Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I’ve hesitated to post this, but if people want to engage the topic honestly that would be great.

This Jacob Savage essay has gone viral this week and is having a major impact, particularly in right wing and libertarian online spaces. I would encourage those who want to comment here to read the essay before posting. 

The author suggests that efforts to diversify, while well intentioned had the effect of systematically excluding millennial men, and especially white millennial men from hiring and promotional opportunities in high status or culturally elite professional  fields from 2014 through recent times. In other words, that Gen X and Boomer men (almost universally white) got to keep their spots at the top, but millennial white men got frozen out. 

Predictably, this essay has been latched onto by online progressives and online MAGA to signal their respective audiences. For progressives, this means ridiculing the idea that white male privilege took a holiday (which is not what the essay says). For MAGA, this means banging the drum of racial grievance. Neither are responsive to the point, which rang true to me. 

I can’t speak for media, journalism or academia first hand, although it seems observationally true when I look at the compositions of staff. But I can say that it aligns with my experience and involvement in hiring and promotional decisions at global corporations and in tech beginning around 2008. I don’t think we thought about the generational component of what we were doing at the time, but looking back it’s clear to me that it had a significant impact, mostly without mitigating benefit. 
 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I can’t speak for media, journalism or academia first hand, although it seems observationally true when I look at the compositions of staff.

I just finished the article and want to let it stew a bit, but since I baited you into making the thread I'll chime in about this.  

My wife works for a FAANG firm and showed me pictures from the Christmas party from the firm's headquarters in California and there are virtually no white male faces in the pictures (old or young).  I doubt it's because of DEI (it's preponderantly SE and E Asians that make up the attendees), but it does seem to align to an outcome that has the results described in the essay.  

That said, I think it's interesting that the author's seems to be overly focused on industries that are under a lot of employment stress to begin with.  Education, journalism, and film and tv production have all had a rough decade.  

FWIW, the talk in film circles is that Sundance has gotten swallowed whole by the representation and identity focused programmers, and it's kinda ruined their ability to help promote indie films.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

My wife works for a FAANG firm and showed me pictures from the Christmas party from the firm's headquarters in California and there are virtually no white male faces in the pictures (old or young).  I doubt it's because of DEI (it's preponderantly SE and E Asians that make up the attendees), but it does seem to align to an outcome that has the results described in the essay.  

Yeah I don’t think it’s about DEI, which has become sort of an HR catch-all term.
I think the basic thesis is that individual *millennial* white males (again, not GenX, not Boomers) were at a disadvantage without any real population level benefit to disenfranchised or marginalized people or change to the power structure.
That’s hard to disagree with from where I sit, and I can think of some pretty egregious examples. 
The funny thing is that at least based on what I saw during the period, it was a lot like affirmative action at elite universities.  At the individual level the people who benefited most were already quite privileged: usually affluent, well connected top university grads who were themselves the children of top university graduates. 
 

23 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

That said, I think it's interesting that the author's seems to be overly focused on industries that are under a lot of employment stress to begin with.  Education, journalism, and film and tv production have all had a rough decade

Indeed, I think he’s writing what he knows about. Plus media loves to talk about itself. 


 

 

Posted

Some of this is the danger of trying to make quick changes. When a company states of a goal of diversifying in say three-years rather than gradually, you're necessarily going to lock out others from the less favored pile. But there are some things in his statistics that still reek of privilege. For instance:

Quote

The white men shut out of the culture industries didn’t surge into other high-status fields. They didn’t suddenly flood advertising, law, or medicine, which are all less white and significantly less male than they were a decade ago. White men dropped from 31.2 percent of law school matriculants in 2016 to 25.7 percent in 2024. 

Non-Hispanic white men (whom I presume his article intends to address) only make up ~28% of the population.  I get that his point is that those in culture industries didn't move elsewhere, but he also seems to be implying this unfair effect his plaguing other industries too. I'm not convinced of that. I'll also note that he appears to be ignoring a pretty significant data issue: unknown race/ethnicity is common and prevalent choice in the data. And frankly many people that may be described as "white males" when looking at them may be claiming other ethnicities from their family background. I look white (mostly). But my grandmother was from China, and I often rotate between putting Asian, White, and prefer not to say on surveys. 

 

Posted

I also wish this analysis hadn’t been done on such a precious and prestigious and stressed field, as it’s led to some lazy and stupid takes: “poor white man thinks he’s entitled to a TV show” or “all the movies suck because of DEI hiring.” 
 

Factually: from about the mid-2010s peaking in the early 2020s I personally observed hiring and employment practices that were facially illegal and yet aby concerns were dismissed as “not relevant because we are prioritizing diversity.”
 

Eventually, the message was received, processes were changed to silently implement directions without the need for the facially illegal implementation. Specific examples from personal observation, across different orgs and industries. This is anecdotal, but not just one anecdote in one place. 

- Directions to “select the diverse candidate in the event of a tie,” while two diverse candidates in a tie would be given an additional interview or other screening before a final selection. On its face, a direction to use protected status as a hiring/promotion criteria.

- Senior leaders re-ranking short lists based solely on names (gender markers), without also reviewing any other parts of the files or notes. 

- Specific instructions that gay men should not be considered “diverse candidates” for the purpose of advancing DEI principles. 

- Specific instructions to “maintain a diverse balance” or “improve the diversity in the office” when multiple jobs came open.

- In academia, internal decisions by committees that a spot must be filled by a non-white male, with preference for non-white candidate. 
 

Here is the rub from my end: this happened in the absence of legislative changes and instead came down as a mandate to ignore existing EEO law in favor of a greater interest. And maybe, socially, that is the right call. But the net effect was a lot of double talk: “we don’t discriminate on the basis of race or sex, and when we do it’s for the right reasons. And this did lead to a well-founded suspicion that things were not what they were said to be and made it impossible to really measure impact in either a good or bad way. And I think naturally people tend to believe they got screwed and it colors decisions made in good faith as well.

