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.
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.