"medical tech and high tech companies" could be "arguably" medical-tech and high-tech companies (hyphenated)?

...but still nearly double the rate of 4 percent some economists consider to be "full employment." Full employment is practically unachievable. The 4% is the "natural unemployment rate." There is always a percentage of workforce in transition (between jobs). (Natural unemployment rate is a certain amount of unemployment due to job turnover, mismatch between jobs and skills, and minimum wage laws, for example.)

"...Bay Area Council's recently published Business Confidence Survey." should be "...recently-published (hyphenated) Business Confidence Survey."

AP Style punctuation guide: "No hyphen is required with 'very' and '-ly' words. Readers can expect them to modify the word that follows."

I find these articles and their "findings" amusing. Amusing and more often than not...wrong.

One never hyphenates an adverb ending in -ly.

Don't get me started on all the split infinitives found in The Voice. What does the AP style guide say about that subject, Nick?

The paper would be taken far more seriously if it recognized that this area has a high concentration of highly educated people.

Please note a similar case from AP:

Ethnic Albanians crowd a recently-opened shop to buy cigarettes in... [Web Link

If "recently" is to modify "opened," then no hyphen is added. If "recently opened" is to modify the shop, then a hyphen is added. This is my understanding.

This is what the OED has to say about split infinitives in English:

Split infinitives happen when you put an adverb between to and a verb, for example:

She used to secretly admire him.
You have to really watch him.


What’s wrong with split infinitives?

Some people believe that split infinitives are grammatically incorrect and should be avoided at all costs. They would rewrite these sentences as:

She used secretly to admire him.
You really have to watch him.

But there’s no real justification for their objection, which is based on comparisons with the structure of Latin. People have been splitting infinitives for centuries, especially in spoken English, and avoiding a split infinitive can sound clumsy. It can also change the emphasis of what’s being said. The sentence:

You really have to watch him. [i.e. ‘It’s important that you watch him’]

doesn’t have quite the same meaning as:

You have to really watch him. [i.e. ‘You have to watch him very closely’]

To split or not to split?

The ‘rule’ against splitting infinitives isn’t followed as strictly today as it used to be. Nevertheless, some people do object very strongly to them. As a result, it’s safest to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, unless the alternative wording seems very clumsy or would alter the meaning of your sentence.

Avoiding split infinitives shows you have a mastery of the English language in all its grammatical complexities. Most journalists aspire to work at one of the gran dames of journalism, say the New York Times, of the Washington Post. They set the standard for the avoidance of split infinitives. They provide the gold standard.

Now don't get me started on the use of the passive voice in the Voice articles! When you see articles littered with is, was, were, etc, you recognize the writer as novice.

There is a HUGE article on the split infinitive here: [Web Link As for the passive voice, it has important uses. There is general agreement that the passive voice is useful for emphasis, or when the receiver of the action is more important than the actor.