Seems like we're going backwards... I thought we're supposed to be hiring the best people for the job, not based on skin colour. The people who are supposedly anti-racism are encouraging racism.

I suspect there are two big factors in this that have nothing to do with BLM:

1. The year before this, 2020, saw disproportionately large job losses for non-white employees. It makes sense that the rebound would affect them disproportionately too.

2. People of the right age to retire or die/get disabled by Covid in large numbers are disproportionately white, while the people of the age to enter the workforce are disproportionately not, so it makes sense that job growth is mostly non-white.

Everything already feels so tenuous for early career professionals at the moment, like you're just barely hanging on by your fingernails. Even if people don't say it, the amount of resentment is fierce. People (white people) who are already established and in charge are so eager to do this as long as it doesn't require any sacrifice from them.

40% of new hires are hispanic. Funnily enough, hispanic is counted as a race even though one can easily be hispanic AND white. And the fact that black and "other race" are both options makes me assume that many of these hispanics might be considered white (at least on a census). There's nothing stopping a white hispanic person from seeing the social pendulum swing and switching their self-reported "race" on their job application.

Additionally, it looks like about a 50% of growth came from "less-senior jobs" This sector lost 19k white americans, while gaining 176k poc. With 60% of that sector's growth coming from hispanics. This sector houses "Sales, laborers, service workers and others." The higher sections that house "roles that typically require degrees" show different hiring patterns. With white americans making gains (that I believe are still disproportionatly low to their share of degree holders? Idk, someone else can do the math), and Asians making the most gains among managers and professionals.

I wish Bloomberg had mentioned how many people are actually employed at S&P 100 companies, I bet <150k professional+ highers is a drop in the bucket compared to their workforce.

Bloomberg also makes note that this trend may not have held past 2021 due to DEI being disincentived politically.

The article displays and explains its data well, though I wish they would have brought up the fact that Hispanics can totally be white. And given the title and the standfirst I expect this to start a lot of angry discussions online. Personally, I'd guess that a lot of the growth simply came from white hispanics and America's rapidly growing, highly educated asian population.

Sounds a lot like discriminative hiring. Isn't that illegal in the us?

The article purports to be about hiring, but uses net gains/losses by group. Actual hiring data is left out.

The breakdown by job category tells a different story from the headline. Whites were well represented in the growth of executives and professionals, but overall declined in the "less senior" category of laborers and service workers.

What does the "solved" state of this data look like? I understand this is just a metric, and the goal isn't necessarily to hit a specific number, but my ignorant assumption would be that the percentages should roughly align with the broader population's demographics, no?

"In 2021, Hispanic, Asian and Black people made up a vast majority of the added workers — a trend that, analysts say, is necessary to overcome their historic underrepresentation. ... The biggest shifts happened in less-senior job categories.

... White people still hold a disproportionate share of the top, highly paid jobs in the US at S&P 100 companies. But the share of executive, managerial and professional roles held by people of color increased by about 2 percentage points compared with 2020

... In 2021, companies were hiring lots of people while prioritizing diversity. Many have since cut jobs amid an economic slowdown just as a backlash to corporate diversity efforts grows."

[flagged]

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.