If only 5% of tech workers are in a status of 'laid off' at any given time then your 21% becomes 1.05%, and that's much closer to the proper calculation for 'unemployment rate'.

Just sayin

It means exactly what I said: the unemployment rate of recently laid off tech workers is 21% after three months.

and bank tellers and construction workers and economists and truck drivers and all the other employment types ... and determined 21% is inordinately low?

I don't know either way, but your argument suggests thusly, that's why I ask.

Being a tech worker, I have interest in the subject obviously

At this point I don't understand what your problem is.

I didn't do any research other than read the excerpt from the WSJ article with the odd headline "Laid Off Tech Workers Quickly Find New Job", where, according to the WSJ 21% of a group of workers being unemployed equates to the group "quickly finding jobs".

is kinda meaningless unless it's related to numbers with some kind of equivalency, such as how that number compares to that of other professions, or to other time periods.

MHO, no biggie

The point is the WSJ is just making shit up using pretty much nonsense data to frame their narrative that layoffs are no big deal.

I don't recall how often, me, the dear wife said, "At least Clinton kept you working, Dear." He was 45 at that time; thereafter, post working on Y2K, not so much though we made it through on retirement at age 62 SS instead of full retirement by virtue of the extension of unemployment under Democratic Gov Strickland -- thereafter, NADA. We had had a plan for our retirement; so did the GOP to obstruct everything Obama's except for the ACA, saved by the McCain Redemption vote!