Can you name the biggest racist employer in America? [when the "new norm" isn't okay]

Every time the liberal media discovers that the racial composition of any particular company or industry does not reflect the population of the United States, immediately millions of gallons of ink (or digital ink) are shed as the media frantically searches for signs of inherent racism. Just look at this recent article worrying that not enough black directors were making Super Bowl ads. But in a curious article in the New York Times, the Times mentions an enormous racial disparity only second-handedly, and doesn't seem concerned about the nature of it, because the recipients of it are not white, but black.

Fifteen point six percent of black men are employed by the government, while only 12.5% of white men are; 21.4% of black women work for the government while 18.2% of white women do. These figures are especially stunning because there are many fewer black than white people; to achieve this disparity, the government has to employ a lot more black than white people.

So why is the Times writing about this now? Because state and local governments are apparently cutting back on jobs, and blacks are in danger of the losing some of the jobs they gained through preferential treatment.

I'm sure you see the irony here on several levels. When there is a statistical disparity against black employment, the media is the first to cry "racism"; when it's the opposite, the media is worried only about how to perpetuate it. It's standard liberal media double-standard racism.

Government is not normally constrained by productivity, and in flush times, is wont to hire far in excess of actual numbers of slots that are essential to be filled, by creating a number of “training” or “apprenticeship” openings, originally described as temporary, but over time, tend to become a permanent fixture. Suddenly, faced with a major shortfall of cash flow to pay for all these invented job slots, the organizational charts are examined a little more closely, and the supernumerary slots are sloughed off. As these have been disproportionately filled with “affirmative action” hires, the effect of last hired, first fired, practices hits with devastating impact.

This is the system that has worked so very well for unionized labor for, well, decades, if not centuries. Are you going to rile up the union people to protect a few junior employees?

When NJ towns started laying off employees (when state aid ran out), those laid off were the most recently hired - often affirmative action tokens. They must either apply to Wal-Mart or move; they have no real job skills needed in the dwindling private-sector jobs available.

Government hiring has only served to mask the educational failures of many minorities.

what the hell are so many people doing in public sector jobs to begin with? It should be one quarter of the number it is.

As someone who was recently laid off by a Fortune 100, nicknamed 'Big Red', along with a few thousand other people I've seen a couple of my former colleagues have found employment in the public sector. For them public sector work provides employment security.

And to be honest, why wouldn't they think that? Government work is essentially immune to market pressure. We all know that labor is the largest liability for a corporation and that the corporation has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and not to the employees. And when push comes to shove who is the first to go? The employee. Not to mention that those of us (or formerly) in the private sector see the standard of living for public sector employees. It's a damn sight better. It's easier to be a 'drone' in the government than it is to be an innovator in the private sector and become comfortably well-off by inventing the next widget.

As a Gen X'er I'm part of a generation that was the last to believe that one could hold a position with a company and make a 30+ year career out of it. Those days are long gone. The millenials are smarter. They act like mercenaries and jump from company to company every five years.

I've considered public sector work myself. However, as an educated conservative white male I have no doubt that my ability to secure a public position is not in my favor. We all know that it's mostly affirmative action hiring in government as the article shows.

That is the reality. Does it jive with conservative political thought? No. But if I had the same mid-level management job in the public sector that I had in private I would be making double the salary and living comfortably. So unless someone is holding the magic conservative wand to improve the business climate (especially in my state) then I don't fault people for ducking into the relative safety of government work. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.