This essay sheds light on what is fractional hiring, demystifies the benefits of companies implementing fractional hiring practices, and expounds upon how the economy is affected by companies implementing fractional hiring practices. Succinctly stated, fractional hiring is the practice of hiring an employee on a part-time basis, thereby resulting in the employee working for a real private sector employer for a fraction of time that a full-time employee would work for a real private sector employer. Implementing fractional hiring practices can culminate in the designated hours for a full-time time real private sector employee job being split among a multitude of real private sector employees. If a real private sector employer who needs a managerial employee position to be fulfilled for 40 to 55 hours per week implements fractional hiring practices, then he may hire three to five part-time managers to fulfill this managerial employee position that would normally be fulfilled by a full-time manager if he were to forgo implementing fractional hiring practices. Implementing fractional hiring practices can provide more employment opportunities to real private sector employees by companies than would otherwise be offered to them if all real private sector employee jobs based on voluntary demand were configured to be full-time employee positions. Even though fractional employment is not commensurate to full-time employment, it is still nonetheless cumbersome to succumb to the brunt of experiencing first-hand for people who real private sector employee jobs based on voluntary demand on a part-time basis. Being fractionally employed to a real private sector employer can be eminently arduous for a real private sector employee to sustain for a prolonged period of time. Lamentably, most real private sector employee jobs based on voluntary demand are often deemed to be dead end, highly time depleting, debilitating, minimum wage, dispiriting, unfulfilling, undesirable, harrowing, distressful, brutally wretched, ineffably agonizing jobs that not only drain almost all of the employee's sacrosanct time, but also do not pay anything close to 1/4 of a subsistence wage for affording housing. Most real private sector employers are keen on not offering any benefits nor pension to their employees in spite of how much hard work, time, efforts, and mental bandwidth that they expended fulfilling their job responsibilities. The only way to get out of poverty is to have your recurring revenue streams generate enough revenue to offset your recurring expenses. Lamentably, most real private sector employers do not care furnish their employees with anywhere close to a subsistence wage because they are on keen on minimizing their labor costs at all costs. Almost all of the profits that companies generate are reserved for its executives and shareholders. It is less cumbersome for companies to offer massive compensation to their executives when they are able to minimize their labor costs. It is also less arduous for the companies to be able to offer sizeable retainer fees to their external directors when they are able to are able to minimize their labor costs. People often grossly underestimate how lucrative it can be to a chief executive officer of a highly profitable company. The pay grade that the board of directors set forth for the chief executive officer's compensation is enormously lofty. An exorbitant amount of chief executive officer earn over $165,000,000 in compensation. If a chief executive officer, for instance, earned $165,000,000 per year in compensation, then he would be receiving about $22.035 per second which is also $79,326.92 per hour. In the event that a company paid an assistant manager $10 per hour which is $20,800 per year and paid a chief executive officer $165,000,000 per year in compensation, then it would denote that the board of directors consider the CEO's time to be worth 793,169% more than their company's assistant managers based on their pay grades which they believe are commensurate with their productively levels. If companies paid a livable wage to their employees, then the chief executive officer who earns about $22.035 per second, $165,000,000 per year may possible need to take a pay cut to render it possible for the employees to receive a livable wage. The CEO earns about 793,169% more per hour than an assistant manager who, for instance, earns an hourly gross rate of $10 per hour at the company.