I think you are misrepresenting the statistic in the Bloomberg article, although that's partly the fault of the author of the article. The 6% statistic refers to the fractional net change in employees rather than the fraction of those that were hired. There was a net change of 320k employees, that is 320k more people were hired than who quit or were fired. Simultaneously, there was a net change of 20k for non-hispanic white employees. You can see they are talking about net change rather than new hires by looking at their breakout on change by level of employee, which includes saying there are 19k fewer non-hispanic white employees in less-senior roles.
The main thing this statistic shows is that people hired in 2021 were less often non-hispanic white than the people who quit or were fired. How much less? By a rough estimate about 52% of people who left and 48% of people who were hired were non-hispanic white. I list the details of my estimate below:
The Bloomberg article says that there were 9 million people working at Fortune 100 companies in their dataset. Let's assume 1/3 of them, or 3 million employees, left in 2021, and x% of those who left were non-hispanic white. There is a chart in the article that shows the current racial breakdown by job type. Eyeballing it, it looks like ~52% of current employees are non-hispanic white. I'll assume that the racial breakdown of employees leaving the company matches their current composition, and so x = 52. Since the companies grew by a net of 320k employees, they hired 3 million + 320k = 3.32 million employees in 2021, of which y% were white. We can solve for y using the equation 3.32y - 3*.52 = .02. Solving, we get y = 48.
It was an educated guess based on some related statistics I had seen in the past.
If I'm understanding this statistic of monthly separations right (though I'm not sure I am), the number of employees who left may be even higher, at around 45% of all employees in 2021: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSTSR. Employees at Fortune 100 companies likely have different turnover rates than the economy at large, although I'm not sure of the direction of the difference.
If 45% is the correct turnover rate, then y would move up to 49.
You are doing the Lord's work...I still can't believe Bloomberg published that article. Because the overwhelmingly white population born around 1960 is now retiring, and the population now entering the workforce is about 50% minority, statistics like the one Bloomberg published are everywhere.
In your book Ethical Intuitionism, you argue the following against Subjectivism: "Its main problem is one of circularity: to know what it is for something to be believed to be F, we must first know what F is. A related problem is the infinite regress: if [x is good] = [I believe x is good], then [I believe x is good] = [I believe (I believe x is good)], and so on.
In general, it is incoherent to postulate a proposition whose truth would consist solely in your believing it. The same point applies to the view that to be good is to be believed to be good by society, or by God, or by anyone else, and the same applies if we substitute 'perceived', 'known', 'asserted', or any other verb for 'believed'. The word 'good' should not appear within the explanation of what it is for x to be good." Do you agree these objections are relevant to some of the concepts of what it is to be a woman in trans-inclusive feminist philosophy?
The same sort of argument shows why it is silly to try to define "woman" as "a person who identifies as a woman". I believe Matt Walsh made that point in _What Is a Woman_.
On the other hand, a more defensible definition would define a woman as an adult human with feminine gender. I discuss the nature of gender in ch. 14.
Wasn’t sure whether to read this because I already think wokism is bad but having seen the contents list I’m excited to get my copy- definitely doesn’t shy away from controversial topics!
Thanks Mike. I'll definitely pick up the book. If you haven't yet read it, I highly recommend a book I just finished reading. Paul Johnson's book, Intellectuals. Johnson dissects in great detail the beliefs, lies and hypocrisy of prominent left-wing intellectuals. These include such figures as Rousseau, Marx, Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Sartre and Lillian Hellman. They sound exactly like the wokeists of today.
I'm generally in broad agreement regarding orwellian gender doublethink, statistical blindness regarding race and culture, etc. The one place I always get lost is climate. That seems like a large-ish blind spot over at the free press too, which I love, where it's just not talked about. I'm not yet convinced that catastrophic weather events are the same frequency and severity they always have been, nor do I think ignoring or dismissing the potential for famine and whatnot is rational risk management. Guess I gotta buy the book to find out why I'm wrong to be concerned.
Wokeness is not just the NAP applied to groups. It is much more than that. It is true that wokeness includes a belief in collective guilt and collective victimhood (which is nonsensical), but it would be giving it too much credit to call it a "principle" because it is not applied consistently or universally. Wokists care about "group aggression" against their friends, but not against their enemies.
Well, as with libertarianism, there’s theory and then there’s practice. In theory, “wokeness” is basically the idea that unjust acts of group violence/aggression have been committed that have never properly been acknowledged or rectified. Its central tenet can be expressed in the language of the NAP.
I think you are misrepresenting the statistic in the Bloomberg article, although that's partly the fault of the author of the article. The 6% statistic refers to the fractional net change in employees rather than the fraction of those that were hired. There was a net change of 320k employees, that is 320k more people were hired than who quit or were fired. Simultaneously, there was a net change of 20k for non-hispanic white employees. You can see they are talking about net change rather than new hires by looking at their breakout on change by level of employee, which includes saying there are 19k fewer non-hispanic white employees in less-senior roles.
