Is the United States headed for a black recession?

[WhiteWonder]

8 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:
 

if a lot of DEI hires who were under qualified or not qualified at all have lost those jobs, then the number going up is a good thing. 

 

4 hours ago, dogcows said:

So did this happen? Or is it just a guess that you think it might have happened?

[TimHauck]

9 hours ago, dogcows said:

One of the biggest factors was the DOGE cuts which targeted agencies with many black workers. 335K jobs were eliminated from the federal government. And black women made up about 12% of that workforce, compared to 6% in the nation’s population overall.

There may have been some businesses that fired black people because of “DEI” - but I don’t know where one could get data on that. Also, firing a black person for “DEI” would be pretty blatant discrimination. Not sure they’d get away with that, so if it did happen, might have been on the down low?

I don’t really think people are losing jobs “because of” DEI. My comment was about folks whose literal job was to do DEI.   Your comment about DOGE makes sense too, I didn’t realize blacks were over-represented in federal government jobs so that could be a factor too. 

[Alias Detective]

It’s simple, work hard and keep your nose clean you can prosper.  It is the black attitude that keeps them at the bottom.

[Alias Detective]

24 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t really think people are losing jobs “because of” DEI. My comment was about folks whose literal job was to do DEI.   Your comment about DOGE makes sense too, I didn’t realize blacks were over-represented in federal government jobs so that could be a factor too. 

Were they over represented due to skill or other factors?  I’ll wait for your best guess.

[Red White and Blue]

4 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Even the mods don't want you here. 

Posted at 4 am. Do you dream about this MDC fella?

He must’ve hurt you bad.  

[TimHauck]

1 minute ago, Alias Detective said:

Were they over represented due to skill or other factors?  I’ll wait for your best guess.

Geographic factors probably the biggest reason - the cities that have the most federal government jobs have higher than average black populations 

[Alias Detective]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Geographic factors probably the biggest reason - the cities that have the most federal government jobs have higher than average black populations 

Thank you.  So convenience.

[seafoam1]

6 minutes ago, Red White and Blue said:

Posted at 4 am. Do you dream about this MDC fella?

He must’ve hurt you bad.  

No, I'm just making fun of how pathetic you are. Can't even take a time out because you NEED this place since you have no friends.

[Red White and Blue]

10 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

No, I'm just making fun of how pathetic you are. Can't even take a time out because you NEED this place since you have no friends.

4 am. Does MDC haunt your dreams?  

[seafoam1]

25 minutes ago, Red White and Blue said:

4 am. Does MDC haunt your dreams?  

You don't haunt my dreams. I just like laughing at you. And it seems to bother you to no end. 

You can't even take a time out when the mods tell you they don't want you here. Because no one wants to be your friend. 

Poor mdpee. 

[TimHauck]

10 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Thank you.  So convenience.

Not really, just jobs in a particular city probably being more reflective of the demographics of that city.   Honestly  blacks may not even be over represented in federal government jobs when looking at the cities itself. 

For example, it looks like blacks make up about 18-19% of the federal workforce but 13%-14% of the population.  But in the DC metro as an example they are ~25%, ~40% in the city.   So if 20% of federal workers in DC are black then they are under-represented in terms of the area’s population but over-represented in terms of the national population.

 

[dogcows]

5 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

It’s simple, work hard and keep your nose clean you can prosper.  It is the black attitude that keeps them at the bottom.

Just when you think we’ve advanced as a species, you read a comment like this. 

[seafoam1]

Just now, dogcows said:

Just when you think we’ve advanced as a species, you read a comment like this. 

I never once thought you advanced as a liberal "species". 

[Alias Detective]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Just when you think we’ve advanced as a species, you read a comment like this. 

Attitude is correctable so there is that.  

[WhiteWonder]

6 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t really think people are losing jobs “because of” DEI. My comment was about folks whose literal job was to do DEI.   Your comment about DOGE makes sense too, I didn’t realize blacks were over-represented in federal government jobs so that could be a factor too. 

As i tried to explain to dogcow, if DEI resulted in the hiring of under or unqualified minority candidates just to fill a quota, the removal of DEI practices by companies means they no longer care about these quotas and optics which makes it reasonable to think that, come performance review time (or any time really) they can terminate those same employees for job based performance reasons.  So they might be losing their jobs because of DEI in the sense that it's because DEI no longer exists to protect them or justify their employment. 

obviously this is a guess based on logic

what is not a guess is that many companies are shuttering DEI initiatives. 

