DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Most federal jobs are in DC, which has a large black population

---

love this

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'd love you to explain the demographic stats and how we get there if it's not DEI?

---

So we need equal outcomes now? I'm personally against those.

---

Move that goalpost. You claimed that this doesn't prove identity hiring. When challenged, you deflect. I'm quite sure you'd be ok if the shoe were on the white foot. /eye roll

We need fair outcomes based on merit. This is identity based hiring. Period.

---

I'm not deflecting. I clearly believe that different groups are attracted to different jobs for a number of reasons and avoid others. The over representation of certain groups isn't a sign of unfair hiring practices or systemic issues.

I thought that is what we all agreed on.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'd love you to explain the demographic stats and how we get there if it's not DEI?

---

So we need equal outcomes now? I'm personally against those.

---

Move that goalpost. You claimed that this doesn't prove identity hiring. When challenged, you deflect. I'm quite sure you'd be ok if the shoe were on the white foot. /eye roll

We need fair outcomes based on merit. This is identity based hiring. Period.

---

I'm not deflecting. I clearly believe that different groups are attracted to different jobs for a number of reasons and avoid others. The over representation of certain groups isn't a sign of unfair hiring practices or systemic issues.

I thought that is what we all agreed on.

---

So black people want to work for the Federal gov, but white people don't is your argument?! Basis?

Here are some stats for Fed government workers over time:

1970s - 85% white
1980s-1990s - 70% white
2000s-2010s - 60% white
2020s - 55% white


So it dramatically changed over time because white people decided they didn't want to work for the Federal government anymore?!

The data trends could support that argument. As America became less racists, more African Americans gained access to government jobs.

Conclusion: you are basically ok with meritless hiring and discrimination based on race as long as the race is not white.

As least we know where you stand.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'd love you to explain the demographic stats and how we get there if it's not DEI?

---

So we need equal outcomes now? I'm personally against those.

---

Move that goalpost. You claimed that this doesn't prove identity hiring. When challenged, you deflect. I'm quite sure you'd be ok if the shoe were on the white foot. /eye roll

We need fair outcomes based on merit. This is identity based hiring. Period.

---

I'm not deflecting. I clearly believe that different groups are attracted to different jobs for a number of reasons and avoid others. The over representation of certain groups isn't a sign of unfair hiring practices or systemic issues.

I thought that is what we all agreed on.

---

So black people want to work for the Federal gov, but white people don't is your argument?! Basis?

Here are some stats for Fed government workers over time:

1970s - 85% white
1980s-1990s - 70% white
2000s-2010s - 60% white
2020s - 55% white


So it dramatically changed over time because white people decided they didn't want to work for the Federal government anymore?!

---

Are you assuming causation here, or do you have support? I'm not arguing the overall point, but I would like to see research/data if you have it.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The data trends could support that argument. As America became less more racist towards white people, more African Americans gained access were DEI hired to government jobs.

---

FIFY

That's what Eaton is arguing.

Logos Stick said:

---

Conclusion: you are basically ok with meritless hiring and discrimination based on race as long as the race is not white.

As least we know where you stand.

---

Huh? That's a bizarre and false conclusion to make.

Are you saying that African Americans aren't qualified for the job because they are overrepresented in government jobs? Do you do that with all groups that are overrepresented in jobs above their normal demographic numbers?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The data trends could support that argument. As America became less racists, more African Americans gained access to government jobs.

---

The other way to look at it is that with the expansion of the economy, higher paying opportunities opened up and those that are qualified decided against working in the gov't.

akm91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The data trends could support that argument. As America became less racists, more African Americans gained access to government jobs.

---

The other way to look at it is that with the expansion of the economy, higher paying opportunities opened up and those that are qualified decided against working in the gov't.

---

Seems like a reasonable argument to make.

Take a look at the %s for the City of Houston and Dallas.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Conclusion: you are basically ok with meritless hiring and discrimination based on race as long as the race is not white.

As least we know where you stand.

---

Huh? That's a bizarre and false conclusion to make.

Are you saying that African Americans aren't qualified for the job because they are overrepresented in government jobs? Do you do that with all groups that are overrepresented in jobs above their normal demographic numbers?

---

I'm saying its not based on merit to have them employed at a rate 3 times the rate of that demo within the population. If you had no race on the application at all - and had no idea what race they were when being selected - and they were all qualified, the hiring stats would be similar to rate within the population for every race. They are being hired simply because of their race. Thats the accusation and you've done nothing in this thread to refute it. Instead, you deflect, move the goalpost., etc... I think you're trolling at this point.

If you have some stats on other demographics and jobs, show them.

Based on this latest post, if we have 100% black people working federal jobs and they are qualified, that would be OK with you. Despite the FACT that if that happened, it would be blatant discrimination against other races. Thus, my conclusion stands! You are all over the map.

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

Is it possible that disproportionately more Blacks apply for government positions and therfore have higher placement?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

---

LOL. Now do college degrees for the demographics.

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

Is it possible that disproportionately more Blacks apply for government positions and therfore have higher placement?

---

Well, I'm sure they do now because there is blatant discrimination occurring.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

---

LOL. Now do college degrees for the demographics.

---

Answer the question.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

---

LOL. Now do college degrees for the demographics.

---

Answer the question.

---

I did.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

---

LOL. Now do college degrees for the demographics.

---

Answer the question.

---

I did.

---

No, you didn't. Are they qualified or not? Their numbers are significantly higher than their demographic numbers, which has been your standard data point in the discussion. Don't go changing the data point just yet.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

---

LOL. Now do college degrees for the demographics.

