Talk:Tertiary sector of the economy
|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Tertiary sector of the "economy", not "industry" industry/manufacturing is the second sector agro/mining ecc. the primary
the classification is part of a french economic teaching.
Services is no part of "industry".
- Your definition of the word "industry" is too wide .... consult an English dictionary for details. --Joy [shallot] 14:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First, it would be a good idea to cite someone as the source of the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. I don't know who the original source is, but somebody should. If not the source, at least someone should be able to find an early reference to this division. Second, primary does not just include agriculture; it includes everything appropriated directly from nature, including mining (cited here as secondary) and hunting and fishing. Third, is this a division of "industry," of "the economy," or of "economic activity"? I think it's the last. What happens over time is that fewer people are actively involved in primary activities, more shift their efforts to secondary activities, and then, finally, there is a shift away from both primary and secondary activities towards tertiary activities. Fourth, the subdivisions among tertiary activities--quaternary and beyond--seem out of keeping with the logic of the original scheme. Primary activities take from nature, secondary activities use materials taken from nature to create something new, and tertiary activities (to the extent that there is a hierarchy here) involve the use of secondary products to serve some economic purpose. Fifth, the stuff about "soft sector" employment is a nonsensical list of business school buzzwords. Somewhat Agree 01:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The correct and most used terminology is "Tertiary Sector of the Economy". Both the primary, seocndary and tertiary sector articles should be renamed to reflect this.--Lobizón 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a somewhat dated division of the economy, isn't it? That is one source of the "wealth-consuming" notion. The service sector now includes industries that provide services-at-a-distance (consulting, financial, insurance, intellectual property, franchising, as well as those in transportation and telecommunications/telecomputing). These are some of the most dynamic. DCDuring 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Given that the teriary sector may itself be either a net wealth generator, or an exporter, or both, and that it may include premium-skills areas such as medical research, IT standards development and IT generally, economics etc. etc. the term tertiary seems to obscure rather than enlighten. The present 'debate' about the relative merits of financial services vs. manufacturing seems to be part of this confusion. Does anyone know of a useful taxonomy that could be used in this article and preferably one in which figures for GDP contribution are available? Artowalos (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the service sector wealth consuming?
I don't believe either of the cited sources is actually saying that the service sector tends to be wealth consuming. Rather they appear to be saying that government services (as opposed to the service sector in general) are wealth consuming. Can anyone provide better sources?
Here is the text in the current article that concerns me:
According to some economists, the service sector tends to be wealth consuming, whereas manufacturing is wealth producing. Sir Keith Joseph in his lecture Monetarism IS Not Enough, contrasted wealth producing sectors in an economy such as manufacturing with the service sector which tends to be a wealth consuming sector. He contended that an economy declines as its wealth producing sector begins to shrink. 
220.127.116.11 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is such a quaint, dated notion that it should be in some kind of intellectual history section. When I get around to it, I will take a run at it unless there are strong (and reasoned) objections. DCDuring 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Yes, it's a particularly unhelpful distinction. I suggest a short para to discuss this issue - perhaps quoting http://www.economist.com/node/21527107 - what does everyone else think? Artowalos (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The distinction made in those references are between the Private and Public sectors and not between Tertiary and Primary/Secondary industry sectors. For this reason, I've removed this paragraph. Rubisco (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is true
- David Friedman, New America Foundation (2002-06-16). No Light at the End of the Tunnel Los Angeles Times.
- Sir Keith Joseph, Center for Policy Studies (1976-04-05).Stockton Lecture, Monetarism Is Not Enough, with forward by Margaret Thatcher. (Barry Rose Pub.) Margaret Thatcher Foundation (2006).