[dogcows]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

if DEI resulted in the hiring of under or unqualified minority candidates just to fill a quota

When it comes to logic and if-then statements, the truth of the “if” matters.

I’ve seen no evidence that indicates DEI resulted in unqualified hires.

And DEI was never intended to give unqualified people jobs. It was intended to open jobs to qualified people who had been excluded due to a minority status.

[seafoam1]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

When it comes to logic and if-then statements, the truth of the “if” matters.

I’ve seen no evidence that indicates DEI resulted in unqualified hires.

And DEI was never intended to give unqualified people jobs. It was intended to open jobs to qualified people who had been excluded due to a minority status.

So no DEI. Am I right? All hiring only by qualifications and merit? 

[dogcows]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

So no DEI. Am I right? All hiring only by qualifications and merit? 

I don’t have a problem with DEI. The entire point of it is to give opportunities to people that were being excluded based on their minority status. 

It has been misconstrued by SOME as excluding white people. That isn’t its goal nor is there any indication of it having that effect. The unemployment and wealth numbers of various demographics show it. 

[WhiteWonder]

10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

When it comes to logic and if-then statements, the truth of the “if” matters.

I’ve seen no evidence that indicates DEI resulted in unqualified hires.

And DEI was never intended to give unqualified people jobs. It was intended to open jobs to qualified people who had been excluded due to a minority status.

There has been evidence that quotas existed. If you hire the absolute best candidate based on resume/skill/experience/etc, you may not meet the quotas. That is where a lot of underqualified candidates were hired. 

I've seen it happen first hand so .  You're more than welcome to deny it but if DEI was not based in any way on optics and quotas, why would companies be shuttering it? 

 

also "if" statements are often speculation. they don't need to be rooted in truth. there are plenty of theories and speculation in the world that are plausible but not defined. 

[seafoam1]

22 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I don’t have a problem with DEI. The entire point of it is to give opportunities to people that were being excluded based on their minority status. 

It has been misconstrued by SOME as excluding white people. That isn’t its goal nor is there any indication of it having that effect. The unemployment and wealth numbers of various demographics show it. 

Who was excluded from getting consideration?  And from what? 

[Mike Honcho]

18 hours ago, Red White and Blue said:

Impossible. Trump has done more for the Blacks than any other POTUS, including Lincoln. 

Ask him.  

Tough to beat Thomas Jeffereson-a lot blacks wouldn't exist if it weren't for him.  

[TimHauck]

48 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

There has been evidence that quotas existed. If you hire the absolute best candidate based on resume/skill/experience/etc, you may not meet the quotas. That is where a lot of underqualified candidates were hired. 

I've seen it happen first hand so .  You're more than welcome to deny it but if DEI was not based in any way on optics and quotas, why would companies be shuttering it? 

 

 

The President telling them to might have something to do with it.

You do realize that not “hiring the absolute best candidate” doesn’t necessarily mean the person they did hire was under or unqualified right?  Sure that does happen, of course we’ve all also seen it happen where an under or unqualified person is hired simply because they’re friends with the boss.   Situations like that are part of why DEI was created.

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

There has been evidence that quotas existed. If you hire the absolute best candidate based on resume/skill/experience/etc, you may not meet the quotas. That is where a lot of underqualified candidates were hired. 

I've seen it happen first hand so .  You're more than welcome to deny it but if DEI was not based in any way on optics and quotas, why would companies be shuttering it? 

 

 

Also, when you say “I’ve seen it happen first hand,” hopefully you’re not referring to this story you shared earlier.  I’m sure there are quotas at some companies, but your HR team ultimately letting you hire whoever you wanted isn’t evidence there was a quota.  HTH

On 12/22/2025 at 3:53 PM, WhiteWonder said:

i've never been questioned, after the fact, if a hire didn't work out (no more than during a typical exit interview process)... but it was very evident when a shift was happening because, as I said, HR would want to sit down with you pretty much only if you hired a white male (sometimes even a white female) and others were up for the job. This would happen almost immediately, well before any onboarding even took place. Didn't bother me because I would just repeat that I hired the most qualified candidate for the position. You could tell that HR was just doing what it was told to do. 

but again I know people who dealt with similar at much higher profile companies 

 

[TBayXXXVII]

23 hours ago, posty said:

Black unemployment increased from 6.2% in January of last year to 7.5% in December, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Comparatively, in that final month of 2025, the unemployment rate for white people was 3.8%, for Asian Americans it was 3.6% and for Hispanics it was 4.9%.

