Hacker News Reader

You could also say 94% of those jobs went to [age range of your choice] whose hiring numbers increased that much.

This is a common analytical fallacy.

Far more than 323K jobs were added...they're talking about NET jobs added.

They're pretty clear about it in the text; it's just the headline that's misleading:

> The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.

"Overall job growth" and "headcount increase" imply "net jobs added."

They're not saying only 20,524 white workers were hired.

No, they're not. They're saying 20,524 more white people were employed at the end of the period than at the beginning. That is what a plain language reading of the text says. I don't know what you're trying to imply here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com