Maybe society did need a few years of positive, re-balancing discrimination that proportionally disadvantaged a population that in earlier generations was privileged. But we didn’t ask that or discuss it or say we were doing it. We just tried (and failed) to gaslight everyone and pretend that we weren’t making important decisions about hiring and promotions based, in part, on race and gender.  And that lack of honesty is creating a lot of resentment. 
 

From my personal experience, the impact did fall mainly on millennial men at the beginning or early middle of their careers. The mandates and decisions were frequently passed down by established white men in leadership. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Still deciding whether or not to read the piece.  But from my perspective, if previous opportunities were only or primarily afforded to white males, and those opportunities suddenly (or even gradually) opened to others such that the makeup begins to look more like the general population, there is a price to be paid for that. 
 

is this a long form of 

image.thumb.jpeg.04557890bef941bc5cb24d71aa9effaf.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

for what it's worth, I'm in my mid-50s and have never run into people being told to not hire the white guy. What I actually notice is when companies frequently have non-white hires in lower paid divisions like call centers, while higher paid departments like Finance or Legal are mostly white. It's borderline awkward sometimes when I see mgmt teams get together across divisions and one mgmt team is all white and the other all black. It doesn't look to be a coincidence.

The writer of the article does point out that it probably does suck to attempt to work as a young white guy in some industries like entertainment, news or education. Those are all fields that want to pro-actively present themselves as non-discriminatory and I don't doubt that they limit or eliminate new white guys from entering. If I'm not mistaken, the Oscars require a certain amount of representation of previously marginalized groups in order to be eligible for awards.

Finally all people are fundamentally lazy. When there is a desire to be more diverse, I don't believe that it's a stated goal to hold back the previously non-diverse group. But the fastest way to be more diverse is to hold back white people especially white men. Therefore that scenario will most likely occur in some areas if not actively managed.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I also wish this analysis hadn’t been done on such a precious and prestigious and stressed field, as it’s led to some lazy and stupid takes: “poor white man thinks he’s entitled to a TV show” or “all the movies suck because of DEI hiring.” 

Just to be clear, I wasn't doing that. 

Quote

From my personal experience, the impact did fall mainly on millennial men at the beginning or early middle of their careers. The mandates and decisions were frequently passed down by established white men in leadership. 

One could see this as an attempt to lessen competition and protect their own status rather than a true belief in the values of diversity and inclusion. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Still deciding whether or not to read the piece.  But from my perspective, if previous opportunities were only or primarily afforded to white males, and those opportunities suddenly (or even gradually) opened to others such that the makeup begins to look more like the general population, there is a price to be paid for that. 
 

is this a long form of 

image.thumb.jpeg.04557890bef941bc5cb24d71aa9effaf.jpeg

It’s good, you should read it.  
 

Moreover, anyone wanting to see the US dig itself out of the MAGA size hole in our electorate needs to better understand any group’s sense of disenfranchisement, whether or not you agree with its justification.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Still deciding whether or not to read the piece.  But from my perspective, if previous opportunities were only or primarily afforded to white males, and those opportunities suddenly (or even gradually) opened to others such that the makeup begins to look more like the general population, there is a price to be paid for that. 
 

is this a long form of 

image.thumb.jpeg.04557890bef941bc5cb24d71aa9effaf.jpeg

The article is worth a read and makes some valid points, I think particularly for the industry it talks about. I think the problem stems from taking short cuts and trying to speed run into diversity through new hires. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Still deciding whether or not to read the piece.  But from my perspective, if previous opportunities were only or primarily afforded to white males, and those opportunities suddenly (or even gradually) opened to others such that the makeup begins to look more like the general population, there is a price to be paid for that. 
 

is this a long form of 

image.thumb.jpeg.04557890bef941bc5cb24d71aa9effaf.jpeg

put another way, when you are no longer allowed to get ahead by stepping on others and then pulling the ladder up when you get there, that can certainly feel like oppression. sounds like wypipo need some new bootstraps!

Posted (edited)

I won't say there's nothing to his point -- there is.  I think our society is failing males across the board in numerous ways, so white males are included.  But let's look at the statistical basis for his core complaint.

White males are 28-30% of the population.  He is lamenting the following things:

Quote

In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent. The Atlantic’s editorial staff went from 53 percent male and 89 percent white in 2013 to 36 percent male and 66 percent white in 2024. White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023. 

Let me summarize those numbers: for ever and ever, white males occupied a disproportionately HIGH percentage of slots in those fields.  Now they don't.  And that's wrong.  Oh, and my reasoning doesn't apply at all to the previous....decades/centuries of such statistically skewed favoritism of white males.  Nope.  I approach this like aggy, I only count the period of my choice (1984-1994, when aggy went 10-1).

But as for his point that the pendulum swinging hit his generation harder....yeah, he's not wrong.

But also, get the fuck in line.  I'm Gen-X.  The serial buttfucking we've received and will continue to receive from Boomers (and then, from the author's generation and Gen Z, because they are beginning to assert power and outnumber us) is epic and will continue to be).  Summary from Brisket: don't come bitching to me about your generation getting fucked.  Nope, shut the fuck up, I am going to tune your ass out because nobody ever has and nobody ever will give a fuck about our generation, so fuck off.

But also, he should feel very, very, very comforted, because we are now charging headlong into the golden age of "mediocre white men get all preferences over anyone else, regardless of merit," so take heart, millennials!  Your day is here!  Note that I am confident that you will NOT be bitching about the currently skewed hiring, political placements, etc. that is happening.  Nope, that's just returning to the mean - white male favoritism - that we never should have lost.

Oh, and as to the layer of "we've passed gender parity," yeah, I got bad news for him.  I've recruited and hired people in several fields (remember, I sit on some volunteer boards and have served in an HR capacity on some).  Our searches are sure as hell gender neutral.  In my experience, the quality of the candidate pool is NOT gender neutral.  Hate to break it to you fellas, but in the professional (non-technical) world, quality female candidates outnumber quality males probably 2-1 or better.  We still hire the best candidate we can get, but the law of averages alone tells us that said person is more likely to be female these days.  He is not looking inward at all on the QUALITY of white guy candidates these days.  Being bitter, entitled, often unlikeable, with poor social skills (online video games don't develop strong people skills) isn't a great look.  Be better, white dudes.  And note....I think there IS a broader social responsibility for this: our systems (educational, social, etc.) are failing males in general.

