Maybe not.
To me; it does.
My feelings on this is it's no good crowing about a zillion more jobs created if folks can't pay their bills from having one.
For example; a retrenched 45 year old dude, who is now a Bunnings worker in one of their newest constructed branches, who gets 15-20 hours per week.
But the Gubbmint reckons it's great! Look what we've done, folks!!
And they didn't create the jobs; Bunnings did.
This is not really employment. He's only doing it until he can get a real job that earns decent bucks...if he even can at that age..
Same as everybody else in that boat I'd wager.
Lots of those more "substantial" jobs/careers are disappearing...
Of course, there are plenty who find this type of hours perfect; house wives/husbands with school kids, students, etc.
The term is too general and the Pollies don't seem to ever want to make any distinction - just crow about "more jobs".
Would any of them - or anyone here on SS - stay in a job like that?
Would you call that a "career"? Most wouldn't.
I suppose there is the possibility of the Bunnings guy working his way up to Store Manager if he can hang around and do it well for long enough.
When you consider who vocal the current crop of younger folk are about how hard it is to buy a house now; there is not much satisfaction in hearing that there are more jobs going, but they are like the ones as described.
People want meaningful and solid careers....decent rate of pay, sick leave, annual leave pay and so on.