5 ms·

> Blacks are last hired, first fired. Sounds like you don’t have much exposure to large companies these days. If anything it’s the opposite. You’re incorrect

> Blacks are last hired, first fired. Sounds like you don’t have much exposure to large companies these days. If anything it’s the opposite. You’re incorrect that there are any racist laws remaining that might influence hiring, unless you are referring to govern contracts, in which minority owned businesses are given preference. It is silly to introduce historical artifacts as though they are the situation today.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
Black people account for about 12% of the U.S. population, but occupy only 3.2% of the senior leadership roles at large companies in the U.S. and just 0.8% of all Fortune 500 CEO positions https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-professionals-hold-only-3-percent-of-executive-jobs-1-percent-of-ceo-jobs-at-fortune-500-firms-new-report-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-professionals-hold-only-3... A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining... There are still laws on the books that were written expressly to exclude Blacks. https://wset.com/features/special-reports/racists-laws-are-still-on-the-books-in-virginia-but-why https://wset.com/features/special-reports/racists-laws-are-s... If hiring practices have changed at big companies in recent years, it doesn't mean Blacks have achieved equality yet by any stretch of the imagination.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I know you know how statistics work, and you know this isn’t evidence of what you’re suggesting. I don’t know why anyone pretends that these stats suggest that companies are being racist about hiring. Having been involved with hiring for several of the major tech companies, and being aware of the DEI targets at others, I can tell you that they are fighting over non-white male and non-indian male talent. It’s simply not true. Given that you’ve seemingly been out of the workforce for some time, I don’t know why you insist on being so adamant about how hiring works. As for laws on the books, you found a historical artifact that has no legal effect, which the article you linked explains. It’s a reminder of a racist past, yes. These reminders will always exist in our society, and while it makes sense to continue to scrub them from legal documents over time, it’s not a good faith argument to cite such a thing as though it has any legal effect today. To be intellectually honest, you should also be upset that virginia makes it illegal for unwed couples to live together. It’s also illegal to kill a sasquatch in Washington. In Kansas, it’s illegal to put ice cream on cherry pie. To falsely say that blacks are hired last and fired first in America is not only preposterous, but extremely counterproductive to the outcome you’re presumably looking for. This is just inventing bogus reasons for Americans to feel hostile towards each other, and discouraging more people from even trying.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    I don’t know why anyone pretends that these stats suggest that companies are being racist about hiring. That isn't anything I said. I don’t know why you insist on being so adamant about how hiring works. That's not what I'm doing. You latched onto that as a thing to argue with me about in a way that ignores everything else I say and is a tactic that looks very bad faith. It looks like it is hand waving off known widespread racial bias in the name of "this one detail you said is inaccurate." It's like attacking someone over a misplaced comma to imply they are stupid without bothering to engage anything they have said. What I originally said is just that this is not shocking and talked about generally known statistics and you are latching onto "This woman knows nothing about hiring and I am going to dog her to the ends of the earth about that while pretending it is a good faith argument and overlook how shitty and racist it looks to deal with her in this fashion." This is a routine thing that whenever racism, sexism and similar come up, someone wants to go to town and nitpick