 

Key unemployment data by race for 2019:
Black or African American: 6.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native: 6.1%
Two or More Races: 5.3%
Hispanic or Latino: 4.3%
White: 3.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 3.2%
Asian: 2.7%

Most aren't much different that 2019, when unemployment rates were coming down.  These slight increases are most likely due to DEI people losing jobs they never should've had in the first place.

[TBayXXXVII]

18 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Jesse Lee Peterson said something about training? 

That dude cracks me up.  He asks the simplist/easiest questions for racebaiters to answer, and they never can give a straight answer.  He's awesome.

[WhiteWonder]

“but again I know people who dealt with similar at much higher profile companies “

ignoring that part, I see, @timhack

[TimHauck]

3 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

“but again I know people who dealt with similar at much higher profile companies “

ignoring that part, I see, @timhack

That’s not “seeing it happen first hand.”  HTH

[WhiteWonder]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That’s not “seeing it happen first hand.”  HTH

Stop. Seeing it first hand was seeing it at my company. Not just me having to sit down and explain why I hired a non minority candidate (but never having to do this when I hired a minority) and watching  colleagues go through it to. That is all first hand. 
 

hth

[dogcows]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

There has been evidence that quotas existed. If you hire the absolute best candidate based on resume/skill/experience/etc, you may not meet the quotas. That is where a lot of underqualified candidates were hired. 

I've seen it happen first hand so .  You're more than welcome to deny it but if DEI was not based in any way on optics and quotas, why would companies be shuttering it? 

 

also "if" statements are often speculation. they don't need to be rooted in truth. there are plenty of theories and speculation in the world that are plausible but not defined. 

Why are they stopping DEI? That’s an easy one to answer.

This administration started day 1 with an executive order eliminating DEI in the federal government. That order also required federal contractors to get rid of any DEI positions or policies.

A day later came an order to target private companies.

Here’s a good summary of the executive orders that doesn’t appear to make any political judgments, just the basic facts.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/02/10/president-trump-acts-to-roll-back-dei-initiatives/

[Meglamaniac]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That’s not “seeing it happen first hand.”  HTH

Another long night of TimHack trying to use semantic games to get the almighty GOTCHA

[TimHauck]

8 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

Stop. Seeing it first hand was seeing it at my company. Not just me having to sit down and explain why I hired a non minority candidate (but never having to do this when I hired a minority) and watching  colleagues go through it to. That is all first hand. 
 

hth

What you described happening to you is not evidence of a quota.

[Gladiators]

59 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The President telling them to might have something to do with it.

You do realize that not “hiring the absolute best candidate” doesn’t necessarily mean the person they did hire was under or unqualified right?  Sure that does happen, of course we’ve all also seen it happen where an under or unqualified person is hired simply because they’re friends with the boss.   Situations like that are part of why DEI was created.

We have?

[TimHauck]

2 minutes ago, Gladiators said:

We have?

You’re joking, right?

[TimHauck]

12 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

Another long night of TimHack trying to use semantic games to get the almighty GOTCHA

@WhiteWonder agreed with my definition of “first hand.”  HTH

[Meglamaniac]

3 minutes ago, Gladiators said:

We have?

It's hyperbole so it can't be true

 

[Meglamaniac]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

@WhiteWonder agreed with my definition of “first hand.”  HTH

I didn't realize you spoke for WW, that must suck for him

[TimHauck]

Just now, Meglamaniac said:

It's hyperbole so it can't be true

 

Not really hyperbole, I think almost everyone probably knows someone like that or who hired someone based on that.  Note I did not say we’ve all seen it “first hand.”

[TimHauck]

Just now, Meglamaniac said:

I didn't realize you spoke for WW, that must suck for him

I don’t.  Here ya go.

19 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

Seeing it first hand was seeing it at my company.

 

[Gladiators]

1 minute ago, Meglamaniac said:

It's hyperbole so it can't be true

 

I don’t know the rules with Tim. When he’s going for a gotcha, then things are literal. But he can use hyperbole at his convenience.

[Meglamaniac]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Not really hyperbole, I think almost everyone probably knows someone like that or who hired someone based on that.  Note I did not say we’ve all seen it “first hand.”

of course we’ve all also seen it happen where an under or unqualified person is hired simply because they’re friends with the boss.  

 

One of these is not like the other

 

Aren't semantics fun