Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/31/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 5:04:00 PM (view original):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

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, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

...

Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no. Fig. 1 plots estimates of discrimination by year, with linear trends of best fit and 95% confidence regions (detailed estimates are in SI Appendix, section 3 and Table S3; in Fig. 1, we exponentiate predictions to present predicted values as discrimination ratios rather than less interpretable log discrimination ratios). The solid line captures the trend since 1990. The dashed line extends this time trend back to 1972, adding four resume audits conducted from 1972 to 1980. The size of the symbol is proportional to the weight it is given in the meta-analysis. The line of best fit for studies since 1990 is close to flat, sloping slightly upward, suggesting no change in the rate of discrimination over the past 25 years.

Surveys indicated that whites increasingly endorsed the principle of equal treatment regardless of race (4). Rates of high school graduation for whites and African Americans converged substantially, and the black–white test score gap declined (5, 6). Large companies increasingly recognized diversity as a goal and revamped their hiring to curtail practices that disadvantaged minority applicants (7). With the election of the country’s first African-American president in 2008, many concluded that the country had finally moved beyond its troubled racial past (8).



Same article

Yeah. That's why they were surprised to find that racial discrimination in hiring hadn't decreased over time.

cccp?

bad luck. Sir. I have told you 100x I am not arguing stats. I can attack each instance one at a time if you like. It has to do with applications and income and not stats. My goodness. It is like talking to a wall. Again.

I WILL NOT ARGUE STATS. Because stats can be deceiving.

I also state that there are racist people, including racist police officers and racist landlords but not ALL police officers are racist and not ALL landlords are racist.

Do you understand this post? See if you can answer in a one word answer "Yes" or "No"

I bet you can't.

You won't argue the stats because the stats prove you are wrong. There is nothing deceiving about a peer reviewed study showing that blacks still face employment discrimination.

My guess as to what cccp meant was that data is too often nothing more than propaganda. There are a thousand ways (and I mean that literally) to manipulate statistics. Academia and think tanks on both sides of the political divide, too frequently nowadays, write conclusions prior to the thesis, with the "researcher" simply looking for stats to support their particular agenda. Arguing stats, when a substantial portion of "research" has been politically weaponized, is futile and silly.

Hmmm, I could have sworn CCCP posted a bunch of stats about single-parent vs two-parent households...

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/31/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 5:04:00 PM (view original):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

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, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

...

Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no. Fig. 1 plots estimates of discrimination by year, with linear trends of best fit and 95% confidence regions (detailed estimates are in SI Appendix, section 3 and Table S3; in Fig. 1, we exponentiate predictions to present predicted values as discrimination ratios rather than less interpretable log discrimination ratios). The solid line captures the trend since 1990. The dashed line extends this time trend back to 1972, adding four resume audits conducted from 1972 to 1980. The size of the symbol is proportional to the weight it is given in the meta-analysis. The line of best fit for studies since 1990 is close to flat, sloping slightly upward, suggesting no change in the rate of discrimination over the past 25 years.

Surveys indicated that whites increasingly endorsed the principle of equal treatment regardless of race (4). Rates of high school graduation for whites and African Americans converged substantially, and the black–white test score gap declined (5, 6). Large companies increasingly recognized diversity as a goal and revamped their hiring to curtail practices that disadvantaged minority applicants (7). With the election of the country’s first African-American president in 2008, many concluded that the country had finally moved beyond its troubled racial past (8).



Same article

Yeah. That's why they were surprised to find that racial discrimination in hiring hadn't decreased over time.

cccp?

bad luck. Sir. I have told you 100x I am not arguing stats. I can attack each instance one at a time if you like. It has to do with applications and income and not stats. My goodness. It is like talking to a wall. Again.

I WILL NOT ARGUE STATS. Because stats can be deceiving.

I also state that there are racist people, including racist police officers and racist landlords but not ALL police officers are racist and not ALL landlords are racist.

Do you understand this post? See if you can answer in a one word answer "Yes" or "No"

I bet you can't.

You won't argue the stats because the stats prove you are wrong. There is nothing deceiving about a peer reviewed study showing that blacks still face employment discrimination.

My guess as to what cccp meant was that data is too often nothing more than propaganda. There are a thousand ways (and I mean that literally) to manipulate statistics. Academia and think tanks on both sides of the political divide, too frequently nowadays, write conclusions prior to the thesis, with the "researcher" simply looking for stats to support their particular agenda. Arguing stats, when a substantial portion of "research" has been politically weaponized, is futile and silly.

