Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

elizabeth-cooper t1_jccuvwz wrote

You didn't read that correctly, but it's not your fault, they deliberately wrote it in a confusing way.

They interviewed 1,500 people and 500 were not employed in the first place.

510 people out of 1,000 reported "issues" with their job. Among those issues, 27% reported being fired. That means 138 people reported being fired out of 1,000, which is 14% of employed arrestees. Which means 86% did not lose their jobs.

That 20/35% is likelihood of losing their job, not the percent of people who did lose their job.

8

matzoh_ball t1_jcd1fql wrote

Good catch! Yes, kinda makes sense that they’d only report the percentages of people who lost their job of people who had a job in the first place. Still, could be made more clear in their write up.

So, regardless of the job issues stat, it seems they base those likelihoods on the number of ppl who had a job at time of arrest:

> Over one in five participants who were employed at the time of arrest (n=1,031) were no longer employed when they were interviewed (n=219)

4