5 ms·

So the CNBC article immediately mentions the $50 billion number, links to a source that requires a paid account to even see that $50 billion number, and then do

So the CNBC article immediately mentions the $50 billion number, links to a source that requires a paid account to even see that $50 billion number, and then does not reference that study again. They then interview someone else about their independent research that only shows about $400 million in theft.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
That is an extremely good point - I grabbed that article because I was just looking for a source. In retrospect I shouldn’t have trusted CNBC. I believe the data is based off the Hiscox report [1], which makes the extremely important point that 85% of losses are due to employees at the managerial level or above - who are of course far less likely to be victims of wage theft! So this “eye for an eye” mentality is truly gross, beyond just the ways where it’s self-evidently gross. [1] https://www.hiscox.com/documents/2018-Hiscox-Embezzlement-Study.pdf https://www.hiscox.com/documents/2018-Hiscox-Embezzlement-St...