I agree with you as well of the spirit of what the study in the article is trying to do, but I do object to the terminology they used, as it muddies the waters unnecessarily. A term like "underemployed" is much better than "functionally unemployed."

Doesn't help that the average American information source an entertainment venue in a "news" costume.

The excuse I always heard was the affordable care act made it to expensive for companies to keep most workers 40 hours a week. All my friends in the service industry went from one full time job, to 3 part time jobs. Worse hours and pay.

line must go up, paying people fairly for their labor might make line go up slightly less than it could

No shit, have you seen how much money they are asking for?

It's not schiz. It's about how we measure "the economy". There are lots of ways, and the one that Newsweek (and all mainstream voices) use has nothing at all to do with the wellbeing of people. It only measures the wellbeing of shareholders.

Usually when the news media talk about "the economy," they're not talking about the financial well-being of workers, or the average citizen. They're talking about how much extra money corporations and the ultra wealthy are making. If every time you read about the economy you mentally transpose the words "the economy" with "rich people's yacht money" what they're writing about becomes a lot clearer.

1. "Everyone is being paid such ridiculous poverty wages that they are functionally unemployed."
2. "Rich people have tons more yacht money."

They're not actually opposing statements. One is a direct result of the other.