bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,731
Metro boston is 71% white, there are larger #'s of Asians and Hispanics than Blacks in the Metro, but as pointed out, the focus seemed to be on Blacks only for the article.
Demographic source: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US14460-boston-cambridge-newton-ma-nh-metro-area/
That figure counts white Hispanics. For most diversity programs (I cannot speak for this particular construction metric) Hispanics count. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, per the U.S. census. That's why there are two sets of stats.
The state figures, for example, would list the state at 83% white including white Hispanics, or 74% white otherwise.
Plus, usually people who are mixed-race count toward diversity hiring stats (again, depending on the program).
Point taken though about minority hiring (not just black hiring), hiring target should be 29% for minorities if you are trying to mirror overall labor market. They may have set 40% target for policy reasons - that construction is occurring inside of city limits and the city itself is close to 50% minority.
Given social economic realities of the minority population by and large here and elsewhere across the country, higher unemployment, lower levels of educational attainment, more english and second language speakers, I stand by my hunch that it is likely no small feat for these firms to hire 40% minority workers
^agreed. I mean, come on, there's a high minority unemployment issue within city limits as the articles discuss. This is policymaking: if they are going to recruit more people into the pipeline, why not recruit from the area with higher unemployment? I'll concede that 30-35% might have been more appropriate. Stretch goal?