3 ms·

> The data collected by 365 Data Science also shows that a narrow majority of the staff who were let go (56 percent) were female. This is worrying, given that t

> The data collected by 365 Data Science also shows that a narrow majority of the staff who were let go (56 percent) were female. This is worrying, given that the tech industry has spent much of the last decade attempting to address the gender imbalance already present within the field – particularly within technical and engineering roles. It doesn’t exactly send out a great message to potential new female hires that, as well as a pay gap and a lower likelihood of progressing into senior roles, they will have to content with a greater chance of being let go. Just a few paragraphs earlier, the article mentioned that HR was most affected: > However, it is interesting to note that the roles and job functions most affected were within HR, which accounted for 28 percent of all layoffs. If they're going to mention the gender breakdown of people laid off they have to make note of gender representation of the roles going through layoffs in order to make an honest comparison.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sMarsIntruder 4y ago
Came here to write this. An entire paragraph for a 6%.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  If the makeup of the companies was roughly 50/50, then 6% is not likely to be particularly noteworthy. But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, so it being close to 50% IS noteworthy. You would expect the layoff ratio to fairly closely match the overall ratio of the positions eliminated. This might be explained by the HR bit, but it might also not be - only about a quarter of the positions eliminated were in HR, and while we know HR tends to skew female where tech tends to skew male, it's not 100% in either case. There's not enough information available in the article itself to really come to a strong conclusion here, but it's not nearly as simple as "Well basically half of people on the planet are women so half of the people being let go being women makes sense"
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, No, we don't: the makeup of roles being terminated could be 56%, or even higher than 56%. The article mentioned that 28% of people laid off were HR, but didn't give a breakdown beyond that. Simply assuming that the roles being eliminated are proportional to the company's overall workforce is just as naive as assuming they're proportional to the general population.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sMarsIntruder 4y ago

Came here to write this. An entire paragraph for a 6%.

cthalupa 4y ago
If the makeup of the companies was roughly 50/50, then 6% is not likely to be particularly noteworthy. But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, so it being close to 50% IS noteworthy. You would expect the layoff ratio to fairly closely match the overall ratio of the positions eliminated. This might be explained by the HR bit, but it might also not be - only about a quarter of the positions eliminated were in HR, and while we know HR tends to skew female where tech tends to skew male, it's not 100% in either case. There's not enough information available in the article itself to really come to a strong conclusion here, but it's not nearly as simple as "Well basically half of people on the planet are women so half of the people being let go being women makes sense"
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, No, we don't: the makeup of roles being terminated could be 56%, or even higher than 56%. The article mentioned that 28% of people laid off were HR, but didn't give a breakdown beyond that. Simply assuming that the roles being eliminated are proportional to the company's overall workforce is just as naive as assuming they're proportional to the general population.