The "top H1-B employers" constitute then those companies which took about 50% of the total cap. I'm not sure how meaningful this is.
The 85k workers laid off is I think (it's not quite clear) for all workers, not H1-B.
The article presumably seeks to imply non H1-B workers are being laid off in favour of H1-B.
It's not really possible to say from the article and its data, I think - for example, Amazon is listed as the #1 H1-B sponser, and they have 27k lay-offs attributed to them - but Amazon has a very high turn-over rate and there's no indication whether or not these lay-offs are for H1-B viable roles; perhaps they were warehouse staff.
I could be completely wrong, but looking over the highlighted bullet points, I have the impression of numbers being presented to lead the reader into the article's argument, rather than being a proper examination of data.
The "top H1-B employers" constitute then those companies which took about 50% of the total cap. I'm not sure how meaningful this is.
The 85k workers laid off is I think (it's not quite clear) for all workers, not H1-B.
The article presumably seeks to imply non H1-B workers are being laid off in favour of H1-B.
It's not really possible to say from the article and its data, I think - for example, Amazon is listed as the #1 H1-B sponser, and they have 27k lay-offs attributed to them - but Amazon has a very high turn-over rate and there's no indication whether or not these lay-offs are for H1-B viable roles; perhaps they were warehouse staff.
I could be completely wrong, but looking over the highlighted bullet points, I have the impression of numbers being presented to lead the reader into the article's argument, rather than being a proper examination of data.