In summary: fuck 'em.  And I say this as the father of a boy who is essentially a Gen Z white male.  He knows and has had drilled into his head that he needs to set himself apart.  I don't see the author lamenting the fact that young black men have had to get similar lectures from their parents for decades -- you have to be perfect, you have to be the one who never says anything but "yes sir" and "no sir" to the cops, etc.  Poor me, waah waah waah.  Yeah, I know, having a bunch of pissed off young white guys isn't great for society, but fucking hell, zero personal responsibility or ownership of their fate.  Just shit that boils down to "I didn't get all the unfair advantages my predecessor generations had."  Nope, you didn't.  But you're getting them now, this admin is making sure of it.  And not a single one of you is even thinking to CONSIDER that the pendulum might be swinging too far back in THEIR direction.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Just to be clear, I wasn't doing that. 

One could see this as an attempt to lessen competition and protect their own status rather than a true belief in the values of diversity and inclusion. 

I didn’t see your post as I was writing mine: I’ve been mostly referring to the terrible Twitter takes I’ve seen. 
 

And I agree with the second part, I think that an older generation saw an opportunity to get the credit for “fixing” diversity but letting the squeeze fall on someone else. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I didn’t see your post as I was writing mine: I’ve been mostly referring to the terrible Twitter takes I’ve seen. 
 

And I agree with the second part, I think that an older generation saw an opportunity to get the credit for “fixing” diversity but letting the squeeze fall on someone else. 

No question that there's been plenty of lazy execution in multiple places and instances.

But again, no worries, we've solved it.  We have not just banned any consideration of race or gender in even recruiting, we have implemented a system where hiring someone who is NOT a white male is per se evidence of discrimination against white males in favor of sub-standard minority and female candidates (because let's be honest....we all know that minorities and women are inherently substandard, amirite?)

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."

"If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?"

That's where we are now, that's the governing social ethos, so the author doesn't need to worry his pretty little white head anymore.  He's won.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I won't say there's nothing to his point -- there is.  I think our society is failing males across the board in numerous ways, so white males are included.  But let's look at the statistical basis for his core complaint.

White males are 28-30% of the population.  He is lamenting the following things:

Let me summarize those numbers: for ever and ever, white males occupied a disproportionately HIGH percentage of slots in those fields.  Now they don't.  And that's wrong.  Oh, and my reasoning doesn't apply at all to the previous....decades/centuries of such statistically skewed favoritism of white males.  Nope.  I approach this like aggy, I only count the period of my choice (1984-1994, when aggy went 10-1).

But as for his point that the pendulum swinging hit his generation harder....yeah, he's not wrong.

But also, get the fuck in line.  I'm Gen-X.  The serial buttfucking we've received and will continue to receive from Boomers (and then, from the author's generation and Gen Z, because they are beginning to assert power and outnumber us) is epic and will continue to be).  Summary from Brisket: don't come bitching to me about your generation getting fucked.  Nope, shut the fuck up, I am going to tune your ass out because nobody ever has and nobody ever will give a fuck about our generation, so fuck off.

But also, he should feel very, very, very comforted, because we are now charging headlong into the golden age of "mediocre white men get all preferences over anyone else, regardless of merit," so take heart, millennials!  Your day is here!  Note that I am confident that you will NOT be bitching about the currently skewed hiring, political placements, etc. that is happening.  Nope, that's just returning to the mean - white male favoritism - that we never should have lost.

Oh, and as to the layer of "we've passed gender parity," yeah, I got bad news for him.  I've recruited and hired people in several fields (remember, I sit on some volunteer boards and have served in an HR capacity on some).  Our searches are sure as hell gender neutral.  In my experience, the quality of the candidate pool is NOT gender neutral.  Hate to break it to you fellas, but in the professional (non-technical) world, quality female candidates outnumber quality males probably 2-1 or better.  We still hire the best candidate we can get, but the law of averages alone tells us that said person is more likely to be female these days.  He is not looking inward at all on the QUALITY of white guy candidates these days.  Being bitter, entitled, often unlikeable, with poor social skills (online video games don't develop strong people skills) isn't a great look.  Be better, white dudes.  And note....I think there IS a broader social responsibility for this: our systems (educational, social, etc.) are failing males in general.

In summary: fuck 'em.  And I say this as the father of a boy who is essentially a Gen Z white male.  He knows and has had drilled into his head that he needs to set himself apart.  I don't see the author lamenting the fact that young black men have had to get similar lectures from their parents for decades -- you have to be perfect, you have to be the one who never says anything but "yes sir" and "no sir" to the cops, etc.  Poor me, waah waah waah.  Yeah, I know, having a bunch of pissed off young white guys isn't great for society, but fucking hell, zero personal responsibility or ownership of their fate.  Just shit that boils down to "I didn't get all the unfair advantages my predecessor generations had."  Nope, you didn't.  But you're getting them now, this admin is making sure of it.  And not a single one of you is even thinking to CONSIDER that the pendulum might be swinging too far back in THEIR direction.

I started typing, and then said to myself, I said "self ... maybe if you wait a minute, Brisket will come along, say all the things you're trying to say, but better."

And there it is. Perfectly stated. 

Posted
Just now, capnamerca said:

I started typing, and then said to myself, I said "self ... maybe if you wait a minute, Brisket will come along, say all the things you're trying to say, but better."

And there it is. Perfectly stated. 

He talks real pretty don't he?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

From my personal experience, the impact did fall mainly on millennial men at the beginning or early middle of their careers. The mandates and decisions were frequently passed down by established white men in leadership. 

As a GenX man, I think that's largely true.  But it's also not something I'm going to apologize for.

