Underemployment has always been an ignored statistic. The media and government report a single number as some sort of status of the economy, when it’s so much more complex than one data point.
I agree with you as well of the spirit of what the study in the article is trying to do, but I do object to the terminology they used, as it muddies the waters unnecessarily. A term like “underemployed” is much better than “functionally unemployed.”
Underemployment has always been an ignored statistic. The media and government report a single number as some sort of status of the economy, when it’s so much more complex than one data point.
I agree with you as well of the spirit of what the study in the article is trying to do, but I do object to the terminology they used, as it muddies the waters unnecessarily. A term like “underemployed” is much better than “functionally unemployed.”
that’s because you’re not as used to using the word “functional” as i am.
Doesn’t help that the average American information source an entertainment venue in a “news” costume.