3 ms·
I'm going to need you to change that to "95% of all NEW jobs", then, because that's what those sources say.
by InitialLastName 9y ago
I'm going to need you to change that to "95% of all NEW jobs", then, because that's what those sources say.
- sitkack 9y agoI believe that is what the _since_ means, at least that is how I read it.
- InitialLastName 9y agoI read it as "In 2009, the US passed a threshold where 95% of jobs were temporary"
- ThomPete 9y agoI thought the context was clear. Changed it sligthly.
- cadlin 9y agoThat's not exactly what it means either. A lot of non-temp jobs were destroyed during the recession, so to some extent the low net-non-temp job growth in the US is due to the job market having to climb out of a giant hole. And a lot of these jobs would have been considered full-time previously, but for political reasons such as the ACA, weak unions, Congress's general hostility to labor, the workers are classified as contractors instead. From the econ paper these numbers are based on: >Unfortunately, we cannot determine the extent to which the replacement of traditional jobs with alternative work arrangements occurred before, during or after the Great Recession, although it is likely that there were tremendous losses of traditional jobs during the recession
- InitialLastName 9y agoYou read even better than me! In retrospect, I guess it's intuitive that temp jobs are the most likely to expand and contract in response to recessions.