politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So it looks like you’re talking about this
While it does make that claim, you might also note phrases like:
Note also they define “people of color” as “black, Asian, Hispanic, or other”
So the article that makes that claim basically says non-whites had been laid off and were re-hired. Pre-dominantly white people were able to retire early, and people of color are still way underrepresented in positions of authority
Are you claiming that this data does not show preferential hiring of POC over white people?
I am just reading beyond the headline.
I see that they describe this as a one time reaction to the recovery after Covid and is hiring back the mainly non-whites who had been laid off. Most importantly they included lots of data about how non-whites are still way underrepresented relative to the actual population after this one time event.
So, no it does not. It appears to be showing a preference for employees who had been previously laid off
This is just silly, the hiring represents 1/10 or so of the white to their representation there is no way slightly higher rates of non-whites being laid off would account for this unless they laid off exclusively non white people or specifically chose white people to hire back. To believe this you would have to show some crazy statistics on the front end of who they laid off.
Why isnt the much more logical thing that happened that they have DEI programs that puts a higher demand on hiring non-white applicants?
There are lots of possible things that happened and they did not have data for any of them.
These inconsistencies also make clear this data was cherry-picked to provoke a reaction. Try again.
So long story short, do you believe that there was no preferential higher of non-white applicants over black applicants? This is a simple yes or no answer.
Long story short, do you believe there are fewer non-white employees than would be expected given the population of candidates? This is a simple yes or no answer?
Critical thinking bonus round:
No.
Colluded implies wrong doing, but giving preferential treatment to minorities due to their race has been a semi-legal thing since I was a kid (and maybe longer), so no not colluded, did out in the open.
Yes
I dont know, but not radically or it would have been reported over and over and over and over and over.
Now you answer my question.
I certainly hope there was preferential hiring for under-represented demographics. That’s the whole point. However it’s naive to jump right into the deep end where you’re going.
DEI efforts can make some differences in set of employees to hire and which are chosen, but they’ve never had the overwhelming power you’re ascribing. That’s not realistic, given the size of the hiring
The data was similar across almost all of the Fortune 100 in the same period. The odds of that are extremely remote, unless there is collusion or some other factor.
Why is it easier to believe DEI efforts have such overwhelming power to control virtually all hires and collude across all the biggest companies than to believe the explanation given in the article? Prior layoffs of low level employees were predominantly non-white, so hiring them back was too
If there is such an issue, you’d see it in more time periods. Do you?
So long story short you are in favor of racist hiring policies as long as it harm particular groups that you want to harm?
So long story short, are you in favor of racist hiring, and continued racist advantage for people of your favorite skin color, regardless of less opportunity for those who look different from you? Are you in favor of keeping hiring pure, white people on top, and everyone else can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”?
If you look back at that article, you could see the data that even after this period, non-whites were under-represented, especially in positions of authority.
No, I am in favor of hiring people that are best for the job. This is a yes or no answer; are you in favor of hiring people based on their skin color if it advances an agenda such as higher representation of a race in a particular area? Would you pick a less qualified minority of a more qualified white person?
The argument is that’s already been done, unless you believe white people are inherently smarter and more capable.
Assuming all humans have similar potential and similar opportunity, you’d expect over a large population such as the employee pool of the 100 largest companies, the mix of demographics will be similar to the population at large. Why isn’t it?
While I’m sure there are a few hires purely for quota, giving opportunity to those who would otherwise be denied is a good thing. I’ve always worked in very diverse companies and have found people equally capable regardless of what demographic group you try to stick them in.
Because different demographics have varying levels of different qualities. Does every demographic commit crime and attend college at the same levels? No, and for whatever reason they dont there would be a similar reason for why demographics are different at work.
Are you unable to answer the questions I give? I say its a yes or no answer, and there is neither of those words in your answer.