4 ms·

I should clarify: the US STEM workforce has historically been very white and very male. That's the body of talent that has been languishing, and the data prove

I should clarify: the US STEM workforce has historically been very white and very male. That's the body of talent that has been languishing, and the data proves it.

whimsicalism 2y ago
tf are you talking about, share the data
- peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
  A couple highlights: 94% of the job growth among Fortune 100 companies since 2020 has gone to minorities https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-e... Job growth amongst foreign born residents in the US has significantly outpaced native born job growth: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/foreign-born-workers-were-a-record-high-18-1-percent-of-the-u-s-civilian-labor-force-in-2022.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/foreign-born-workers-were-...
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    because white people are 90%+ of those retiring from fortune 500s. citing this is proof of innumeracy
    - peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        > That's a complete non sequitur. Why would it make sense for new hires to be overwhelmingly disproportionately oversampled from minority groups according to current demographics? Because that is not what this stat is measuring. They are doing (demos of new employees - demos of retiring employees), not just demos of new employees. Hence why it is a misleading statistic. They word it very carefully to not say 94% of new hires are minorities. > Is that a hint of racism? I don't even know your race
        peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
        > They are doing (demos of new employees - demos of retiring employees), not just demos of new employees. Source: I made it up.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        source: the "The Analysis" section of your own source or if you needed it stated more explicitly [0]: > Before judging whether that’s impressive or excessive or some other adjective, it’s helpful to know what the available pool of new workers looked like. Or, more precisely, what the pool of new workers minus the pool of departing workers looked like. Net change is what we’re able to see. i'm sure this will have precisely 0 impact on your worldview though 0: https://archive.is/POQnF#selection-1715.156-1715.449 https://archive.is/POQnF#selection-1715.156-1715.449
        peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
        [dead]
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        since your reply died - your absolutely wrong about massive oversampling, you can get 95% with basic assumptions about 60% white, 40% minority (matching actual proportions in the population - and actually an underestimate when you consider that new hires are young) and the retiring fortune 500 population (70-90% white). as i said, just basic innumeracy on your part

I should clarify: the US STEM workforce has historically been very white and very male. That's the body of talent that has been languishing, and the data proves it.

whimsicalism 2y ago

tf are you talking about, share the data

peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
A couple highlights: 94% of the job growth among Fortune 100 companies since 2020 has gone to minorities https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-e... Job growth amongst foreign born residents in the US has significantly outpaced native born job growth: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/foreign-born-workers-were-a-record-high-18-1-percent-of-the-u-s-civilian-labor-force-in-2022.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/foreign-born-workers-were-...
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  because white people are 90%+ of those retiring from fortune 500s. citing this is proof of innumeracy
  - peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      > That's a complete non sequitur. Why would it make sense for new hires to be overwhelmingly disproportionately oversampled from minority groups according to current demographics? Because that is not what this stat is measuring. They are doing (demos of new employees - demos of retiring employees), not just demos of new employees. Hence why it is a misleading statistic. They word it very carefully to not say 94% of new hires are minorities. > Is that a hint of racism? I don't even know your race
      - peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
        > They are doing (demos of new employees - demos of retiring employees), not just demos of new employees. Source: I made it up.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        source: the "The Analysis" section of your own source or if you needed it stated more explicitly [0]: > Before judging whether that’s impressive or excessive or some other adjective, it’s helpful to know what the available pool of new workers looked like. Or, more precisely, what the pool of new workers minus the pool of departing workers looked like. Net change is what we’re able to see. i'm sure this will have precisely 0 impact on your worldview though 0: https://archive.is/POQnF#selection-1715.156-1715.449 https://archive.is/POQnF#selection-1715.156-1715.449
        peepeepoopoo102 2y ago
        [dead]
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        since your reply died - your absolutely wrong about massive oversampling, you can get 95% with basic assumptions about 60% white, 40% minority (matching actual proportions in the population - and actually an underestimate when you consider that new hires are young) and the retiring fortune 500 population (70-90% white). as i said, just basic innumeracy on your part