If they hired one million people to do two hours of work each day, that’d be a million jobs. Hyperbole obviously, but don’t let the big number impress you too much.
If they hired one million people to do two hours of work each day, that’d be a million jobs.
Hyperbole obviously, but don’t let the big number impress you too much.
Kind of sloppy by the Verge not to include the original quote: Alibaba never intended to hire a million employees in the US. As of March this year they had (according to themselves) 66,421...
Kind of sloppy by the Verge not to include the original quote:
Alibaba executive Chairman Jack Ma said the company could create "1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform."
Alibaba never intended to hire a million employees in the US. As of March this year they had (according to themselves) 66,421 employees worldwide. What they were hoping for was that by making it easier for US companies to sell their goods in Asia, they would stimulate growth in the US exports industry, and thereby "bring jobs to the US".
The point @DMonitor is trying to make is that numbers like these can never be taken at face value. Companies always want to make themselves look good, both to give consumers a positive view of them, and to make legislators go easy on them. In this case, after reading the original quote, it seems clear to me that the number is pure guesswork.
For your second question; I think most would agree that part-time jobs are better than no jobs. The problem with part-time jobs is that they often don't pay enough to survive, much less to provide for a family. Part-time workers often rely on social services, unless they can land a second or even third job. That's why some think that part-time employment should be more regulated, to encourage companies to hire full-time instead.
That's a lot of jobs.
If they hired one million people to do two hours of work each day, that’d be a million jobs.
Hyperbole obviously, but don’t let the big number impress you too much.
Kind of sloppy by the Verge not to include the original quote:
Alibaba never intended to hire a million employees in the US. As of March this year they had (according to themselves) 66,421 employees worldwide. What they were hoping for was that by making it easier for US companies to sell their goods in Asia, they would stimulate growth in the US exports industry, and thereby "bring jobs to the US".
The point @DMonitor is trying to make is that numbers like these can never be taken at face value. Companies always want to make themselves look good, both to give consumers a positive view of them, and to make legislators go easy on them. In this case, after reading the original quote, it seems clear to me that the number is pure guesswork.
For your second question; I think most would agree that part-time jobs are better than no jobs. The problem with part-time jobs is that they often don't pay enough to survive, much less to provide for a family. Part-time workers often rely on social services, unless they can land a second or even third job. That's why some think that part-time employment should be more regulated, to encourage companies to hire full-time instead.
a yuge amount of jobs
How would that be accomplished?
A) There was already scepticism re. his promise.
B) They wouldn’t b the sort of jobs you could live on.