^^^^^This^^^^^

Thank you, sir. The NBA is quantifiable because we see the product. We don't see the product behind the research that bad luck posted.

You can literally click the links and see all of the research. It's a peer reviewed study. Go for it.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/31/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 5:04:00 PM (view original):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

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, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

...

Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no. Fig. 1 plots estimates of discrimination by year, with linear trends of best fit and 95% confidence regions (detailed estimates are in SI Appendix, section 3 and Table S3; in Fig. 1, we exponentiate predictions to present predicted values as discrimination ratios rather than less interpretable log discrimination ratios). The solid line captures the trend since 1990. The dashed line extends this time trend back to 1972, adding four resume audits conducted from 1972 to 1980. The size of the symbol is proportional to the weight it is given in the meta-analysis. The line of best fit for studies since 1990 is close to flat, sloping slightly upward, suggesting no change in the rate of discrimination over the past 25 years.

Surveys indicated that whites increasingly endorsed the principle of equal treatment regardless of race (4). Rates of high school graduation for whites and African Americans converged substantially, and the black–white test score gap declined (5, 6). Large companies increasingly recognized diversity as a goal and revamped their hiring to curtail practices that disadvantaged minority applicants (7). With the election of the country’s first African-American president in 2008, many concluded that the country had finally moved beyond its troubled racial past (8).



Same article

Yeah. That's why they were surprised to find that racial discrimination in hiring hadn't decreased over time.

cccp?

bad luck. Sir. I have told you 100x I am not arguing stats. I can attack each instance one at a time if you like. It has to do with applications and income and not stats. My goodness. It is like talking to a wall. Again.

I WILL NOT ARGUE STATS. Because stats can be deceiving.

I also state that there are racist people, including racist police officers and racist landlords but not ALL police officers are racist and not ALL landlords are racist.

Do you understand this post? See if you can answer in a one word answer "Yes" or "No"

I bet you can't.

You won't argue the stats because the stats prove you are wrong. There is nothing deceiving about a peer reviewed study showing that blacks still face employment discrimination.

My guess as to what cccp meant was that data is too often nothing more than propaganda. There are a thousand ways (and I mean that literally) to manipulate statistics. Academia and think tanks on both sides of the political divide, too frequently nowadays, write conclusions prior to the thesis, with the "researcher" simply looking for stats to support their particular agenda. Arguing stats, when a substantial portion of "research" has been politically weaponized, is futile and silly.

Hmmm, I could have sworn CCCP posted a bunch of stats about single-parent vs two-parent households...

Bunch? One stat. And I think we can logically agree that two parents are probably better than one when raising kids. LOL. Do you honestly disagree with this? You don't think a single person who has a kid at 18 is at a disadvantage than a married couple who have a kid at 27? Come on man.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/31/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 5:04:00 PM (view original):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

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, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

...

Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no. Fig. 1 plots estimates of discrimination by year, with linear trends of best fit and 95% confidence regions (detailed estimates are in SI Appendix, section 3 and Table S3; in Fig. 1, we exponentiate predictions to present predicted values as discrimination ratios rather than less interpretable log discrimination ratios). The solid line captures the trend since 1990. The dashed line extends this time trend back to 1972, adding four resume audits conducted from 1972 to 1980. The size of the symbol is proportional to the weight it is given in the meta-analysis. The line of best fit for studies since 1990 is close to flat, sloping slightly upward, suggesting no change in the rate of discrimination over the past 25 years.

Surveys indicated that whites increasingly endorsed the principle of equal treatment regardless of race (4). Rates of high school graduation for whites and African Americans converged substantially, and the black–white test score gap declined (5, 6). Large companies increasingly recognized diversity as a goal and revamped their hiring to curtail practices that disadvantaged minority applicants (7). With the election of the country’s first African-American president in 2008, many concluded that the country had finally moved beyond its troubled racial past (8).



Same article

Yeah. That's why they were surprised to find that racial discrimination in hiring hadn't decreased over time.

cccp?

bad luck. Sir. I have told you 100x I am not arguing stats. I can attack each instance one at a time if you like. It has to do with applications and income and not stats. My goodness. It is like talking to a wall. Again.

