4 ms·

> So 10 in 4? Seems... unlikely. See the word "percentage" which you quoted and would suggest I meant 1 in 40? Or are you doing The Internet Thing of not actu

• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > See the word "percentage" which you quoted and would suggest I meant 1 in 40? Mixing fractions and percentages doesn't change that an order of magnitude more than 1 in 4 (25%) is 10 in 4 (250%). If you meant 1 in 40, you should have either said “less” instead of “more” or, “the denominator in the fraction of people made redundant is an order of magnitude more than in that benchmark 1 in 4” in place of “the percentage of people made redundant is an order of magnitude more than that benchmark 1 in 4”, and in either case that’s 2.5% , which while not insignificant if intended as a delta on top of normal unemployment, is less than the delta in a most recessions (the Great Recession peaked at about +5% from the pre-recession trough, which wasn't itself a long-term steady baseline), is also not significant enough to warrant the kind of hyperventilating you are doing. Its also very much not the obvious intent of the words you wrote.