4 ms·

After BLM, the S&P 100 added more than 300k jobs–94% went to people of color

10 points by moose_man 3y ago

moose_man 3y ago
It's even crazier if you think of the current demographics of the US mapped against this outcome.
xcdzvyn 3y ago
I really like this website's layout! The final paragraph stood out to me though: > White people still hold a disproportionate share of the top, highly paid jobs in the US at S&P 100 companies. With the graphic behind it stating 74% of executive positions are held by White people. According to census.gov, 75.5% of the U.S. population is White[0]. Wouldn't that make the distribution pretty bang on? [0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222
- clipsy 3y ago
  Things can get a bit tricky depending on whether you consider "Hispanic" to be a race or ethnicity; if you consider "White" to mean "White, non-Hispanic" the figure is actually 58.9%[0]. Since TFA breaks out Hispanic and White as different categories without mentioning this I suspect they are viewing it that way, but I can't say for certain. [0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 Amusing aside: I belatedly noticed we've both cited the exact same page!
gottorf 3y ago
I wonder what conclusion we can take from it?: 1. The S&P 100 companies were racist and previously preferred to hire white people over nonwhite people given equal qualifications. They changed their tune after the BLM protests, and are now race-blind in hiring, leading to 94% of new hires being nonwhite. 2. They were more or less already race-blind in hiring, but the pool of qualified labor skewed white. That 94% of new hires were nonwhite in a country that is roughly 3/5 white may indicate that equally-qualified whites were discriminated against. 3. They hired people in a race-blind manner, and ended up with 94% nonwhite new hires due to the composition of the labor market at the time. 4. Some combination of the above, or something else entirely. > why their workplaces don’t reflect the country’s racial and ethnic makeup This is a question with no answer, a game with no end. Virtually no subgroup in society accurately reflects the demographics of the whole, and it's fallacious to think that this happens solely or even largely due to discrimination. I, for one, cannot wait to live in a society where the color of one's skin matters less and less over time.
- moose_man 3y ago
  To point out some context, 2021 was a hot labor market. However, S&P 100 jobs particularly for entry level professionals are the best jobs around so these are the jobs where there are always way more people applying than there are number of positions. This wasn't like, "we hired whoever applied because we really needed workers". These are the best opportunities.
phs318u 3y ago
Does "people of colour" also include immigrants on some types of professional work visa? Was there a change in policy settings for visas or for tax-breaks that might coincidentally have contributed to such an outcome?

10 points by moose_man 3y ago

It's even crazier if you think of the current demographics of the US mapped against this outcome.

I really like this website's layout! The final paragraph stood out to me though: > White people still hold a disproportionate share of the top, highly paid jobs in the US at S&P 100 companies. With the graphic behind it stating 74% of executive positions are held by White people. According to census.gov, 75.5% of the U.S. population is White[0]. Wouldn't that make the distribution pretty bang on? [0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222

clipsy 3y ago
Things can get a bit tricky depending on whether you consider "Hispanic" to be a race or ethnicity; if you consider "White" to mean "White, non-Hispanic" the figure is actually 58.9%[0]. Since TFA breaks out Hispanic and White as different categories without mentioning this I suspect they are viewing it that way, but I can't say for certain. [0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 Amusing aside: I belatedly noticed we've both cited the exact same page!

gottorf 3y ago

I wonder what conclusion we can take from it?: 1. The S&P 100 companies were racist and previously preferred to hire white people over nonwhite people given equal qualifications. They changed their tune after the BLM protests, and are now race-blind in hiring, leading to 94% of new hires being nonwhite. 2. They were more or less already race-blind in hiring, but the pool of qualified labor skewed white. That 94% of new hires were nonwhite in a country that is roughly 3/5 white may indicate that equally-qualified whites were discriminated against. 3. They hired people in a race-blind manner, and ended up with 94% nonwhite new hires due to the composition of the labor market at the time. 4. Some combination of the above, or something else entirely. > why their workplaces don’t reflect the country’s racial and ethnic makeup This is a question with no answer, a game with no end. Virtually no subgroup in society accurately reflects the demographics of the whole, and it's fallacious to think that this happens solely or even largely due to discrimination. I, for one, cannot wait to live in a society where the color of one's skin matters less and less over time.

moose_man 3y ago
To point out some context, 2021 was a hot labor market. However, S&P 100 jobs particularly for entry level professionals are the best jobs around so these are the jobs where there are always way more people applying than there are number of positions. This wasn't like, "we hired whoever applied because we really needed workers". These are the best opportunities.

phs318u 3y ago

Does "people of colour" also include immigrants on some types of professional work visa? Was there a change in policy settings for visas or for tax-breaks that might coincidentally have contributed to such an outcome?