The main thing this statistic shows is that people hired in 2021 were less often non-hispanic white than the people who quit or were fired. How much less? By a rough estimate about 52% of people who left and 48% of people who were hired were non-hispanic white. I list the details of my estimate below:
The Bloomberg article says that there were 9 million people working at Fortune 100 companies in their dataset. Let's assume 1/3 of them, or 3 million employees, left in 2021, and x% of those who left were non-hispanic white. There is a chart in the article that shows the current racial breakdown by job type. Eyeballing it, it looks like ~52% of current employees are non-hispanic white. I'll assume that the racial breakdown of employees leaving the company matches their current composition, and so x = 52. Since the companies grew by a net of 320k employees, they hired 3 million + 320k = 3.32 million employees in 2021, of which y% were white. We can solve for y using the equation 3.32y - 3*.52 = .02. Solving, we get y = 48.
Thanks. Where did you get the estimate of 3 million employees leaving in 2021? That sounds high (a third of all the employees?).
It was an educated guess based on some related statistics I had seen in the past.
If I'm understanding this statistic of monthly separations right (though I'm not sure I am), the number of employees who left may be even higher, at around 45% of all employees in 2021: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSTSR. Employees at Fortune 100 companies likely have different turnover rates than the economy at large, although I'm not sure of the direction of the difference.
If 45% is the correct turnover rate, then y would move up to 49.
You are doing the Lord's work...I still can't believe Bloomberg published that article. Because the overwhelmingly white population born around 1960 is now retiring, and the population now entering the workforce is about 50% minority, statistics like the one Bloomberg published are everywhere.
Not sure why MH was fooled by this obvious misuse of numbers.
Bought it.
In your book Ethical Intuitionism, you argue the following against Subjectivism: "Its main problem is one of circularity: to know what it is for something to be believed to be F, we must first know what F is. A related problem is the infinite regress: if [x is good] = [I believe x is good], then [I believe x is good] = [I believe (I believe x is good)], and so on.
In general, it is incoherent to postulate a proposition whose truth would consist solely in your believing it. The same point applies to the view that to be good is to be believed to be good by society, or by God, or by anyone else, and the same applies if we substitute 'perceived', 'known', 'asserted', or any other verb for 'believed'. The word 'good' should not appear within the explanation of what it is for x to be good." Do you agree these objections are relevant to some of the concepts of what it is to be a woman in trans-inclusive feminist philosophy?
The same sort of argument shows why it is silly to try to define "woman" as "a person who identifies as a woman". I believe Matt Walsh made that point in _What Is a Woman_.
On the other hand, a more defensible definition would define a woman as an adult human with feminine gender. I discuss the nature of gender in ch. 14.
Wasn’t sure whether to read this because I already think wokism is bad but having seen the contents list I’m excited to get my copy- definitely doesn’t shy away from controversial topics!
I'm totally getting this book right now! I can't wait to dive into it!
Thanks Mike. I'll definitely pick up the book. If you haven't yet read it, I highly recommend a book I just finished reading. Paul Johnson's book, Intellectuals. Johnson dissects in great detail the beliefs, lies and hypocrisy of prominent left-wing intellectuals. These include such figures as Rousseau, Marx, Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Sartre and Lillian Hellman. They sound exactly like the wokeists of today.
I'm generally in broad agreement regarding orwellian gender doublethink, statistical blindness regarding race and culture, etc. The one place I always get lost is climate. That seems like a large-ish blind spot over at the free press too, which I love, where it's just not talked about. I'm not yet convinced that catastrophic weather events are the same frequency and severity they always have been, nor do I think ignoring or dismissing the potential for famine and whatnot is rational risk management. Guess I gotta buy the book to find out why I'm wrong to be concerned.
See Alex Epstein's "Fossil Future." It's recommended by Bryan Caplan and he changed my mind on how to look at global warming.
The link to Amazon doesn't give anything. I want to buy it!
According to the B&N page, the release date is September 15th. Not sure why Amazon doesn't also have it available for preorder:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/progressive-myths-michael-huemer/1146220600
Hi. Again (and, I hope, politely), is there an ebook version available or coming out in the UK, please? Thanks.
Will the paperback edition be availaible on amazon as well?
Coming on Oct. 15.
It seems like it is already available on Amazon, but only the hardcover copy.
Book doesn’t seem available in Canada. Will that change?
What you call wokeness is just the libertarian non-aggression principle applied to groups and then taken to its logical conclusion.
Wokeness is not just the NAP applied to groups. It is much more than that. It is true that wokeness includes a belief in collective guilt and collective victimhood (which is nonsensical), but it would be giving it too much credit to call it a "principle" because it is not applied consistently or universally. Wokists care about "group aggression" against their friends, but not against their enemies.
Well, as with libertarianism, there’s theory and then there’s practice. In theory, “wokeness” is basically the idea that unjust acts of group violence/aggression have been committed that have never properly been acknowledged or rectified. Its central tenet can be expressed in the language of the NAP.