If the makeup of the companies was roughly 50/50, then 6% is not likely to be particularly noteworthy. But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, so it being close to 50% IS noteworthy.
You would expect the layoff ratio to fairly closely match the overall ratio of the positions eliminated. This might be explained by the HR bit, but it might also not be - only about a quarter of the positions eliminated were in HR, and while we know HR tends to skew female where tech tends to skew male, it's not 100% in either case.
There's not enough information available in the article itself to really come to a strong conclusion here, but it's not nearly as simple as "Well basically half of people on the planet are women so half of the people being let go being women makes sense"
> But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that,
No, we don't: the makeup of roles being terminated could be 56%, or even higher than 56%. The article mentioned that 28% of people laid off were HR, but didn't give a breakdown beyond that. Simply assuming that the roles being eliminated are proportional to the company's overall workforce is just as naive as assuming they're proportional to the general population.
reply