Saturday, October 12, 2019

PolitiFact: Fact-checking Trump on hiring of minorities, women - Tampa Bay Times

PolitiFact: Fact-checking Trump on hiring of minorities, women - Tampa Bay Times


PolitiFact: Fact-checking Trump on hiring of minorities, women - Tampa Bay Times

Posted: 08 Oct 2019 05:00 AM PDT

President Donald Trump during a forum with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi said economic indicators painted a good picture for minority workers.

Trump promoted low unemployment numbers for minorities and said that "for the first time in history, most new hires of prime working age are minorities and women."

Is Trump right that minorities and women for the first time account for most new hires of prime working age?

Trump's re-election campaign told PolitiFact that Trump relied on reporting by the Washington Post. However, Trump imprecisely recounted the Post's analysis. The Post found that for the first time, most new hires of prime working age are people of color, and that within that segment, women are predominantly driving the trend. An economist told us that the president's statement and the wording in the Post article are significantly different.

Washington Post analysis

A Sept. 9 Washington Post article said that a "surge of minority women getting jobs has helped push the U.S. workforce across a historic threshold. For the first time, most new hires of prime working age (25 to 54) are people of color." The Post noted that "minority hires overtook white hires" in 2018 and that women were "predominantly driving this trend."

The newspaper said its findings were based on data the Department of Labor began collecting in the 1970s.

The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics told PolitiFact that it did not have data that identified "new hires" by age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, or sex.

But it is theoretically possible, as the Post did, to analyze different sets of data to construct something that could be defined as a "new hire," the bureau said.

The Post's analysis used detailed microdata from the Current Population Survey and other related statistics, said economists who guided the Post on how to analyze the labor market data. Specifically, the Post downloaded an extract from IPUMS (a project of the University of Minnesota) that "allows researchers to create more detailed analysis than the number released every month in the well-known jobs report," said Nick Bunker, an economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab who focuses on the U.S. labor market and whom the Post consulted about its data analysis.

Overall, the Post found that based on data collected since the 1970s, most new hires of prime working age (25 to 54) were people of color, and women within that segment were pushing the trend.

That's not the same as saying that minorities and women represent most of the new hires, as Trump said.

"The president's paraphrase of the findings is incorrect as it includes non-Hispanic white women," Bunker said.

Ernie Tedeschi, a managing director and policy economist at Evercore ISI, also told us that the majority of prime-age job finders over the last 24 months have been people of color. Tedeschi uses the term "job finders" to refer to people who transition from nonemployment one month to having a job the next month.

What's influencing the trend?

"A lot of what's going on here is population growth: prime-age America is much less white than it used to be," Tedeschi said. "As a result, prime-age Americans of color, in particular women, are a growing share of the prime-age overall and nonemployed populations."

College attainment is also rising for everyone and especially for Americans of color, and that increases their chances of getting jobs, said Tedeschi, who offered the Post guidance on how to analyze the labor market data.

The Post flagged additional factors driving the trend: Latino women being encouraged to work outside the home, a need for two incomes to pay the bills, and men being deported and women needing to enter the workforce to support their families.

"This trend will likely continue if the labor market remains strong," Bunker said. "But an economic downturn might reverse the trend, and we might not see people of color make up most of new prime-age hires again until the labor market has strengthened for quite some time."

Our ruling

Trump said, "For the first time in history, most new hires of prime working age are minorities and women."

Trump's re-election campaign said Trump's claim is based on an analysis by the Washington Post. But Trump's phrasing is off.

The Post reported that according to data collected by the government since the 1970s, most new hires of prime working age (25 to 54) were minorities, and minority women were predominantly driving the trend. That isn't the same as saying minorities and women (of all races and ethnicities) account for most of the new hires of prime working age.

Trump's statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.

Why Job Postings for 'Satisfactory Performers at Okay Companies' Should Be the New Normal - Inc.

Posted: 14 Jun 2019 12:00 AM PDT

If being a ninja isn't your style, you can be a guru--over 800 job postings at Indeed.com, in the NYC area contain that word in the description.

But here's the thing: most jobs are just jobs. Most companies are just companies. A recruiter friend of mine (who asked to remain anonymous) identified this as "jobs for satisfactory performers at okay companies."

Pretty much everything about humans can be looked at with a bell curve. True rock stars and ninjas are few and far between. But most companies don't need world-class performers. The need good people doing a good job. 

Of course, everyone will argue that their company needs the best! And, of course, you should never settle for second best. But, that's how we end up with crazy "talent" shortages. If you are only willing to hire the perfect person, you're not willing to take anyone from the middle of the bell curve--or anyone who needs a bit of training. That's fine and that's your decision, but if we were to plot management skills on a bell curve, where would you land? If you're not in the top one percent of managers, why would any top one percent performer want to work for you?

Furthermore, how much money are you losing spending months searching for that perfect employee for your imperfect business? If you hire a satisfactory performer for your okay company, you'll get work done in a timely manner.

I'm certainly not arguing you should hire people who aren't capable of good performance. Absolutely not. But you should consider taking a look at what your company actually needs. Do you need someone to do this job or are you hiring for someone to take over the company in 10 years? Those are two very different sets of criteria. 

Before you write your next job posting, stop and consider the type of company you really are, and what type of person you really need. Chances are, more often than not, that person won't be a guru, but a normal human who wants to go to work and do a good job and go home. So look for that person. You'll find your recruiting is a lot easier when you have realistic expectations. 

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.