something in a way that looks extremely dismissive of the very existence of the problem because they want to argue they aren't guilty of something. Some people have an expression for that along the lines of "moves to innocence" -- in other words, it is vastly more important to most White people to insist "I'm not a racist and I don't do that and that's not how hiring works" than to actually talk about how racism does work and how to remedy it. Defending their own claimed innocence is their highest priority rather than working on understanding how racism persists and what needs to be done to remedy it. "Last hired and first fired" was very much a known and standard thing for a lot of years and you have not provided any citations and I haven't gone looking because this style of arguing is so bad faith I don't want to engage it by agreeing that I need to "prove" that long-known practice remains true. There can be lots of ways that still happens without any hiring managers intentionally discriminating against Blacks. There are lots of ways that someone can be effectively removed from the pipeline before it gets to the point of applying for a particular job which is one of the things that contributes to people fighting over the few qualified candidates who do apply and have certain traits.
- imbnwa 6y ago
  Since what grandparent is actually encoding in there statement is the implication that the Black hires aren't deserving of their hire rather than desirable Black hires aren't selected for
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    I have no idea what you are trying to say. (I am not even sure if you are on my side or not. I'm not accusing you of anything at all.) But "Last hired, first fired" is not and has never been exclusively about "Hiring managers are just racist assholes who look for bullshit reasons to not hire Blacks." It's an observation about general trends that result in worse unemployment for Blacks. Some ways that can play out without any hiring manager being blatantly racist and intentionally wanting to exclude Blacks: 1. It's harder to get a job with a criminal record and you are more likely to have a criminal record if you are Black. 2. It's harder to get a job if your criminal record is for certain kinds of crimes and Blacks are more likely to be convicted and do hard time rather than get probation for the same thing. 3. It's harder to get a job if you have less education and education costs money and Blacks tend to have less of that than others. 4. It's harder to get a job if your education is from a less prestigious institution and the prestigious institutions cost more money. 5. Certain classes of jobs may be cut at a big company to save money because they are deemed "less essential" and those classes of jobs may be typically held by Blacks while the "essential" jobs are typically held by Whites. At my corporate job during a recession, they cut janitorial service to save money. They stopped having all trash removed daily and had it removed every other day. Janitorial jobs and cleaning jobs are very often held by people of color. You don't have to be a racist piece of shit to go "Oh, the company is not doing well. We need to make some cuts. Um...let's have the trash taken out less." You can do that for completely good reasons that aren't inherently racist and it can still result in higher rates of unemployment for some groups than others. I don't really want to argue this further. I cannot believe I am being given so much grief over this as if no one on the planet has heard that "racism is alive and well in the US of A."
    - imbnwa 6y ago
      No disagreement, just a comment on what the person you were replying to seemed to be implying
watwut 6y ago
Common, even employment statistics for last year show that white males gained while black women lost the most. It is not just racism/sexism but, seriously, white people are not oppressed.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I think you also know better than that when it comes to how statistics work. And I don’t know why you’re telling me that white people are not oppressed. That isn’t related to my comment.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

