11–20 of 29 posts
Seems like we're going backwards... I thought we're supposed to be hiring the best people for the job, not based on skin colour. The people who are supposedly anti-racism are encouraging racism.
Sounds a lot like discriminative hiring. Isn't that illegal in the us?
No. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
If read like a “normal” person would, it would suggest that this hiring preference based upon race was illegal. However if you read it like a Supreme Court judge who was legislating from the bench in the 1970’s, it says the law was intended to advance African Americans and can be used to advance them. That creative interpretation has yet to be overturned.
Seems like we're going backwards... I thought we're supposed to be hiring the best people for the job, not based on skin colour. The people who are supposedly anti-racism are encouraging racism.
That was only to weaken your sense of identity enough so you would not, could not, resist the following steps.
Additionally, it looks like about a 50% of growth came from "less-senior jobs" This sector lost 19k white americans, while gaining 176k poc. With 60% of that sector's growth coming from hispanics. This sector houses "Sales, laborers, service workers and others." The higher sections that house "roles that typically require degrees" show different hiring patterns. With white americans making gains (that I believe are still disproportionatly low to their share of degree holders? Idk, someone else can do the math), and Asians making the most gains among managers and professionals.
I wish Bloomberg had mentioned how many people are actually employed at S&P 100 companies, I bet Bloomberg also makes note that this trend may not have held past 2021 due to DEI being disincentived politically.
The article displays and explains its data well, though I wish they would have brought up the fact that Hispanics can totally be white. And given the title and the standfirst I expect this to start a lot of angry discussions online. Personally, I'd guess that a lot of the growth simply came from white hispanics and America's rapidly growing, highly educated asian population.
You could also say 94% of those jobs went to [age range of your choice] whose hiring numbers increased that much. This is a common analytical fallacy. Far more than 323K jobs were added...they're talking about NET jobs added.
They're pretty clear about it in the text; it's just the headline that's misleading: > The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color. "Overall job growth" and "headcount increase" imply "net jobs added."
1. The year before this, 2020, saw disproportionately large job losses for non-white employees. It makes sense that the rebound would affect them disproportionately too.
2. People of the right age to retire or die/get disabled by Covid in large numbers are disproportionately white, while the people of the age to enter the workforce are disproportionately not, so it makes sense that job growth is mostly non-white.
The breakdown by job category tells a different story from the headline. Whites were well represented in the growth of executives and professionals, but overall declined in the "less senior" category of laborers and service workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was only to weaken your sense of identity enough so you would not, could not, resist the following steps.
I'm curious. What are the steps?
I'm sure I missed plenty. I'm also sure there are plenty to come, but what they will be, I do not know.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me_a_Hero
[2] https://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-su...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
[4] https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
[5] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mathematicians-divid...
[6] 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
[7] https://www.thecollegefix.com/san-diego-public-school-teache...
[8] New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State? - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/us/new-hampshire-white-di...
[9] A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim...
[10] Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault, and Family Apologizes - https://web.archive.org/web/20191001003852/https://www.nytim...
[11] https://freebeacon.com/media/yes-the-media-bury-the-race-of-...
The article purports to be about hiring, but uses net gains/losses by group. Actual hiring data is left out. The breakdown by job category tells a different story from the headline. Whites were well represented in the growth of executives and professionals, but overall declined in the "less senior" category of laborers and service workers.
From the article's numbers, whites (57% of US) got 42% of executive jobs (N=~2677), 22% of manager jobs (N=~40K), and 28% of professional jobs (N=~104K). Summing these three categories, they got 39K of the 147K executive/manager/professional jobs, or 27%.
Your "well represented" is an under-representation of 0.47x - in the hiring categories where they are best represented.