I WILL NOT ARGUE STATS. Because stats can be deceiving.

I also state that there are racist people, including racist police officers and racist landlords but not ALL police officers are racist and not ALL landlords are racist.

Do you understand this post? See if you can answer in a one word answer "Yes" or "No"

I bet you can't.

You won't argue the stats because the stats prove you are wrong. There is nothing deceiving about a peer reviewed study showing that blacks still face employment discrimination.

My guess as to what cccp meant was that data is too often nothing more than propaganda. There are a thousand ways (and I mean that literally) to manipulate statistics. Academia and think tanks on both sides of the political divide, too frequently nowadays, write conclusions prior to the thesis, with the "researcher" simply looking for stats to support their particular agenda. Arguing stats, when a substantial portion of "research" has been politically weaponized, is futile and silly.

^^^^^This^^^^^

Thank you, sir. The NBA is quantifiable because we see the product. We don't see the product behind the research that bad luck posted.

You can literally click the links and see all of the research. It's a peer reviewed study. Go for it.

Really? They give specific names and compare resumes, colleges, etc.?

Come on. Stop this nonsense.

Peer review means nothing. It is a relic from a time when people were tolerant of dissenting points of view and were genuinely interested in pure research, interested in discovering truths without forming strong opinions prior to conducting the experiment. It is from a time when the scientific method was, as much as it could be applied, still in play for the soft sciences. That time has come and gone.

If a politically left researcher or think tank does a "study," the results will, almost 100% of the time, support a leftist agenda. If a politically right researcher or think tank does a "study," the results will, almost 100% of the time, support a rightist agenda.

That's not research, it's propaganda. Sorry, bad_luck, it's just the way it is.

It appears dino does NOT have Admin's approval to abuse the red line feature. When I asked them why they would give that privilege to anyone, I received this reply:

5/31/2018 11:28 AM	Customer Support
Nobody has the right to abuse the redline feature.

I've issued him a warning, so let me know if it continues.

If he red lines a civil response of yours just because he doesn't like it, Admin. should be told. He will be held to the same standard as everyone else.
No longer do you need to worry about posting in "his" thread.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/31/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 5:04:00 PM (view original):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

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, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

...

Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no. Fig. 1 plots estimates of discrimination by year, with linear trends of best fit and 95% confidence regions (detailed estimates are in SI Appendix, section 3 and Table S3; in Fig. 1, we exponentiate predictions to present predicted values as discrimination ratios rather than less interpretable log discrimination ratios). The solid line captures the trend since 1990. The dashed line extends this time trend back to 1972, adding four resume audits conducted from 1972 to 1980. The size of the symbol is proportional to the weight it is given in the meta-analysis. The line of best fit for studies since 1990 is close to flat, sloping slightly upward, suggesting no change in the rate of discrimination over the past 25 years.

Surveys indicated that whites increasingly endorsed the principle of equal treatment regardless of race (4). Rates of high school graduation for whites and African Americans converged substantially, and the black–white test score gap declined (5, 6). Large companies increasingly recognized diversity as a goal and revamped their hiring to curtail practices that disadvantaged minority applicants (7). With the election of the country’s first African-American president in 2008, many concluded that the country had finally moved beyond its troubled racial past (8).



Same article

Yeah. That's why they were surprised to find that racial discrimination in hiring hadn't decreased over time.

cccp?

bad luck. Sir. I have told you 100x I am not arguing stats. I can attack each instance one at a time if you like. It has to do with applications and income and not stats. My goodness. It is like talking to a wall. Again.

I WILL NOT ARGUE STATS. Because stats can be deceiving.

I also state that there are racist people, including racist police officers and racist landlords but not ALL police officers are racist and not ALL landlords are racist.

Do you understand this post? See if you can answer in a one word answer "Yes" or "No"

I bet you can't.

You won't argue the stats because the stats prove you are wrong. There is nothing deceiving about a peer reviewed study showing that blacks still face employment discrimination.

My guess as to what cccp meant was that data is too often nothing more than propaganda. There are a thousand ways (and I mean that literally) to manipulate statistics. Academia and think tanks on both sides of the political divide, too frequently nowadays, write conclusions prior to the thesis, with the "researcher" simply looking for stats to support their particular agenda. Arguing stats, when a substantial portion of "research" has been politically weaponized, is futile and silly.

