Does it really matter if it's "real" or not? The original article says it's not for equally tenuous reasons in my opinion: e.g. it's only happening in the US an

Does it really matter if it's "real" or not? The original article says it's not for equally tenuous reasons in my opinion: e.g. it's only happening in the US and GB which apparently means it's not "real" if it's not happening literally everywhere. Further, I think highlighting the collective power of workers and people generally leaving shitty jobs, bosses, and companies for greener pastures is a good thing. There's a million ways to Sunday that this phenomenon could be localized or sliced (certain geographies, any number of socio-economic or demographic lines, industries, even specific job titles etc. may show increased worker turnover). If people are leaving customer facing service jobs because of anti-mask nut-jobs, low pay, lack of autonomy in hours, and general staff shortages I don't exactly blame them. It also doesn't mean that this turnover would be visible in high-earning tech jobs. I hate being conspiratorial, but who does this narrative benefit? Obviously employers (and probably the majority of the subscribership of The Economist).