3 ms·
This article is bordering on flaggable. For reference, the HN title above differs from original: "Anxiety about the economy is forcing two-thirds of U.S. employ
by mikestew 1y ago
This article is bordering on flaggable. For reference, the HN title above differs from original: "Anxiety about the economy is forcing two-thirds of U.S. employers to yank budgets for raises" (emphasis mine). It opens with this:
"In 2026, US employers are expected to grant employees raises that are largely in line with what they’re receiving this year, according to a Payscale report released on Aug. 7."
Umm, wait a minute. Just seconds ago was the claim that a large majority of employers were yanking raises.
But the bullshit blog spam doesn't even match the title of the original:
"Of the respondents who said their 2026 budget for salary increases is expected to be lower than their 2025 budget, nearly two-thirds (66%), said they were “concerned about future economic conditions or business performance,” up 17 percentage points from last year."
I'll repeat that via paraphrasing: "Of those companies who are cutting comp budgets, 2/3 said..." That differs a lot from the original title, and the HN title (which I'll assume was edited for space) doesn't even make sense at that point.
- luckylion 1y agoHas fortune.com followed forbes.com in renting out their authority to random people/entities who want to publish something on their site? I guess this doesn't fall under Site Reputation Abuse for google. But why not?
- mikestew 1y agoSo it would appear. The original article was published on an HR-related content farm, and is not original with Fortune magazine.