Doug Henwood wrote,
>The rigor of the definition is irrelevant to judging the trend, as is the
>level of aggregation, since this has been a discussion about the nature of
>"work" in general. Aronowitz & DiFazio said, for example, that "most" of
>the jobs created in the early 1990s have been part-time, when in fact
>they're not...
The rigour of definition and level of aggregation is relevant. The BLS data
Doug cited showed "non-economic" part-time work nearly doubling in 36 years
and "economic" part-time work staying flat. If the definition of economic
part-time work is so narrow that it excludes all but the most indefatigable
full-time job seekers, then that might itself explain a good part of the
divergence between the two trends.
Looking for work is hard enough as it is. Actively seeking full-time work
when you already have a job (albeit part-time), when you know there are few
decent jobs available, and perhaps are a single parent to boot might not
qualify as a rational activity. Perhaps a lot of those "non-economics" are
just waiting it out at their part-time place of employment hoping to acquire
enough seniority to get on full-time when a position opens up.
As for level of aggregation, we are precisely talking about adding apples
and oranges. How does the BLS count someone who works at three part-time
jobs for a total averaging 30-35 hours a week? As one full-time worker? That
would be my guess. How are "self-employed" contract workers treated? And
what are the relationships between hours of labour and hourly rates? What
are the demographic characteristics of the part-time and full-time
employees? and what are the labour force participation rates by
age/gender/race? What are the occupational break-downs? What are the
sectoral differences? The list goes on and on.
A good statistical analysis of labour market trends requires several dozen
tables and multiple multiple regression analyses to reach the most tentative
of conclusions about what is actually happening. Even then the results are
subject to conflicting interpretations. I've always been under the
impression that the ultimate meaning of survey data is incredibly elusive,
particularly when you try to answer questions with the results that the
original survey wasn't designed to answer. I'm surprised to learn that the
BLS has devised a few simple aggregate reports that accurately and
enduringly reflect the diversity of a boisterously changing labour market.
Doug concluded his comment by saying, "For all too many people, overwork is
the story of the labor market." I agree whole heartly. I think I'll give
this thread a rest unless Doug says something outrageous in rebuttal.
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