As someone noted up-top, white men are only 28% of the population.  But as I look around my peer group, white men are waaaaaay more than 28% of the GenX lawyers in this town.  Or any town, for that matter.

At my firm at at others, we've tried to increase diversity among the firm's lawyers and within the profession more generally.  We haven't done anything illegal--we have a very good employment-law section that makes sure of that.  But we have done things like sponsor programs at UT and Houston-Tillotson that encourage undergrads who are from diverse backgrounds to consider the legal profession.  After all--it's real tough to hire a diverse workforce if all of the lawyers graduating law school are white.

And let's just be real clear--it makes good sense to have a diverse workforce.  Because we have a diverse client base.  And juries and judges are often not white men.*

I'll tell you--our current cadre of associates is still well more than 28% white men.  And the primary beneficiaries of a lot of those efforts in the legal profession have been white women, which doesn't really address all of the issues we were trying to deal with in our various DEI efforts.    But still--I'm not going to be too concerned about the fact that white males are slightly less over-represented in the legal profession than they used to be.

17 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Still deciding whether or not to read the piece.  But from my perspective, if previous opportunities were only or primarily afforded to white males, and those opportunities suddenly (or even gradually) opened to others such that the makeup begins to look more like the general population, there is a price to be paid for that. 

But the point is that it's a price that we--i.e., GenX males--didn't pay.

I think that maybe dovetails with the other thread on population reduction.  These decisions maybe hit a whole lot different when it's your sons that aren't getting the opportunities because of the decisions you're making.  But a lot of GenX males (and elder Millenial males) who are in positions of power don't have sons.  Or if they do have sons, they have one or two who are so well-off that they're not terribly concerned about them getting an entry-level position.

In the high-investment/low-number model of childbearing in which you have a small number of children in whom you invest a greater amount, do you really care if white males have relatively fewer opportunities if you're in the class of people who are making the decisions about DEI hiring?  Not really.  If you're in that class of people, your son(s)--you probably don't have more than one or two--are going to be very well educated.  They're ahead of the game, irrespective of who else is playing.

It's not that white male Millenials were handicapped.  It's that white male Millenials who didn't come from an upper-class background were handicapped.

 

 

 

 

* I have been in a number of CLEs with various women judges--some white, others not--in which those judges explicitly state that they prefer to hear from lawyers who "look like me."  The context is that they're encouraging us GenX white men to let our female (or female non-white) associates argue in court more frequently.  And I will tell you that there have been a number of hearings or appellate arguments in which I have sat there at counsel table and let a female colleague make the argument because I had heard that speech from that very judge.

On the one hand, I don't really care--I've had plenty of appellate oral arguments; I've argued dozens of summary-judgment motions.  They're no longer new or exciting.

On the other hand, I've had plenty of appellate oral arguments; I've argued dozens of summary-judgment motions.  So I have a lot more experience and can probably make a better presentation (particularly if it's going to require some on-the-fly improvization).  In a vacuum, the client might be better served to have me argue.  But in front of a judge who doesn't want to hear from someone who doesn't look like her, we have to make a different tactical decision.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

plenty of lazy execution in multiple places and instances.

This is the thing that makes me the most sad about (waves hands wildly around at everything). I don't for a second think that progressives have anything figured out perfectly. While we're certainly guilty of smelling our own farts on occasion, I do believe that there's an underlying ethos of continuous improvement in our desire to govern. There's a very real part of our government that would truly benefit from a traditional Conservative thumb on the scale, pushing back (the "did the pendulum swing too far" comments above). The R's have such a magnificient chance to make so many changes to so much policy, and shit, take a victory lap too for making things better for everyone. 

Education CLEARLY needs a ton of work.
Healthcare.
Energy Policy.
Inflation / Interest Rates.
Wages.

There is SO MUCH good that could be done by the party in power, to benefit so may people, and the Rs have 1) control of all three branches of government and 2) a series of pretty decent polices in place from D adminstrations to build off of. 

But no, it's more fun to hate brown people. 

Don't worry, I'm still fuckin' angry about all of it. But I'm so sad for the lost opportunity, too. 

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

He talks real pretty don't he?

Something something two dollar whore.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

But the point is that it's a price that we--i.e., GenX males--didn't pay.

I think that maybe dovetails with the other thread on population reduction.  These decisions maybe hit a whole lot different when it's your sons that aren't getting the opportunities because of the decisions you're making.  But a lot of GenX males (and elder Millenial males) who are in positions of power don't have sons.  Or if they do have sons, they have one or two who are so well-off that they're not terribly concerned about them getting an entry-level position.

In the high-investment/low-number model of childbearing in which you have a small number of children in whom you invest a greater amount, do you really care if white males have relatively fewer opportunities if you're in the class of people who are making the decisions about DEI hiring?  Not really.  If you're in that class of people, your son(s)--you probably don't have more than one or two--are going to be very well educated.  They're ahead of the game, irrespective of who else is playing.

It's not that white male Millenials were handicapped.  It's that white male Millenials who didn't come from an upper-class background were handicapped.

 

 

 

 

.

I honestly think I’d have a hard time finding a better explanation for why Trump has appeal to a new group of voters than this: 

“We (white men with power) benefited from an unfair system but we can balance the books in a way that protects us and further handicaps white people who didn’t have much power or an advantage to begin with.” 
 

“I love the poorly educated” indeed. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Still deciding whether or not to read the piece.  But from my perspective, if previous opportunities were only or primarily afforded to white males, and those opportunities suddenly (or even gradually) opened to others such that the makeup begins to look more like the general population, there is a price to be paid for that. 
 

And that's exactly the reaction I would expect from someone who doesn't read the essay

Posted
44 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

put another way, when you are no longer allowed to get ahead by stepping on others and then pulling the ladder up when you get there, that can certainly feel like oppression. sounds like wypipo need some new bootstraps!

put another way, you didn't read the essay

Posted
37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I won't say there's nothing to his point -- there is.  I think our society is failing males across the board in numerous ways, so white males are included.  But let's look at the statistical basis for his core complaint.

