> That's a complete non sequitur. Why would it make sense for new hires to be overwhelmingly disproportionately oversampled from minority groups according to current demographics?
Because that is not what this stat is measuring. They are doing (demos of new employees - demos of retiring employees), not just demos of new employees. Hence why it is a misleading statistic. They word it very carefully to not say 94% of new hires are minorities.
source: the "The Analysis" section of your own source or if you needed it stated more explicitly [0]:
> Before judging whether that’s impressive or excessive or some other adjective, it’s helpful to know what the available pool of new workers looked like. Or, more precisely, what the pool of new workers minus the pool of departing workers looked like. Net change is what we’re able to see.
i'm sure this will have precisely 0 impact on your worldview though
since your reply died - your absolutely wrong about massive oversampling, you can get 95% with basic assumptions about 60% white, 40% minority (matching actual proportions in the population - and actually an underestimate when you consider that new hires are young) and the retiring fortune 500 population (70-90% white).
