4 ms·

The linked article works hard to provide only meaningless personal anecdotes and promote speculation to avoid any actual answers while pushing pre-selected agen

by VLM 4y ago

The linked article works hard to provide only meaningless personal anecdotes and promote speculation to avoid any actual answers while pushing pre-selected agendas. AKA, journalism in a nutshell. Sadly typical. Which is why almost no one reads that stuff anymore and no one takes it seriously anymore. As a member of the group in question, I find the data easy to believe. Its less than two weeks work on average. If I get a new job its "normal" for me to take a week or three off, its all voluntary, I could see how in a court of law or as a weapon of propaganda my experience could get spun into being a part of the story.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Retric 4y ago
The article was mostly quoting statistics from a linked study in the beginning, only quoting a few people to get a feel for why this may have changed. Anyway, people taking time off between jobs only applies to people who actually swapped jobs. Unless job hoppers started taking a month off it’s not going to result in these numbers: The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market logged 77 fewer work hours in 2022, on average, than those in the same earnings group in 2019, according to a new study of federal data by the economics department at Washington University in St. Louis. That translates to 1.5 hours less time on the job each workweek, or a 3% reduction in hours.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  So top 10% is $173,176 So basically this is just saying layoffs exist in tech.
  - Retric 4y ago
    10% of the US workforce is 16 million people, tech layoffs are nowhere close to that scale. Also, being unemployed for a significant timeframe tends to lower earnings and pull people out of the top 10%.
SideQuark 4y ago
>The linked article .... The problem here is not journalism - it's people unable or unwilling to read correctly. The second sentence contains a link to the study [1] with all the information you need. > Which is why almost no one reads that stuff Yep, it is clear people don't read this stuff; many simply assume things instead. When you fail to read an article then assume it's another example of your prior belief, especially if completely incorrect as in this case, you're simply creating a world view that is not the actual world. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833 https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833
- nebula8804 4y ago
  Hmm you've inspired an idea. For stories like this, wish there was some browser extension that would link the study (maybe through user submitted content?) That way, users can avoid clicking the link altogether and just go read the study.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    The problem is most people aren’t qualified to correctly interpret scientific studies. Even if the abstracts are written in laypeople terms, the studies often contain important nuances. In an ideal world we would have competent scientific journalism that can talk about science both accurately and also in an interesting way. Alas…
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      Your issues are not really resolvable. The nuances are complex, so you either need to cover enough depth to convey the accuracy, which will lose or bore too many readers, or you dumb it down enough to make it consumable by less sophisticated readers, and lose the nuance. And there's ample journalism over that whole spectrum. You just cannot have both accuracy and simplicity.

by VLM 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Retric 4y ago

The article was mostly quoting statistics from a linked study in the beginning, only quoting a few people to get a feel for why this may have changed. Anyway, people taking time off between jobs only applies to people who actually swapped jobs. Unless job hoppers started taking a month off it’s not going to result in these numbers: The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market logged 77 fewer work hours in 2022, on average, than those in the same earnings group in 2019, according to a new study of federal data by the economics department at Washington University in St. Louis. That translates to 1.5 hours less time on the job each workweek, or a 3% reduction in hours.

zug_zug 4y ago
So top 10% is $173,176 So basically this is just saying layoffs exist in tech.
- Retric 4y ago
  10% of the US workforce is 16 million people, tech layoffs are nowhere close to that scale. Also, being unemployed for a significant timeframe tends to lower earnings and pull people out of the top 10%.

SideQuark 4y ago

>The linked article .... The problem here is not journalism - it's people unable or unwilling to read correctly. The second sentence contains a link to the study [1] with all the information you need. > Which is why almost no one reads that stuff Yep, it is clear people don't read this stuff; many simply assume things instead. When you fail to read an article then assume it's another example of your prior belief, especially if completely incorrect as in this case, you're simply creating a world view that is not the actual world. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833 https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833

nebula8804 4y ago
Hmm you've inspired an idea. For stories like this, wish there was some browser extension that would link the study (maybe through user submitted content?) That way, users can avoid clicking the link altogether and just go read the study.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  The problem is most people aren’t qualified to correctly interpret scientific studies. Even if the abstracts are written in laypeople terms, the studies often contain important nuances. In an ideal world we would have competent scientific journalism that can talk about science both accurately and also in an interesting way. Alas…
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    Your issues are not really resolvable. The nuances are complex, so you either need to cover enough depth to convey the accuracy, which will lose or bore too many readers, or you dumb it down enough to make it consumable by less sophisticated readers, and lose the nuance. And there's ample journalism over that whole spectrum. You just cannot have both accuracy and simplicity.