White males are 28-30% of the population.  He is lamenting the following things:

But, that's not his core complaint. His core complaint is that millenial males, particularly the white ones were individually denied opportunity while the power structure stayed the same. Which is really hard to argue with. 

 

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

As someone noted up-top, white men are only 28% of the population.  But as I look around my peer group, white men are waaaaaay more than 28% of the GenX lawyers in this town.  Or any town, for that matter.

 

Gen X is not millenials. Both of you guys should read and not skim - the essay is not about Gen X or Gen Z - it's about what happened to millenial males over the course of a very specific decade.

And I would also say to both of you - you're lawyers and in one of the most gatekept professions there is, and one which exercises more aggressive cultural hygiene and self-protection than any other, with the possible exception of police.
In other words, you're part of the power structure. Of course things are mainly the same. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I honestly think I’d have a hard time finding a better explanation for why Trump has appeal to a new group of voters than this: 

“We (white men with power) benefited from an unfair system but we can balance the books in a way that protects us and further handicaps white people who didn’t have much power or an advantage to begin with.” 
 

“I love the poorly educated” indeed. 

Good--then I've expressed myself clearly.

We have managed to carry out some significant societal changes.  I think a lot more societal changes are needed.  And I don't think we've carried out the changes that have been made with just a whole lot of grace or foresight.

But we're fucking GenX, man.  What do you expect from us?

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We still hire the best candidate we can get, but the law of averages alone tells us that said person is more likely to be female these days.  He is not looking inward at all on the QUALITY of white guy candidates these days.  Being bitter, entitled, often unlikeable, with poor social skills (online video games don't develop strong people skills) isn't a great look.  Be better, white dudes.  And note....I think there IS a broader social responsibility for this: our systems (educational, social, etc.) are failing males in general.

I don't speak for all of corporate America but you should read what 956 wrote about his experience, because that was in line with what I saw in global corporations and Big Tech over the course of about a decade. In other words, I can't honestly say that "the best candidate we can get" was a huge part of the equation when it came to early-mid career promotion, hiring and recruitment. And he's especially dead-on about gay guys not counting. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

In other words, you're part of the power structure. Of course things are mainly the same. 

Except....we both noted that they are NOT mainly the same.  While white men are still disproportionately represented in the younger ranks, women are beginning to stomp them in both quantity and quality.  Again, give me a pool of 10 randomly selected high-quality candidates with less than 4 years of practice, probably 7 outta 10 are going to be female.  Minorities are still trailing in representation, but they are making gains.

Bottom line, 30 years ago, 80% of the incoming class of high-quality attorneys would be white males.  Today?  Maybe 40%.  That's a precipitous decline.....but white males are STILL slightly overrepresented compared to population.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Gen X is not millenials. Both of you guys should read and not skim - the essay is not about Gen X or Gen Z - it's about what happened to millenial males over the course of a very specific decade.

And I would also say to both of you - you're lawyers and in one of the most gatekept professions there is, and one which exercises more aggressive cultural hygiene and self-protection than any other, with the possible exception of police.
In other words, you're part of the power structure. Of course things are mainly the same. 

i know monica GIF

 

The essay is about GenX from the standpoint that it's writing about how GenX white males didn't pay any price in connection with the implementation of DEI hiring policies.  The people who are in power among GenX are disproportionately white males.  And we didn't throw ourselves out of power.

That's a bit part of the thesis of the essay, and it's a part with which I strongly agree.

I'm not even disagreeing with the author's observations about the impact on his cohort of Millenial white males.  I'm just saying I don't care.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Quote

Which raises some uncomfortable questions: Is the media more trusted now than a decade ago? Is Hollywood making better films and television? Is academia more respected? Have these institutions become stronger since they systematically excluded an entire cohort—or did abandoning meritocracy accelerate their decline?

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Except....we both noted that they are NOT mainly the same.  While white men are still disproportionately represented in the younger ranks, women are beginning to stomp them in both quantity and quality.  Again, give me a pool of 10 randomly selected high-quality candidates with less than 4 years of practice, probably 7 outta 10 are going to be female.  Minorities are still trailing in representation, but they are making gains.

Bottom line, 30 years ago, 80% of the incoming class of high-quality attorneys would be white males.  Today?  Maybe 40%.  That's a precipitous decline.....but white males are STILL slightly overrepresented compared to population.

But, again, that's the point - one slice of one group was discriminated against and the big winners weren't (by and large) less privileged. So we wind up getting a more gender diverse mix of rich kids moving up in the world. Or maybe richer kids. Was it worth it?

Posted
1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

Which raises some uncomfortable questions: Is the media more trusted now than a decade ago? Is Hollywood making better films and television? Is academia more respected? Have these institutions become stronger since they systematically excluded an entire cohort—or did abandoning meritocracy accelerate their decline?

That would be the "who gives a fuck?" portion of the essay. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Which raises some uncomfortable questions: Is the media more trusted now than a decade ago? Is Hollywood making better films and television? Is academia more respected? Have these institutions become stronger since they systematically excluded an entire cohort—or did abandoning meritocracy accelerate their decline? 

And what about the increase in frequency and intensity of attacks from the right subsequent to greater representation in those institutions?

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But, that's not his core complaint. His core complaint is that millenial males, particularly the white ones were individually denied opportunity while the power structure stayed the same. Which is really hard to argue with. 

 

Gen X is not millenials. Both of you guys should read and not skim - the essay is not about Gen X or Gen Z - it's about what happened to millenial males over the course of a very specific decade.

And I would also say to both of you - you're lawyers and in one of the most gatekept professions there is, and one which exercises more aggressive cultural hygiene and self-protection than any other, with the possible exception of police.
In other words, you're part of the power structure. Of course things are mainly the same. 

