She’s already broken barriers, and now Kamala Harris could shatter several more after President Joe Biden abruptly ended his reelection bid and endorsed her.
Biden announced Sunday that he was stepping aside after a disastrous debate performance catalyzed fears that the 81-year-old was too frail for a second term.
Harris is the first woman, Black person or person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president. If she becomes the Democratic nominee and defeats Republican candidate Donald Trump in November, she would be the first woman to serve as president.
Biden said Sunday that choosing Harris as his running mate was “the best decision I’ve made” and endorsed her as his successor.
Oh this old chestnut. If you are either this uninformed or this disingenuous, it’s not going to be enjoyable for either of us to continue this discussion. Someone else can do that work with you.
So if you looked at the top 100 companies, how many white people do they hire now? They are directly not hiring white people, this is just a fact, if you dont like it then maybe you shouldnt be advocting for crazy policies based on what people look like.
Where did you find an overview of the racial makeup of the top 100 companies’ employees?
Bloomberg did not me and its in 2021 the S&P 100 hired about 300k people, and 94% of them were POC.
So it looks like you’re talking about this
While it does make that claim, you might also note phrases like:
Note also they define “people of color” as “black, Asian, Hispanic, or other”
So the article that makes that claim basically says non-whites had been laid off and were re-hired. Pre-dominantly white people were able to retire early, and people of color are still way underrepresented in positions of authority
Are you claiming that this data does not show preferential hiring of POC over white people?
I am just reading beyond the headline.
I see that they describe this as a one time reaction to the recovery after Covid and is hiring back the mainly non-whites who had been laid off. Most importantly they included lots of data about how non-whites are still way underrepresented relative to the actual population after this one time event.
So, no it does not. It appears to be showing a preference for employees who had been previously laid off
This is just silly, the hiring represents 1/10 or so of the white to their representation there is no way slightly higher rates of non-whites being laid off would account for this unless they laid off exclusively non white people or specifically chose white people to hire back. To believe this you would have to show some crazy statistics on the front end of who they laid off.
Why isnt the much more logical thing that happened that they have DEI programs that puts a higher demand on hiring non-white applicants?
There are lots of possible things that happened and they did not have data for any of them.
These inconsistencies also make clear this data was cherry-picked to provoke a reaction. Try again.
Unsubstantiated assertion of fact, submitted in argument with a position I didn’t take, as expected. Like I said, maybe someone else wants to have a tiresome conversation about basic reality with you that will end with you strutting around like you’ve won something no matter how it actually unfolds, but I’m not that guy.
If you wanted the data, sure I just had to do a quick google to remember the actual numbers. So in 2021 the the S&P 100 hired about 300k people, and 94% of them were POC. I get that its uncomfortable to see that sort of things happening, but those poor white that had a hard life have a much harder time getting a job because of their skin color.