3 ms·

White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population, 43.14% of the employed work force. 88.6% of lawyers are white. 2014, US, https://www.bls.gov

White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population, 43.14% of the employed work force. 88.6% of lawyers are white. 2014, US, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/labor-force-characteristics-by-race-and-ethnicity-2014.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/...

forapurpose 9y ago
I'm not sure how that data changes my points in the GP. > White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. > White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty. > 88.6% of lawyers are white Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem. Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking: > white men represented about 74% of all partners > over 80% of equity partners are male
- rndgermandude 9y ago
  I didn't claim it changed anything. I didn't agree nor disagree with anything, for that matter. My "point" was that I got curious about these numbers, googled them, then posted them here in case anybody else was curious too.
- rndgermandude 9y ago
  >Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. That is probably a factor, but there are other factors too such as the demographic shift currently occurring in the US due to higher non-white birth rates and thus a higher percentage of the non-white population still being younger than 16 and thus falling out of the "civilian noninstitutional population". >That is a certainty. Sorry, but "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either. Same for your other claims. What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". While it is absolutely necessary to look for and fight against discrimination, making bold claims without supporting evidence and suggesting those are facts, while neglecting to look for other potential factors, is not really helpful in my humble opinion (it is a little as to raising awareness and starting conversations in the first place).
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either. We don't need to provide evidence or the complete picture for everything. If I say 'That is a certainty' that London has a larger population than Dover, it's not necessary to provide a citation or a detailed picture. The existence of discrimination in the areas I mentioned easily falls into that category. I didn't say it was the whole picture; that would require writing books, not HN comments. > Same for your other claims. Almost all my other statements were reasoning about data. > What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". I didn't say that and I didn't leap to my conclusions; I'm not sure how you imagine to know what my thinking process was or how long it took. I saw data, shared it, and reasoned a bit about the evidence.

forapurpose 9y ago

I'm not sure how that data changes my points in the GP. > White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. > White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty. > 88.6% of lawyers are white Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem. Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking: > white men represented about 74% of all partners > over 80% of equity partners are male

rndgermandude 9y ago
I didn't claim it changed anything. I didn't agree nor disagree with anything, for that matter. My "point" was that I got curious about these numbers, googled them, then posted them here in case anybody else was curious too.
rndgermandude 9y ago
>Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. That is probably a factor, but there are other factors too such as the demographic shift currently occurring in the US due to higher non-white birth rates and thus a higher percentage of the non-white population still being younger than 16 and thus falling out of the "civilian noninstitutional population". >That is a certainty. Sorry, but "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either. Same for your other claims. What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". While it is absolutely necessary to look for and fight against discrimination, making bold claims without supporting evidence and suggesting those are facts, while neglecting to look for other potential factors, is not really helpful in my humble opinion (it is a little as to raising awareness and starting conversations in the first place).
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either. We don't need to provide evidence or the complete picture for everything. If I say 'That is a certainty' that London has a larger population than Dover, it's not necessary to provide a citation or a detailed picture. The existence of discrimination in the areas I mentioned easily falls into that category. I didn't say it was the whole picture; that would require writing books, not HN comments. > Same for your other claims. Almost all my other statements were reasoning about data. > What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". I didn't say that and I didn't leap to my conclusions; I'm not sure how you imagine to know what my thinking process was or how long it took. I saw data, shared it, and reasoned a bit about the evidence.