>LOL JUST GET A JOB NIGGER
pnas.org
>Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years
What's your excuse this time?
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
whites and asians conduct business better.
Who the fuck willingly hires a pack of tyrones or spics?
meta-analysis of this thread shows that OP is a reddit spacing faggot tryingto spam Jow Forums with slide threads
SAGE
It’s almost like every one knows they’re worthless
They were probably interviewed by self hating blacks
Money doesnt discriminate, social darwinism does.
Quantitative is not enough for analysing discrimination in the workplace. You have to look at the politics on the ground to fairly assess why fewer black people are moving up the promotion ladder.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>CONCLUSION: Financial constraints, insufficient exposure to medicine as a career, little encouragement at home and in schools, lack of role models, and negative peer pressure may contribute to racial disparities in the physician workforce for African Americans. Exposure at a young age to role models and to medicine as a profession might increase the number of African American physicians.
>most whites are more qualified
>most whites get more callbacks
really tough one there, bud. you got me
The interviewees in the study had identical resumes
better fucking qualifications?
how the fuck is every single metric of nonwhites performing worse just always proof that whites are somehow oppressing them?
Read the abstract cletus
this literally means that they tend to be less qualified
>niggers are generally violent and stupid
>be surprised when people dont want to hire them
>people suspect that universities have affirmative action schemes going on
>they don't hire niggers because won't risk getting one that got in just because he's black, and was dragged through university just because he's black
>wow racist
Then how did they know the race moron?
Because they had the lights on during the in person interview, can you read?
>Deny black people jobs simply because they're black
>be surprised when they commit crimes to make money
So let me get this straight, the authors looked at the number of callbacks and determined that because whites got more than blacks/latinos, then it's because of discrimination...and NOT because the person receiving the callback was more qualified?
So if a black lady with zero experience in, say, a public relations job who (we'll say) can't communicate well and has no degree puts in an application and doesn't get a callback...the authors are going to chalk that up to discrimination?
What a great study, OP. Thanks a lot.
Well there you go. They didn't hire the niggers with fake resumes once they met them to see they don't really have the qualifications claimed.
because the researchers are fucking morons. That's how.
The "informed" the reviewer of the applicant's race by giving the jived up ghetto names for black and normal american names for whites. Sure there are some high IQ blacks that know how to behave, but none of them are named jamal. A hoodrat name lets you know exactly which family they came from. There's no gamble to be made.
>On average, white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans
>equally qualified
>there was was an interview
Well then I was right you FUCKING MORON KILL YOURSELF. White people are more qualified, better speakers. Did the person giving the interview have ears moron? Then he heard the difference between how well spoken the whites were, vs how the blacks spoke,
uhh, yeah? Crime is not an acceptable solution to poverty.
>The interviewees in the study had identical resumes
Where did you find that? This is what I read:
>We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos.
Didn't see any controls for the content of the resumes. (I'll admit I raced through the paper, though.)
Don't they have diversity hire already?
As a company, why should I hire more than I'm required?
I got to offset by hiring more whites from the required niggers.
>equally qualified
again (), where in their methods did you see how they controlled for that?
>>Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years
>What's your excuse this time?
You've obviously never interviewed with people that DO NOT WANT TO BE HIRED. They collect unemployment for as long as they can, until they are forced to go to an interview and fail it hard - so that they can continue to get free gibs.
There's no excuse, there's just facts and experience.
I found it in the hbr article I heard about the story from
>They generally come in two major types: Résumé audits, done through the mail or online, submit fictitious résumés with equivalent qualifications and ethnically identifiable names
I came here to see if Jow Forums could sus out some kind of faulty methodology in the paper because I didn't want to look for it
Smaller population or something, since "all humans are the same
With what mechanism did they assure the black and white applicants would give exactly the same interview? You can't assume two different job interviews are the same except for their race. That's crazy to assume.
Also, lower average IQ, higher rates of child abuse, and growing up dependent on welfare is going to severely throw off the curve of acceptable applicants for jobs. There's no way it couldn't.
>ethnically identifiable names
That's literally all it takes, no one wants to hire and work with anyone with obnoxious names like laquanda
oh so it's not even an actual study but a compilation of other studies. So we'd have to go through each one and critique it? I'd more simply cut to the obvious answer. That they're lying.
I would not want to hire violent apes.
THIS JUST IN:
Genetics don't change over 25 years.
yeah it's exactly the study i assumed it was. If you want to say that there are normal black people around who don't steel so much more than some whites do that it's not a problem. OK w/e. But there's a lot of blacks with serious behavioral problems that are just unpleasent and unproductive. And these niggers are named lashonda or daquan. The normal blacks have names like John or Samantha.
Noticing patterns isn’t discrimination. Blacks need to collectively get their shit together
I'm looking. Not seeing anything yet. For the record, I've read MANY peer-reviewed papers and I NEVER trust that the authors' methods are worth a fuck; they usually aren't. (pic related)
I imagine that since this paper is a meta-analysis, the authors looked at the papers/studies that they found and "took it on faith" that the methods of each study were air tight. (That is, they probably ASSUMED that each author was diligent and painstaking to ensure that all resumes compared were of a similar caliber. I HIGHLY doubt that each study compared apples to apples, though. Indeed, when most people read this, they'll assume that these authors went though to ensure that each resume compared had equal qualifications, but it's clear that these authors are taking it on faith that the other authors have done their jobs. This is VERY common in "science.")
I'm looking for some kind of explicitly-stated control now.
>You've obviously never interviewed with people that DO NOT WANT TO BE HIRED. They collect unemployment for as long as they can, until they are forced to go to an interview and fail it hard - so that they can continue to get free gibs.
I'm 100% sure that NONE of the studies in this "meta"study took this factor into account, and that the authors of this "meta"study never questioned the conclusions of these papers.
>So we'd have to go through each one and critique it?
Exactly. And $100 says that the authors did NOT do this (see ).
I think this is interesting because minority business ownership by black people, and minorites as a whole, and their presence in HR and the hiring process has objectively massively increased.
So, are black people in HR and who own businesses equally as discriminatory to black people as white people are?
Evaluate this hypothesis: Employers of all races in America hate the fuck out of Shaniquas.
Interestingly enough I know nips who have names like Charlie Yaoi Or Albert Chinpokemon, and their parents who know jack shit english picked those names to fit into America better.
These studies don't appear to be comparing white names to black names, they're comparing white names to made up bullshit. John Smith and Daryl Freeman are going to be treated the same, Watermelandrea will be show the door. She could have changed her name, just like the white kids being named Abcde today will. That's on her.
They pick ghetto ape sounding black names in all these studies, like laquishonda, and that's why they have a disparity in the first place that never goes away. If you pick a dumb white name like cletus you'd get 36% disparity too and it's been proven.
There isn't actually any hiring or callback disparities. SJWs are just looking for ways to say whites are privileged.
That's why an inteligent emplyeer should always design a interview process that let him screen out niggers and trannis without looking like discrimination.
Niggers are less likely to work as hard, less likely to show up on time, less likely to show up at all, more likely to call in, and more likely to leave early.
An obvious followup is comparing black ghetto names to white trailer park names, or white fucked up names like xxyla or illy, or fifi
A read a study where a name like "esperansa martinez" gets callbacks just as much as white males. These studies are bullshit. Everybody knows HR would bend over backwards to get more minorities and women into their company. They use ridiculous/uncommon ethnic names and why a disparity is created.