I'm in the target cohort (Chinese heritage notwithstanding). I haven't seen anything resembling the unfair plight of the millennial white male lawyers. But I also don't doubt that some fields and certainly some particular companies are seeing something like that. And, for instance, I'm not convinced that the tech industry is seeing that because of DEI rather than because other countries have more highly prioritized STEM education. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm in the target cohort (Chinese heritage notwithstanding). I haven't seen anything resembling the unfair plight of the millennial white male lawyers. But I also don't doubt that some fields and certainly some particular companies are seeing something like that. And, for instance, I'm not convinced that the tech industry is seeing that because of DEI rather than because other countries have more highly prioritized STEM education. 

And are willing to work cheaper- hence all the visa workers. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

In other words, I can't honestly say that "the best candidate we can get" was a huge part of the equation when it came to early-mid career hiring and recruitment.

An I respect your perspective.  As you know, I don't and have never hired in that world.  I've hired lawyers, pastoral staff, church-related operations executive staff, and such (that is....trained members of "professions").  And with respect to those....I've seen white men getting their butts kicked, and objectively so.  Shit, I remember when my wife commented, when she was in seminary and working with her peer group, "I'm gonna tell you, if you need to hire a decent pastor anytime soon, you're gonna hire a woman."  Sure enough, of the 8 awards handed out at graduation, 7 went to women (including my wife, cuz she's awesome).

I know anecdotes aren't evidence, but from my perspective of hiring professionals, women typically have the strong edge in numbers, and among all genders, the percentage of quality minority candidates continues to climb.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm in the target cohort (Chinese heritage notwithstanding). I haven't seen anything resembling the unfair plight of the millennial white male lawyers. But I also don't doubt that some fields and certainly some particular companies are seeing something like that. And, for instance, I'm not convinced that the tech industry is seeing that because of DEI rather than because other countries have more highly prioritized STEM education. 

He wants you to believe that tech companies are full of black women or some shit. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So we wind up getting a more gender diverse mix of rich kids moving up in the world. Or maybe richer kids. Was it worth it?

The growth in percentage of "more disadvantaged" among the professional ranks has been slower going, but it IS happening.  See my comment about the increasing percentage of minority candidates, and a fair number are not from families that already had "professionals" in them.  Not nearly enough, mind you.  Overcoming structural income and social inequality issues takes time measured in generations.  But also consider that PART of that is hiring more minorities from the get-go, simply because THOSE minorities (the more educated, more privileged ones) often have much stronger connections to a network of more disadvantaged people.  STATISTICALLY, a given young black or hispanic lawyer is more likely to know people, know schools, etc. that have a larger population of disadvantaged folks.

Both things are true: some things can be done in the short-term, but seeing genuine positive results of not just improvements in race or gender ratios, but seeing improvements that also include lifting up more disadvantaged folks, takes time.  BUT, counter....for the longest time, it didn't matter whether you were a poor mexican, or a well-to-do mexican, the firm of Whitey and Whitness in Dallas wasn't gonna hire you.  It wasn't the "poor" that shut you out (although that sure as shit didn't help).  It was the brown.  Or black.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The growth in percentage of "more disadvantaged" among the professional ranks has been slower going, but it IS happening.  See my comment about the increasing percentage of minority candidates, and a fair number are not from families that already had "professionals" in them.  Not nearly enough, mind you.  Overcoming structural income and social inequality issues takes time measured in generations.  But also consider that PART of that is hiring more minorities from the get-go, simply because THOSE minorities (the more educated, more privileged ones) often have much stronger connections to a network of more disadvantaged people.  STATISTICALLY, a given young black or hispanic lawyer is more likely to know people, know schools, etc. that have a larger population of disadvantaged folks.

Both things are true: some things can be done in the short-term, but seeing genuine positive results of not just improvements in race or gender ratios, but seeing improvements that also include lifting up more disadvantaged folks, takes time.  BUT, counter....for the longest time, it didn't matter whether you were a poor mexican, or a well-to-do mexican, the firm of Whitey and Whitness in Dallas wasn't gonna hire you.  It wasn't the "poor" that shut you out (although that sure as shit didn't help).  It was the brown.  Or black.

But the poor could shut you out of college, which is a prerequisite for law school, which I believe is strongly encouraged in order to pass the bar. Which you have to do in order to practice law, which you need to do well in order to move up to partner or whatever.  Lots of rungs on the ladder but at least for a while it was all a single interconnected ladder and you could go from the bottom to the top.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

FWIW, the wage gender gap for ages 20-24 is 9.1%.  The wage gap for ages 55-64 is 23.4%.  So, in total, men still make more than women, for every generation.    (US Department of Labor

Black men between 25 and 55 earn an average of $1098 per week.  When men in that same age group earn $1426 per week.  Hispanics - $1031.  Asian men - $1906.  (US Bureau of Labor Statistics) I'm afraid I don't have it broken down in smaller segments. 

Statistically, men still make more money than women in the United States.  Statistically white people make more money than black or hispanic people. I'm not saying everything is fair in all situations. It's not.  It never was. But it's a massive exaggeration to say Gen whatever white males are the "lost generation" when they still make more money, on average, than their female and black counterparts.  

Lets say the average hiring process is slanted against white males.  To get to that same end result - that they make more money - it means that there are other non-hiring process factors which more than balances out the hiring basis.  Part of that may be personal decisions, like which career men or women decide to follow, or who stays home with the kids.  (Although those decisions are heavily influenced by the culture at those jobs and which parent makes more money - so, a feedback loop.)  Most of it is probably generational issues, which we need to decide if we want to disrupt.  (By generational issues, I mean whether their families were wealthy, professional, etc.) 

 

 

 

Edited by Tuco
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

But the poor could shut you out of college, which is a prerequisite for law school, which I believe is strongly encouraged in order to pass the bar. Which you have to do in order to practice law, which you need to do well in order to move up to partner or whatever.  Lots of rungs on the ladder but at least for a while it was all a single interconnected ladder and you could go from the bottom to the top.  

Indeed.  Being poor is another layer -- and a big, fat layer -- in the shit sandwich of American life.

