Parsing error at paragraph 5
I'm no stranger to the implied negative or just a bamboozling sentence structure, but *please* tell me I am not alone in struggling to understand just what the bleep these two paragraphs are actually trying to say:
> Even with a somewhat middle-of-the-road policy, Microsoft's data shows over a four percent increase in the share of positions held by sub-senior employees immediately after implementing its return to office mandate.
> It was a similar story at Apple, which saw a near 4 percent rise in sub-senior positions vacating. However, SpaceX experienced an even larger loss of top talent as its sub-senior worker share rose by 15 percent. and the stricter the mandates are, the more likely they are to jump ship.
Rise in the share of sub-senior positions held at Microsoft? Ok, so we - see the ratio of "not the people we are talking about" go up, therefore - the percentage of seniors has gone down! Got it - but, um, that does NOT automatically mean that the seniors left, it may be more juniors[1] were added? And, btw, that 4% figure? Totally useless in terms of understanding by what % the seniors ratio has changed 'cos we don't have either the initial or final ratio senior:sub-senior!
Conclusion: *maybe* that says some seniors have left Microsoft, if we squint a bit. Okay, on to Apple:
> a near 4 percent rise in sub-senior positions vacating.
WHAT? Now we have to cope with *another* negative?! This time the sub-seniors are leaving, so that means - the seniors are staying? No, wait, we gained a negative but lost a ratio - this is no longer referring to a "share" of positions! Ah ha, that must mean that - aargh, no, we have NO information at all about what the seniors at Apple are doing! So what was the point in even including that sentence?!
Too late to turn back now, how about SpaceX:
> even larger loss of top talent as its sub-senior worker share rose by 15 percent
Ok, we are back on the same ground as with Microsoft, talking about the "share" of "sub-seniors", so what did we figure out that told us about the actions of the seniors? Oh, yes, that was it: we got a great, big, fat "MAYBE" this tells us something!
> The data implies that return to office mandates could convince senior employees to leave,
NO IT BLEEPING DOESN'T!
> "One thing we would like to emphasize is that these estimates are 'causal' in the sense that we account for what would have happened at Microsoft in the absence of an RTO [return to office mandate]," said co-author David Van Dijcke to The Register.
Uuugghh! "Causal" - beCAUSE we imagined what would happen in an alternate reality. Presumably the same alternate reality where you presented all the data that was relevant and in a fashion that clearly and obviously supported your conclusions!
> Essentially, the figures show what would have happened at the three tech giants had they not issued their office mandates.
Oh, right, yes *clearly* that was what that lot meant!
[1] whoops, clearly I can't say "junior" now, they are "sub-senior"; presumably have all been issued with snorkels?