> Define "part time work."
>
> What about "part time work" when a student [S]?
> I worked only 39 hours when 48 hours was a normal workweek. Is that "part
> time work"?
This point has been discussed before, at some length.
IIRR the consensus was that, because respondents would
be American, part-time work should be that defined by law
(if any) or else the threshhold in hours which denies the
employee other benefits, e.g. health insurance or a pension plan.

Signature
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
> Define "part time work."
Ok I will take this into account. Thanks
> What about "part time work" when a student [S]?
I do not consider students. The sample is based only on employees and
retired people. But yes you are right otherwise.
> I worked only 39 hours when 48 hours was a normal workweek. Is that "part
> time work"?
Good point. I consider 35 hours and more full time work. This is the
definition of US Department of Labor.
> Is each "F" a different employer?
Good point. I do not consider employer change in this question. I will
mention this in the beginning of the question. Great advice, thanks.
> What about periods of unemployment [U]?
Good point. I missed this. I will think about it. Maybe I will mention it in
the beginning of the question. On the other hand, I ask the respondents to
choose the path that is "closest" to their own path. Hence this controls for
this possibility a bit. but you are right I have to be careful here.
> What about a second job, "part time work" while being fully employed?
I missed this point. I will think about it.
> My career path could be:
> S
> SP [Various types of work]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> P [39-hour week again]
> F [Rejoined military]
These are too complicated. I cannot consider every possibility. therefore I
need to simplify it a bit. But in principle you are rigjht.
> FP
> FP
> FP
> F
> R
I consider these in the question so I don’t have a problem with here I
think.
> RP
> RF
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> RP
> R
You have a point here. These are called reverse flows. You retire and then
reenter. I do not consider this yet. I am thinking on it.
> Would each enlistment or change of duty station be regarded as a
different "F"?
No. full time definition is based only on labor supply, i.e. the number of
hours worked. But you have a point here.
> What of an individual who works two or three "F" or "P" salaried jobs
> while being self-employed [SE] at the same time? F P P SE?
This is again too complicated. Such a person should choose the path F
because he is working more than 35 hours a week. But this is a good point.
It indicates that I have to make the question more clear.
Rambler, your advice is very helpful. I will work on it and I will
definitely makes changes to the question. If you feel, please reply my
reply.
Thank you!!!
Hatunen - 26 May 2009 17:18 GMT
>> Define "part time work."
>
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>reply.
>Thank you!!!
It doesn't seem that you have thought this through very well...

Signature
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
minimus - 27 May 2009 11:55 GMT
> It doesn't seem that you have thought this through very well...
Well that is why I asked it here. The feedback given here already tells me
how far I am.
the good thing is that I will first ask this question to a pilot sample. I
can then understand to what extent my question misses career paths.
R H Draney - 26 May 2009 19:01 GMT
minimus filted:
>> What about "part time work" when a student [S]?
>
>I do not consider students. The sample is based only on employees and
>retired people. But yes you are right otherwise.
You also don't consider employees or retired people who may have been working
students at some time in the past, which eliminates a considerable portion of
your sample....
The design your survey seems to be following resembles some of those I take
online (I'm one of those unemployed people you exclude in another portion of
your reply to Rambler): first they ask how much you think you'd like a product
(like it very much, like it somewhat, neither like nor dislike it, dislike it
somewhat, or dislike it very much)...then they ask how many you will buy the
next time you shop (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, more than 6)...if you've already told them
you expect to dislike the product very much, surely "zero" should be an option
for the follow-up question....r

Signature
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
minimus - 27 May 2009 11:54 GMT
> minimus filted:
> You also don't consider employees or retired people who may have been
> working
> students at some time in the past, which eliminates a considerable portion
> of
> your sample....
Thanks. I will consider working students and I will thin on other
possibilities.
Career paths can be very diverse and I cannot take into account all
possibilities. It is just impossible. On the other hand the career path
option I provide should not over simplified. It is a matter of finding the
right balance. And it is not easy.
> The design your survey seems to be following resembles some of those I
> take
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> option
> for the follow-up question....r
I don’t really see the resemblance here. I do not ask how much do they like
the product, I ask them how much the described product is close to the
product they like. And if it is not close, in the second question I provide
them the opportunity to indicate that it was close or it was not close.
minimus - 27 May 2009 12:21 GMT
> minimus filted:
> You also don't consider employees or retired people who may have been
> working
> students at some time in the past, which eliminates a considerable portion
> of
> your sample....
This is also not very relevant for what I doing. Period of studying is
limited to young ages and after that you either work full or part time.
On the other hand, working student means part time work and it is in one the
option I provide.