I was thinking about labor supply and demand, and the anecdotal evidence from employers that they are shifting work to part time because of the ACA. I haven't seen definitive evidence of a significant shift to part time work in the data for number of employees. Here is the chart of part time employment from yesterday's post.
After an initial shock and a shift from "non-economic" to "economic" reasons, the total number of part time workers has been moving down to about 1% above the pre-recession level. This is typical for a recession. The size of the shift up in "economic" part time workers, and the slow subsequent decline are unusual, but these trends pre-date the ACA, so it seems inaccurate to pin much if any of the trend on the ACA.
I have posited that one underappreciated factor here is that the binding constraint here may be the supply of willing part time workers. But, if that is the case, if employers are experiencing higher costs for full time workers, then we should see an increase in pay for part time workers, as labor supply and demand settle at a new equilibrium that accounts for the new cost structure. If the quantity of available part time workers is relatively inelastic, maybe this adjustment would mainly play out in wages. Employers would need to increase the wages on part time jobs to entice workers who preferred full time work to move to a suboptimal work scenario.
But, there doesn't appear to be anything here, either. Relative weekly wages for full and part time workers have moved in lock step over the past 14 years.
So, it still seems like there is a disconnect between the survey data, anecdotal evidence, and labor data.