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.
These days of woke domination 'racism' is only white. NY Times even argued that 'kill white farmers' is not a racism at all, it shouldn't be taken literally.
Brainwashed ChatGPT has difficulties discussing black racism. Even if it exists it's not nearly as bad as white.
Just ask 'anti-racists' about it and you'll see who they really are.
In no particular order, the steps so far were: Affirmative action. Whatever this is. Using federal housing aid to break up homogeneous communities [1,2]. Diversity pledges as an ideological litmus test for hiring [3,4,5,6]. Mandatory white privilege training for teachers [7]. Government and business openly planning how to make a state less white [8]. The Paper of Record putting race in the article title when it makes whites look bad [9], and removing references to race from the title when the story turns out to be a hoax [10] - this is a statistical trend, not a one-off [11].
I'm sure I missed plenty. I'm also sure there are plenty to come, but what they will be, I do not know.
You've expanded the meaning of 'segregation' considerably, to apply to individual residence choices and freedom of association. Choose wrong, and the government will correct your choice.
four councillors – a majority – refused to vote to uphold the law, consistently opposing any limited desegregation. For refusing to follow the court order, the city of Yonkers was crippled by heavy, possibly bankrupting fines [..] Basic services stopped and parks and libraries were shuttered [..] Wasicsko was forced to comply. [i.e. the housing was built such that it broke up white neighborhoods]
It should be noted that this ruling creating a precedent that all pubic housing had to follow, and was not the only such ruling [1] or executive order to that effect, as my 2nd link [2] from that post shows. A few more publications reporting on it, if you don't trust the NYPost: [3,4,5,6]
I suspect there are two big factors in this that have nothing to do with BLM:
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.
Everything already feels so tenuous for early career professionals at the moment, like you're just barely hanging on by your fingernails. Even if people don't say it, the amount of resentment is fierce. People (white people) who are already established and in charge are so eager to do this as long as it doesn't require any sacrifice from them.
40% of new hires are hispanic. Funnily enough, hispanic is counted as a race even though one can easily be hispanic AND white. And the fact that black and "other race" are both options makes me assume that many of these hispanics might be considered white (at least on a census). There's nothing stopping a white hispanic person from seeing the social pendulum swing and switching their self-reported "race" on their job application.
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 <150k professional+ highers is a drop in the bucket compared to their workforce.
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.
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.
Companies do illegal things all the time, particularly if the people charged with enforcing this are inclined to look the other way, which the Biden DOJ and Labor Department are.
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.
> Whites were well represented in the growth of executives and professionals
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.
What does the "solved" state of this data look like? I understand this is just a metric, and the goal isn't necessarily to hit a specific number, but my ignorant assumption would be that the percentages should roughly align with the broader population's demographics, no?
"In 2021, Hispanic, Asian and Black people made up a vast majority of the added workers — a trend that, analysts say, is necessary to overcome their historic underrepresentation. ... The biggest shifts happened in less-senior job categories.
... White people still hold a disproportionate share of the top, highly paid jobs in the US at S&P 100 companies. But the share of executive, managerial and professional roles held by people of color increased by about 2 percentage points compared with 2020
... In 2021, companies were hiring lots of people while prioritizing diversity. Many have since cut jobs amid an economic slowdown just as a backlash to corporate diversity efforts grows."
No, they're not. They're saying 20,524 more white people were employed at the end of the period than at the beginning. That is what a plain language reading of the text says. I don't know what you're trying to imply here.