Hmmm, I could have sworn CCCP posted a bunch of stats about single-parent vs two-parent households...

Bunch? One stat. And I think we can logically agree that two parents are probably better than one when raising kids. LOL. Do you honestly disagree with this? You don't think a single person who has a kid at 18 is at a disadvantage than a married couple who have a kid at 27? Come on man.

I think we can logically say that racism impacts the lives of black people.

Of course it does! Anti Semitism impacts the lives of Jews. Anti Fat sentiment impacts the life of fat people.

I love how you always skip over my statements and cling to yours. You should be in politics.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Of course it does! Anti Semitism impacts the lives of Jews. Anti Fat sentiment impacts the life of fat people.

I love how you always skip over my statements and cling to yours. You should be in politics.

Wait, so now you agree that racism puts blacks at a disadvantage?

Posted by all3 on 5/31/2018 12:12:00 PM (view original):
It appears dino does NOT have Admin's approval to abuse the red line feature. When I asked them why they would give that privilege to anyone, I received this reply:

5/31/2018 11:28 AM	Customer Support
Nobody has the right to abuse the redline feature.

I've issued him a warning, so let me know if it continues.

If he red lines a civil response of yours just because he doesn't like it, Admin. should be told. He will be held to the same standard as everyone else.
No longer do you need to worry about posting in "his" thread.

That's good to know but I see no reason to spend any time there. People here disagree, the discussion becomes heated and occasionally personal but, for the most part, it remains civil...even playfully sarcastic.

The other thread is borderline irrational. If that's the way people want to send their time, God bless them. It's not for me.

You're far too logical and rational for these Forums.
Maybe you'll rub-off on the rest of us.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Of course it does! Anti Semitism impacts the lives of Jews. Anti Fat sentiment impacts the life of fat people.

I love how you always skip over my statements and cling to yours. You should be in politics.

Wait, so now you agree that racism puts blacks at a disadvantage?

Does anti semitism put Jews at a disadvantage? See how I did that? Pulled a bad luck. Answered your question with a question. He he

But since I am a better person than you I will answer you. No. Just because there are racists it does not mean black people are at a disadvantage. You agree there are anti semites and I have told you that the Jews are the wealthiest people in the US. Is it easier for some white people? Sure. But the two parent household is more important than race. Many people dislike me because I am a Jew. I don't feel that I am at a disadvantage.

Posted by all3 on 5/31/2018 12:32:00 PM (view original):
You're far too logical and rational for these Forums.
Maybe you'll rub-off on the rest of us.

Agreed and dino is insane. He needs professional help.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 5/31/2018 12:32:00 PM (view original):
You're far too logical and rational for these Forums.
Maybe you'll rub-off on the rest of us.

Agreed and dino is insane. He needs professional help.

Thank you, gentlemen. I know I have arrived when a lifelong registered Democrat and a Jew give me an endorsement. I thought Harry Truman was OK and I have always liked Hebrew National hot dogs.

...and dino is not insane, he is just very angry.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/31/2018 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/31/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Of course it does! Anti Semitism impacts the lives of Jews. Anti Fat sentiment impacts the life of fat people.

I love how you always skip over my statements and cling to yours. You should be in politics.

Wait, so now you agree that racism puts blacks at a disadvantage?

Does anti semitism put Jews at a disadvantage? See how I did that? Pulled a bad luck. Answered your question with a question. He he

But since I am a better person than you I will answer you. No. Just because there are racists it does not mean black people are at a disadvantage. You agree there are anti semites and I have told you that the Jews are the wealthiest people in the US. Is it easier for some white people? Sure. But the two parent household is more important than race. Many people dislike me because I am a Jew. I don't feel that I am at a disadvantage.

______________

Does anti semitism put Jews at a disadvantage?

I'm sure it does. It just isn't as big of a disadvantage as being black.

Just because there are racists it does not mean black people are at a disadvantage

It's not just "there are racists" it's that our entire society is racist. That doesn't mean that everyone is racist or that hiring managers, judges, cops, etc. who contribute to the institutional racism are trying to do so. But it's happening.

You agree that racism impacts the lives of blacks. That impact certainly isn't positive. Which means it has to be a negative impact on their life. A negative impact that white people never experience regardless of their BMI, religion, or marital status, putting whites at an advantage.