Doug Henwood wrote,
>In its latest Employment Outlook, the OECD found no secular increase in
>part-time employment...
- snip, snip -
>...Here are the part-time stats for the U.S., also one
>of the least regulated labor markets in the First World. The label "econ"
>means part-time for economic reasons (i.e., involuntary); nonecon is what
>used to be called voluntary part-time. Is there a secular trend here?
>
>PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, % OF TOTAL
> total econ nonecon
>1960 11.1% 3.5% 7.6%
>1970 13.7% 2.5% 12.0%
>1980 16.4% 3.5% 12.9%
>1990 16.5% 3.9% 12.6%
>1996 16.6% 3.2% 13.3%
The Canadian studies I referred to in my previous post were carried out by
Statistics Canada researchers (Garnett Picot, Rene Morisette and John
Myles). They analyzed disaggregated data. I don't know about the OECD
Employment Outlook, but the BLS data Doug presents is definitely aggregated.
So in part we're comparing apples and oranges. But perhaps Doug could
comment a bit on the rigour of the BLS's definitions of "economic" and
"non-economic" part-time employment. For example, in computing official
unemployment statistics, "discouraged workers" who are not engaged in an
active job search are not counted as participating in the labour force. Do
part-timers have to be engaged in an active search for full-time employment
to count as "economic part-timers?"
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