It's why I'm a huge fan of community colleges, getting first-gen kids through college and such, etc.  Yeah, college isn't for everyone, but damn....it opens the door to the professional classes, and not just for the first generation.  For FUTURE generations.  An influential teacher who got my dad to think of, and then go to college, is a large part of the reason I'm successful.  I had a leg-up because I was born to a college-educated father, with a professional degree and license (nothing fancy, petroleum engineer working for the government, but it was stability, and gave me examples and expectations).

But back to whiny white guys, by far the biggest factors crushing them are (1) women have entered the work force, and not just in "women's jobs" like teaching and nursing, but in all manner of professional fields, and (2) women are smart and have an aptitude for the very things that make one successful academically and professionally.  E.g., women are much less likely to spend formative educational years in their parents' basement playing COD 12 hours a day.  Once we allowed women to compete....they started kicking our asses, and it ain't getting any better for those of us equipped with a dingus.

As much as there are strong retrograde impulses in society and government right now, that genie is never going back in the bottle.  Get used to it, white guys.  Want to do better?  Then BE better.  You know, the meritocracy you love to shout about, the key first step is "have some fucking merit."

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I'm sorry but this essay is just so cynical.

Using a personal anecdote about having a project passed on in Hollywood as the prologue? What assurance do we have that his pilot was even any good? He received one of the most cliche fucking polite rejection lines, believed it at face value, and that's somehow a data point in support of his conclusion?

Part I, centered on "Andrew," is basically the same grievance repackaged. The man was in a dying industry. Once again, I ask, what evidence do we have that this Andrew guy was even any good at his job?

Quote

By the early 2020s, many journalists I spoke to noticed something else: The young white men who once flooded internship and fellowship pools had simply stopped applying. Gen-Z men had absorbed the message that journalism was not for them. 

“The femaleness is striking,” a well-known Gen-X reporter with impeccable liberal bona fides confided. “It’s like, wow, where have the guys gone?”

Dude, if you are going to be saying shit like this, be man enough to put your name on it.

Part II is sort of a mismash of different anecdotes, basically complaining that there was no demand in academia for the niche subjects these particular white millennial men had studied, and heavily implying but never outright saying that the only reason they didn't get the jobs they were finalists for was because they were white men.

Part III, back to Hollywood, and we are finally dealing with an anecdote about someone who actually has some evidence of their talent. Still, I wonder if something else was holding "Matt" back professionally, something other than his race and age cohort. Hollywood is notoriously petty and vindictive, and word tends to get around. You piss of the wrong person, or rub them the wrong way, and it's basically curtains for your career. This part in particular:

Quote

But the offer was abruptly pulled. One of the showrunners—a Gen-X white guy—had blocked it. The room already had too many white guys.

Is that something the showrunner actually told "Matt," or is that creative license on the part of the essayist? I ask because I've seen this play out in Hollywood, where something is progressing and then gets abruptly halted, often by a higher-up. It's usually personal. The above bears all the hallmarks of a "we just really don't want to work with this guy in particular." As is commonly said in the industry, "talent will out." But slightly less well known is that your agent can submit a writing sample that some screener may like, and then when the writing team actually has lunch with you, they realize they'd rather not spend a lot of time with you in a small writer's room, but need a polite way to explain how it got that far but is gonna be a "pass."

Quote

In 2011, when he (and I) moved to California, white men were around 60 percent of TV writers; by 2025, according to the WGA’s own diversity statistics, they accounted for just 11.9 percent of lower-level writers; women of color made up 34.6 percent.

TV has only gotten better since 2011. Correlation or causation? This is pretty strong evidence that merit isn't being sacrificed when diversity is made a priority.

Part IV, the parade of statistics.

Quote

The fact that other groups, in other eras, have faced worse discrimination—that in the grand scheme of things, the disenfranchisement of white male millennials was relatively mild—is not itself an argument. Especially when the entire liberal establishment insists that nothing actually happened, that the “mild” correction was in fact no correction at all, and that any white man harmed in the process was in fact “mediocre.” 

I agree with the first part, in that it's "not an argument." But it does explain why, when steps are finally taken to remediate the effects of those worse systems of discrimination, the effects are felt so sharply by the people who had historically benefited from that discrimination. The essay so far has failed to rule out a common sense conclusion one could draw from this evidence: that the people "harmed" are "mediocre" at best (and "harmed" is a bit of an excessively dramatic word choice on the part of the essayist). I've yet to see the evidence that these guys actually were better than the people who got hired instead of them. It's a cynical appeal to the losers' desire to believe that they didn't lose fair and square, for which there will always be an audience.

Part V returns to the personal anecdote. I suppose it's kind of novel to be pointing the finger at other white men, upset that the Gen Xers were the last ones who could build careers while being mediocre:

Quote

The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.

I call this essay cynical because the essayist proposes absolutely nothing in light of the "problem" it chronicles, fully aware that all of these unanswered questions he's leaving the reader with will almost certainly be filled in by right-wing pundits, opportunistic pundits who will laud the Trump administration's regressive policies and clueless (or equally cynical) consultants who will advise the Democrats to abandon even more of their constituents. And that's what gives the game away.

Another thought is where the whole "participation trophy" culture fits into this narrative. Because I remember the 2010s well enough to know how much the Boomers and Gen Xers would criticize the millennials for having been overly coddled and consequently less equipped to deal with the "Real World." Not hard to hypothesize that, among millennial men, the white ones got the most coddling and participation trophies, the ones who internalized the whole "I'm a special boy" mentality that perhaps (just perhaps) was not serving them well in adulthood when confronted with firsthand evidence of their own mediocrity. Just a thought.

Edited by chainsaw
Additional Thought
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I think there is definitely an impact of the diversity push and I think diversity is valid from a perspective of understanding the audience you need to have people that represent that audience.  But as a person that loves to look at data I find some really interesting things in the article.

A few quotes:

Quote

 NPR reported in 2014. “But critics say… those newsrooms and leadership roles are overwhelmingly made up of white men.” 

The critics were mostly right: Gawker was still 57 percent male and 79 percent white; Vice was majority male and 70 percent white. At FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver complained about a gender gap so severe that only 15 percent of applications were from women.

