• Weirdly vague headline to the article -- no specificity, and could be talking about 2 people or 200,000. (To emphasize, I am not dogging the person who posted this on HN -- the HN thread title is a mirror of the article title.) Feels click-baity, but perhaps I'm being too rigid or cynical.
• The subhead is unrelated to the title. "Openings exceed unemployed Americans" is a different topic from "people who were laid off quickly found a new job.
• The article is based on 1 survey conducted by an online job-hunting portal (ZipRecruiter), and it took place in October, before ~5k people left Twitter, ~10k people left Facebook, and ~10K people left Amazon. 2,550 U.S. residents were surveyed.
• I'm guessing another person will notice this, but "tech worker" seems to be used loosely. I would not call a videographer who is now pivoting to social-media work a tech worker.
• Weirdly vague headline to the article -- no specificity, and could be talking about 2 people or 200,000. (To emphasize, I am not dogging the person who posted this on HN -- the HN thread title is a mirror of the article title.) Feels click-baity, but perhaps I'm being too rigid or cynical.
• The subhead is unrelated to the title. "Openings exceed unemployed Americans" is a different topic from "people who were laid off quickly found a new job.
• The article is based on 1 survey conducted by an online job-hunting portal (ZipRecruiter), and it took place in October, before ~5k people left Twitter, ~10k people left Facebook, and ~10K people left Amazon. 2,550 U.S. residents were surveyed.
• I'm guessing another person will notice this, but "tech worker" seems to be used loosely. I would not call a videographer who is now pivoting to social-media work a tech worker.