4 ms·

In related news, 90% have either coughed or died suddenly. Losing hours and losing jobs are two very different things, conflating statistics like this is count

In related news, 90% have either coughed or died suddenly. Losing hours and losing jobs are two very different things, conflating statistics like this is counterproductive to understanding.

dangus 7y ago
No, they’re talking about just one thing - not receiving pay.
- amiga_500 7y ago
  First paragraph (and headline): > Some 18% of adults reported that they had been laid off or that their work hours had been cut
  - elicash 7y ago
    I think the person you responded to was saying was that both of those things (being laid off and having hours cut) involve not receiving some amount of pay. And that that's the reason they were grouped together. Basically that it was answering one specific question: How many had pay impacted. But that it doesn't answer these other questions that yes would in fact be very useful, including a breakdown.
    - amiga_500 7y ago
      Perhaps, but the data is merged and too much information is lost. Did I prick my finger or lose 4 pints of blood! == Less overtime or fired.
      - elicash 7y ago
        I don't think that's a fair comparison, personally. Getting your hours cut is a big deal and might mean you can't pay your bills. Like I said, I think it's great to split them out if you can, but let's not minimize actual pain people are going to be going through right now. Especially on a site where the average income is so much higher than most.
simondw 7y ago
Grouping related things together isn't necessarily conflating. I don't think the article is trying to say "18% of workers have basically lost their jobs!!!", but rather to give a sense of how many people's incomes are impacted.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  If they weren't trying to conflate them the headline would have been "Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have reduced our or lost jobs"
Tallasatree 7y ago
Agreed, losing a job is very different than getting hours cut. Both suck, one sucks much much more.

In related news, 90% have either coughed or died suddenly. Losing hours and losing jobs are two very different things, conflating statistics like this is counterproductive to understanding.

dangus 7y ago

No, they’re talking about just one thing - not receiving pay.

amiga_500 7y ago
First paragraph (and headline): > Some 18% of adults reported that they had been laid off or that their work hours had been cut
- elicash 7y ago
  I think the person you responded to was saying was that both of those things (being laid off and having hours cut) involve not receiving some amount of pay. And that that's the reason they were grouped together. Basically that it was answering one specific question: How many had pay impacted. But that it doesn't answer these other questions that yes would in fact be very useful, including a breakdown.
  - amiga_500 7y ago
    Perhaps, but the data is merged and too much information is lost. Did I prick my finger or lose 4 pints of blood! == Less overtime or fired.
    - elicash 7y ago
      I don't think that's a fair comparison, personally. Getting your hours cut is a big deal and might mean you can't pay your bills. Like I said, I think it's great to split them out if you can, but let's not minimize actual pain people are going to be going through right now. Especially on a site where the average income is so much higher than most.

simondw 7y ago

Grouping related things together isn't necessarily conflating. I don't think the article is trying to say "18% of workers have basically lost their jobs!!!", but rather to give a sense of how many people's incomes are impacted.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
If they weren't trying to conflate them the headline would have been "Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have reduced our or lost jobs"

Tallasatree 7y ago

Agreed, losing a job is very different than getting hours cut. Both suck, one sucks much much more.