SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (31495)1/14/2009 5:39:51 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Re: My statement was "But part time workers where never recorded as unemployed".

(And I merely and simply observed that you *never* provided any evidence --- either way --- to either support or disprove that assertion. Neither did I. So I cannot say that I would agree with it, since I have no idea how the government defines 'part-time', nor if they have ever changed or altered their definition.)

Re: Am I correct that what you meant was something more like "I though the article said that part time people where counted as unemployed"?

No. Not that. (And the article, upon careful rereading of it, most definitely NEVER says anything of the sort.)

I thought (and I still do) that the original article IMPLIED that some changes might have been made over the many decades, insofar as how the government counts and categorizes what is 'part-time' and what is 'full-time' in it's unemployment statistics....

But the article (possibly because it is so short, possibly because of a hack editing job on it by the editors, possibly because of sloppy work by the author, possibly because???????) never actually comes right out and states anything definitive about the matter. Only one very short paragraph even mentions part-time.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext