Talk:Quaternary sector of the economy

dhanya

The definition of 'buzzwords' does cover anything here; either the banner is there out of ignorance or is out-of-date.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 70.152.232.47 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Shorten the name?

Quaternary sector of industry seems redundant. Why not shorten it to quaternary sector? ImpIn | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInforvimal - c) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

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 71.17.154.153 (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)

Geological Period

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."

I'm deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.129.3 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

This article references a Yahoo Answers page which in turn references this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.229.222 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.82.77 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious gallery images moved to talk page

• 
  Colin Clark's sector model of an economy undergoing technological change. In later stages, the quaternary sector of the economy grows – shown in red.
• 
  Producing entertainment tv

Is there anything worth salvaging here?

The graph is insufficiently explained. I'm especially troubled by the linear decline to zero of "primary activities". Also, the red, green and yellow lines intersect at a single point, which I don't think conveys anything pertinent.

The second illustration simply seems random.

— MaxEnt 03:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)