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.
Doesn’t help that the average American information source an entertainment venue in a “news” costume.
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.