to Nevada.

According to a report published by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute entitled Still Falling Short on Hours and Pay, “over six years into an economic recovery, the share of people working part time because they can only get part-time hours remains at recessionary levels. The number working part time involuntarily remains 44.6 percent higher than it was in 2007.”

The same report notes this trend disproportionately affects minority populations: “Hispanic and black workers have been hardest hit by the structural shift toward involuntary part-time work. Hispanics and blacks are relatively much more likely to be involuntarily part-time . . . than whites.”

The takeaway is that while job-gains measured by the tens of thousands are impressive, not all jobs are created equal.

Apart from working fewer hours and often being ineligible for benefits, part-time employees also tend to earn “relatively lower rates of pay.”

How, then, do we promote full-time job growth?

To start, we must implement reforms at both the federal and state levels that remove employer disincentives for hiring full-time workers, such as the Affordable Care Act.

At the federal level, for example, Congress’ first salvo of 2017 may likely be aimed at the ACA. The ACA has proven to have many unintended consequences, including a mandate that discourages businesses from hiring new full-time employees by making the marginal costs of mandated insurance too burdensome for small- and mid-sized firms — firms that are crucial to broader economic trends.

Likewise, in Nevada, lawmakers should wisely acknowledge that many of the recession’s ill-effects still linger, and thus efforts to place new costs on employers should be resisted. Indeed, the state should seek to reduce those costs — thus ensuring a regulatory environment that gives growing and recovering businesses the financial flexibility to offer more full-time positions.

After all, the recovery of the Silver State’s economy remains incomplete — or “part-time” — to say the least.

Daniel Honchariw is a policy researcher and analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a free-market think tank.