3 ms·
You could also say 94% of those jobs went to [age range of your choice] whose hiring numbers increased that much. This is a common analytical fallacy. Far mor
by Khelavaster 3y ago
You could also say 94% of those jobs went to [age range of your choice] whose hiring numbers increased that much.
This is a common analytical fallacy.
Far more than 323K jobs were added...they're talking about NET jobs added.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoThey're pretty clear about it in the text; it's just the headline that's misleading: > The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color. "Overall job growth" and "headcount increase" imply "net jobs added."
- Khelavaster 3y agoThey're not saying only 20,524 white workers were hired.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoNo, 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.