Quick summary of probability shifts under the weighted system:
Level I ($80K median): -57% selection probability
Level II ($103K median): -14%
Level III ($135K median): +29%
Level IV ($158K median): +73%
The counterintuitive finding: product companies (direct employers) have 22% Level I concentration vs 7% for staffing firms. The rule designed to stop "lottery abuse" hits direct employers 3x harder.
Data source: DOL LCA disclosure data. Happy to discuss methodology.
square_usual•1h ago
> The rule designed to stop "lottery abuse" hits direct employers 3x harder.
To prove this, you need to compute the total numbers and not just proportion. If 22% of the direct employees are Level 1, but there's only 300 direct level 1 filings total, the absolute numbers are dwarfed by the drop in probability of the staffing firms.
codebyaditya•1h ago
Excellent point. My analysis calculated Level I concentration within each employer type but not absolute volumes.
You're correct that if staffing firms file significantly more total applications, their absolute number of affected Level I positions could exceed product companies despite lower concentration.
To properly claim "3x harder hit," I'd need to show either:
1. Total Level I applications by employer type, or
2. Total estimated selection losses by employer type
Without those absolute numbers, the "3x harder" claim overstates what the data shows. The accurate claim is that product companies have 3x higher Level I concentration - but that's not the same as 3x more impact.
This is a good catch. The proportions tell us about hiring patterns but not total system impact.
codebyaditya•1h ago
Quick summary of probability shifts under the weighted system:
The counterintuitive finding: product companies (direct employers) have 22% Level I concentration vs 7% for staffing firms. The rule designed to stop "lottery abuse" hits direct employers 3x harder.Data source: DOL LCA disclosure data. Happy to discuss methodology.
square_usual•1h ago
To prove this, you need to compute the total numbers and not just proportion. If 22% of the direct employees are Level 1, but there's only 300 direct level 1 filings total, the absolute numbers are dwarfed by the drop in probability of the staffing firms.
codebyaditya•1h ago
You're correct that if staffing firms file significantly more total applications, their absolute number of affected Level I positions could exceed product companies despite lower concentration.
To properly claim "3x harder hit," I'd need to show either: 1. Total Level I applications by employer type, or 2. Total estimated selection losses by employer type
Without those absolute numbers, the "3x harder" claim overstates what the data shows. The accurate claim is that product companies have 3x higher Level I concentration - but that's not the same as 3x more impact.
This is a good catch. The proportions tell us about hiring patterns but not total system impact.
RGamma•12m ago