Readers might (should) remember that, on several occasions in 2015, I opined that payroll numbers might be overstating job market health as some data components alluded to workers working more than one job (see Bond Squad archives). I.E. 200,000 monthly job growth might equate to only 120,000 previously unemployed workers finding jobs. The remainder could have been people who are already employed in a full-time or part-time job. This could be a possible explanation for a stagnant work week and moderate wage growth. A Bond Squad reader has found evidence which supports this theory.

Long-time Bond Squad reader (back to my Citigroup days), Charles Schwab chief fixed income strategist, Kathy Jones, told me that the number of people working more than one job increased 260,000 last month and has been rising during the past year. According to Friday’s employment data, people working multiple jobs now make 5.2% of employed Americans, up from 5.0% a year ago. Another clue pointing toward multiple job holding is the U6 Underemployment Rate which has become stuck at 9.9% the past two months, after bottoming at 9.8% in September. Typically, the U6 rate would be appoint two points lower given the 5.0% headline U3 unemployment. That part-time jobs crept higher as portion of the Payrolls data in the fourth quarter is not that surprising given that it is the traditional holiday hiring season. However, part-time work has made up a larger portion of jobs in this recovery than in pasty recoveries. Demographics, healthcare regulations and the types of jobs being created all augur for more part-time jobs.

Why would the phenomenon of more workers working multiple jobs help to hold down wage growth? Think about it. Competition for jobs might now be coming, not only from unemployed workers, but also from workers who already hold part-time, or even full-time, jobs. Thus, even with a smaller labor force (as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the supply of available workers might be larger than it appears, in real terms.

Following Friday’s employment data, anyone who mentioned anything in the data which was less than stellar was derided. One business television anchor called anyone critical of the jobs data “haters.” This makes it difficult to conduct in depth analysis of data and provide useful insight. Remember, strategists, analysts and economists don’t create the data. However, to ignore or downplay data because it does not fit one’s narrative or fit one’s (or one’s firm’s) outlook is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

To be sure, the spinning has come from both bulls and bears alike. There were comments in social media over the weekend which stated that, if not for seasonal adjustments, the Nonfarm Payrolls data would have reported just 11,000 new jobs. This received much play among bears, but it is a hollow argument. Less overall hiring in some months and greater hiring in others is why employment data is seasonally adjusted. During the course of the year, actual monthly job gains might be quite different than the seasonally-adjusted reports. Employment data is seasonally adjusted so as to help economists and policymakers better gauge employment trends.

Some economists and market participants have lashed out at the so-called haters:

UBS deputy chief U.S. economist, Drew Matus, lashed out at detractors saying there was “nothing wrong” with Friday’s employment data. I agree. There was nothing wrong with Friday’s employment data, but there were some things where were different, the rise in workers holding multiple jobs is one of them.

We agree with what Kathy Jones when she told Barron’s: “This doesn’t convince me inflation is around the corner.” I agree with Kathy. I don’t see much in the way of increasing U.S. inflation on the horizon. Neither does the bond market.