Take issue with "overwhelmingly" when the stats are 57-43 and "majority male" which is anything over 50%, so technically half +1.

Quote

By 2019, the newsrooms of ProPublica, The Washington Post, and The New York Times were majority female, as were New Media upstarts Vice, Vox, Buzzfeed, and The Huffington Post. 

And then 2020 happened, and the wheels came off. 

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, newsrooms tripped over themselves to stage a “reckoning.” The New York Times solemnly promised “sweeping” reforms—on top of the sweeping reforms it had already promised. The Washington Post declared it would become “the most diverse and inclusive newsroom in the country.” CNN pledged a “sustained commitment” to race coverage, while Bon Appétit confessed that “our mastheads have been far too white for far too long” and that the magazine had “tokenize[d] many BIPOC staffers and contributors.” NPR went further still, declaring that diversity was nothing less than its “North Star.”

These weren’t empty slogans, either. In 2021, new hires at Condé Nast were just 25 percent male and 49 percent white; at the California Times, parent company of The Los Angeles Times and The San Diego Union-Tribune, they were just 39 percent male and 31 percent white. That year ProPublica hired 66 percent women and 58 percent people of color; at NPR, 78 percent of new hires were people of color. 

First assuming that we go from 57-43 to 49-51 over 5 years, that is not as drastic as I think he wants it to be.  Not to mention that most of that shift came from new hires in entry level positions so how would that happen.

He talks a lot about the hiring/demand side of the equation but only skirts the supply side. The percentage of the US population with a college degree by gender flipped from being majority male to majority female in 2014.

This was driven by recent graduation numbers.  As of 2024 college bachelor's degree rates among 25-34 year olds is 47% for females, and 37% for males. So you could assume that in fields without a heavy male bias that women would be graduating at an even higher rate than men.  I would put the media roles he focuses on in that likely to outpace the general population which is backed up by this really cool animated chart that says by 2022 women made up 63.7% of all bachelor's degrees in communication. Seriously, click on that link.  It shows that only 33% of Communications majors were women in 1970s, hovered around 60% from 1983 through 2010s and then up to two thirds after that.

Quote

With or without quotas, The Atlantic succeeded in hiring fewer of these white males. Since 2020, nearly two-thirds of The Atlantic's hires have been women, along with nearly 50 percent people of color. In 2024, The Atlantic announced that three-quarters of editorial hires in the past year had been women and 69 percent people of color. 

"Nearly two-thirds" sounds really close to that 63.7% of new college graduates figure I posted above so the hiring is matching the new graduate pool from the previous link.

At this point I skimmed the rest and then got tired of reading.

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, safe sex said:

And what about the increase in frequency and intensity of attacks from the right subsequent to greater representation in those institutions?

Yeah, that seems like a pretty significant and really bad impact. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm sorry but this essay is just so cynical.

Ok, but taken at face value what do you think? 
Look there is a lot about this essay I find very silly. But the reason why it resonated with me was because it aligns with my first hand experience and direct visibility to what was happening, which is what 956 saw as well and describes above. 

If I was a millennial male who was denied opportunities exclusively on the basis of my race and/or gender I would be pretty bitter and pretty cynical also, and I have to think it drove a few people straight into the arms of the American right wing or whoever wanted to pursue that grievance. 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, but taken at face value what do you think? 
Look there is a lot about this essay I find very silly. But the reason why it resonated with me was because it aligns with my first hand experience and direct visibility to what was happening, which is what 956 saw as well and describes above. 

If I was a millennial male who was denied opportunities exclusively on the basis of my race and/or gender I would be pretty bitter and pretty cynical also, and I have to think it drove a few people straight into the arms of the American right wing or whoever wanted to pursue that grievance. 

I think it would have resonated more in roles where men are actually a majority of the new talent pool.  Citing media, communications, etc. when two thirds of new graduates since 1983 are women is kind of stacking the deck.  Using an anecdote about individuals getting passed by when all the new talent it an outgoing tide against you and just citing the outputs without the inputs, I can't take the argument seriously.

I do agree that it can radicalize men but they are not pursuing college degrees at the same rate as women in an increasingly information-based economy.  This is the coal miners complaining that there aren't any great coal jobs anymore when if they want to work in energy they should be joining the navy to get nuke training and move where the jobs are.

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, TexasEd said:

I think it would have resonated more in roles where men are actually a majority of the new talent pool.  Citing media, communications, etc. when two thirds of new graduates since 1983 are women is kind of stacking the deck.  

I only saw what happened in global tech companies, and a TV writers room has no relationship to college degrees, but I agree with you there. 

.

Posted

When I evaluate candidates for a position, I begin by listing a clear definition of the must have skills, preferred skills, and nice to have skills. These go in the job listing.

I put a weight of 1-10 for each of these skills: 10 being the most important and 1 being the least important.

I evaluate each resume against these skills and give them a rating from 1-5. 5 being the best.

My spreadsheet then gives a point rating of sum(skill weight * candidate rating). Highest scores are candidates for an interview.

I told HR that I’d prefer not to have names on the resumes to eliminate any subconscious bias. My team is technical so I get some candidates with bachelor degrees in india so it’s impossible to rate all candidates blindly.

I assumed everyone had a similar approach.

 

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I only saw what happened in global tech companies, and a TV writers room has no relationship to college degrees, but I agree with you there. 

.

Yes, I have seen it in technology services but that is an even more complicated story.  You have to add in that the US does not graduate enough people with tech degrees to meet demand so there is the whole H1B and offshoring issue that could have been addressed if more people had decided to get technical degrees or training. 

If you made some posts in another thread on this topic about that experience I did not see it so sorry if I'm not addressing the points you found most pertinent.

 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Starting the article now... I'm wondering if there's any consideration for the fact that the millennial generation was enormous (almost as large as boomers), and came into the workforce at the same time as wider spread automation, technology, and outsourcing. Those factors would seem to explain some of the lower job availability, particularly if you also include boomers staying in their jobs longer than their predecessors (due to lifespan and wellness changes when compared to the greatest generation). 

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...