Black people account for about 12% of the U.S. population, but occupy only 3.2% of the senior leadership roles at large companies in the U.S. and just 0.8% of all Fortune 500 CEO positions https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-professionals-hold-only-3-percent-of-executive-jobs-1-percent-of-ceo-jobs-at-fortune-500-firms-new-report-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-professionals-hold-only-3... A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining... There are still laws on the books that were written expressly to exclude Blacks. https://wset.com/features/special-reports/racists-laws-are-still-on-the-books-in-virginia-but-why https://wset.com/features/special-reports/racists-laws-are-s... If hiring practices have changed at big companies in recent years, it doesn't mean Blacks have achieved equality yet by any stretch of the imagination.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I know you know how statistics work, and you know this isn’t evidence of what you’re suggesting. I don’t know why anyone pretends that these stats suggest that companies are being racist about hiring. Having been involved with hiring for several of the major tech companies, and being aware of the DEI targets at others, I can tell you that they are fighting over non-white male and non-indian male talent. It’s simply not true. Given that you’ve seemingly been out of the workforce for some time, I don’t know why you insist on being so adamant about how hiring works. As for laws on the books, you found a historical artifact that has no legal effect, which the article you linked explains. It’s a reminder of a racist past, yes. These reminders will always exist in our society, and while it makes sense to continue to scrub them from legal documents over time, it’s not a good faith argument to cite such a thing as though it has any legal effect today. To be intellectually honest, you should also be upset that virginia makes it illegal for unwed couples to live together. It’s also illegal to kill a sasquatch in Washington. In Kansas, it’s illegal to put ice cream on cherry pie. To falsely say that blacks are hired last and fired first in America is not only preposterous, but extremely counterproductive to the outcome you’re presumably looking for. This is just inventing bogus reasons for Americans to feel hostile towards each other, and discouraging more people from even trying.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  I don’t know why anyone pretends that these stats suggest that companies are being racist about hiring. That isn't anything I said. I don’t know why you insist on being so adamant about how hiring works. That's not what I'm doing. You latched onto that as a thing to argue with me about in a way that ignores everything else I say and is a tactic that looks very bad faith. It looks like it is hand waving off known widespread racial bias in the name of "this one detail you said is inaccurate." It's like attacking someone over a misplaced comma to imply they are stupid without bothering to engage anything they have said. What I originally said is just that this is not shocking and talked about generally known statistics and you are latching onto "This woman knows nothing about hiring and I am going to dog her to the ends of the earth about that while pretending it is a good faith argument and overlook how shitty and racist it looks to deal with her in this fashion." This is a routine thing that whenever racism, sexism and similar come up, someone wants to go to town and nitpick something in a way that looks extremely dismissive of the very existence of the problem because they want to argue they aren't guilty of something. Some people have an expression for that along the lines of "moves to innocence" -- in other words, it is vastly more important to most White people to insist "I'm not a racist and I don't do that and that's not how hiring works" than to actually talk about how racism does work and how to remedy it. Defending their own claimed innocence is their highest priority rather than working on understanding how racism persists and what needs to be done to remedy it. "Last hired and first fired" was very much a known and standard thing for a lot of years and you have not provided any citations and I haven't gone looking because this style of arguing is so bad faith I don't want to engage it by agreeing that I need to "prove" that long-known practice remains true. There can be lots of ways that still happens without any hiring managers intentionally discriminating against Blacks. There are lots of ways that someone can be effectively removed from the pipeline before it gets to the point of applying for a particular job which is one of the things that contributes to people fighting over the few qualified candidates who do apply and have certain traits.
imbnwa 6y ago
Since what grandparent is actually encoding in there statement is the implication that the Black hires aren't deserving of their hire rather than desirable Black hires aren't selected for
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  I have no idea what you are trying to say. (I am not even sure if you are on my side or not. I'm not accusing you of anything at all.) But "Last hired, first fired" is not and has never been exclusively about "Hiring managers are just racist assholes who look for bullshit reasons to not hire Blacks." It's an observation about general trends that result in worse unemployment for Blacks. Some ways that can play out without any hiring manager being blatantly racist and intentionally wanting to exclude Blacks: 1. It's harder to get a job with a criminal record and you are more likely to have a criminal record if you are Black. 2. It's harder to get a job if your criminal record is for certain kinds of crimes and Blacks are more likely to be convicted and do hard time rather than get probation for the same thing. 3. It's harder to get a job if you have less education and education costs money and Blacks tend to have less of that than others. 4. It's harder to get a job if your education is from a less prestigious institution and the prestigious institutions cost more money. 5. Certain classes of jobs may be cut at a big company to save money because they are deemed "less essential" and those classes of jobs may be typically held by Blacks while the "essential" jobs are typically held by Whites. At my corporate job during a recession, they cut janitorial service to save money. They stopped having all trash removed daily and had it removed every other day. Janitorial jobs and cleaning jobs are very often held by people of color. You don't have to be a racist piece of shit to go "Oh, the company is not doing well. We need to make some cuts. Um...let's have the trash taken out less." You can do that for completely good reasons that aren't inherently racist and it can still result in higher rates of unemployment for some groups than others. I don't really want to argue this further. I cannot believe I am being given so much grief over this as if no one on the planet has heard that "racism is alive and well in the US of A."
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    No disagreement, just a comment on what the person you were replying to seemed to be implying

watwut 6y ago

Common, even employment statistics for last year show that white males gained while black women lost the most. It is not just racism/sexism but, seriously, white people are not oppressed.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I think you also know better than that when it comes to how statistics work. And I don’t know why you’re telling me that white people are not oppressed. That isn’t related to my comment.