---

Answer the question.

---

I did.

---

No, you didn't. Are they qualified or not? Their numbers are significantly higher than their demographic numbers, which has been your standard data point in the discussion. Don't go changing the data point just yet.

---

Here you go:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

Now, who is deflecting? It's a simple yes or no question. Are they qualified even though, by your standard, they are overrepresented?

So let me get this straight. Blacks make up 14.8% of the population, but 18.5% of the federal workforce, which is predominately in urban areas. This is worth 3 pages of anti DEI forum discussion? A 3.7% difference which could easily be explained by the urban demographics?

TexAg's posters will whine about anything, lol.

WBBQ74 said:

---

The New Deal. Goes back decades.

---

also it's geography

look at where the government buildings are located in DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia

then look at how many blacks live there.

Race baiters on both sides are weird people.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Now, who is deflecting? It's a simple yes or no question. Are they qualified even though, by your standard, they are overrepresented?

---

Once you read and understand that Kahn academy subject on stats, I'll be glad to discuss further. Let me know.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

This certainly explains a lot about why the government is the way it is. What responsibilities it should have, and who should benefit the most.

Some federal departments show Blacks make up 33% or more of the employees, yet they're only 14.8% of the total population. As a whole, they make up 18.5% of all federal employees.

https://apple.news/Ak_44EfSqRwGvAesdebeUDA

Now they're worried about the harm to black workers with Trump slashing federal jobs and doing away with DEI. Seems like DEI, in this instance, should result in more non-Blacks getting recruited and hired, given the percentages above.

Why do people think a key role of the federal government is just to create jobs to hand out paychecks??

---

Are we really blaming black employees for the state of our government? Seems like bs scapegoating.

---

Seems like a whistle for something, just can't place my finger on it... Lotta whistling going on.


Because we all know black people are only hired because of "dei" initiatives. There's no historical precedent for their exclusion from jobs. And certainly none exists today! Nope. Just a bunch of meritless hires, you can tell by their... see?

Insane thread.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Now, who is deflecting? It's a simple yes or no question. Are they qualified even though, by your standard, they are overrepresented?

---

Once you read and understand that Kahn academy subject on stats, I'll be glad to discuss further. Let me know.

---

I figured you wouldn't answer. No need to continue this back and forth. You've shown your ass enough as it is. I hope you find peace from your biases and poorly constructed world views.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'd love you to explain the demographic stats and how we get there if it's not DEI?

---

So we need equal outcomes now? I'm personally against those.

---

Move that goalpost. You claimed that this doesn't prove identity hiring. When challenged, you deflect. I'm quite sure you'd be ok if the shoe were on the white foot. /eye roll

We need fair outcomes based on merit. This is identity based hiring. Period.

---

I'm not deflecting. I clearly believe that different groups are attracted to different jobs for a number of reasons and avoid others. The over representation of certain groups isn't a sign of unfair hiring practices or systemic issues.

I thought that is what we all agreed on.

---

So black people want to work for the Federal gov, but white people don't is your argument?! Basis?

Here are some stats for Fed government workers over time:

1970s - 85% white
1980s-1990s - 70% white
2000s-2010s - 60% white
2020s - 55% white


So it dramatically changed over time because white people decided they didn't want to work for the Federal government anymore?!

---

Is it possible that over the past fifty years, conservatives who hate anything to do with the government stopped going into the public sector, leaving those openings available for minorities to fill? Also, as we've seen over the past few generations, fewer and fewer suburban kids even want to work, so add those numbers to the conservatives, and you have even less of the white population wanting to work for the government.

Also, could it also be that, over the past fifty years, there are just fewer white people around to work federal, or any job, as compared to half a century ago when the country looked much different?

A la Google, in the 1970s, the white population accounted for 87.5% of the population.
In 2022, the white population accounted for 58.5% of the population.

Those two numbers seem to be pretty similar to those of yours in the '70s and '20s.

The two largest conundrums of being a Christian and a conservative.

Cutting the federal workforce means higher black unemployment .

Banning abortion means a significant higher, black birth rate .

I'll just leave that there and you can think whatever you want .

Wow- i must have missed that. That was the most intellectually honest beat down I've ever seen.

Conformations like this need to happen every day, everywhere, until this lie of significant anti-black racism is completely exposed and eradicated.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

White males make up 88% of CEOs in this country in 2022. How does that compare to their demographic numbers in the country?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe they can't be qualified for the job at that rate.

---

LOL. Now do college graduate degrees for the demographics.

---

FIFY

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Now, who is deflecting? It's a simple yes or no question. Are they qualified even though, by your standard, they are overrepresented?

---

What are the qualification to be CEO vs gov't worker?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The two largest conundrums of being a Christian and a conservative.

Cutting the federal workforce means higher black unemployment .

Banning abortion means a significant higher, black birth rate .

I'll just leave that there and you can think whatever you want .

---

I'd add that in the 19th and early 20th century, Whites wanting cheap labor helped to bring in minorities to fill those jobs.

No Spin Ag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The two largest conundrums of being a Christian and a conservative.

Cutting the federal workforce means higher black unemployment .

Banning abortion means a significant higher, black birth rate .

I'll just leave that there and you can think whatever you want .

---

I'd add that in the 19th and early 20th century, Whites wanting cheap labor helped to bring in minorities to fill those jobs.

---

Don't forget about the 17th and 18th centuries. Lots of 'cheap' labor was shipped over to the Americas.