Talk:Quaternary sector of the economy
|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
The definition of 'buzzwords' does cover anything here; either the banner is there out of ignorance or is out-of-date. Recognised terminology for complex business architecture does not [necessarily] equal buzzwords. all of this is all corret
- What exactly is the "fourth-sector?" The Social economy page describes the fourth sector as a place where "informal exchanges take place between family and friends." The New York Times also ran an article with another variation on this term. Any thoughts how this can all be reconciled? Stephen LaPorte (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- BUT, ALL THINGS A SIDE! HALO REACH IS COMING OUT MAY 3RD!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Shorten the name?
The "quaternary sector" seems, from this article, to be nothing but a buzzword for certain parts of what most economists and commentators still call the tertiary sector. Unless someone can provide some evidence that the term really is used widely by serious writers on economics - or, indeed, by anyone at all - this article should surely be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a buzzword - the article's references go back to 1967. It is a concept, less offical than the idea of the three-sector economy itself, but still an idea that seems to have had some staying power. The article admits that the idea itself is still not quite established. It also has enough sources (and substantial ones, at that) that I'd say it's definitely worth keeping. Googling 'information sector' draws a billion search results, including UN, BLS, and US census sources near the top (this article ranks third). The term would seem significant, but we might consider renaming to 'information sector' - again, that's just my opinion (and it might entail renaming tertiary sector to service sector). Mxheil (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that the following sentence is essentially useless, if nothing else because this is an article about the economy:
"The term should not to be confused with the geological term quaternary referring to a period of time covering two to three million years ago to the present."