Should benefit the wealthy and to a lesser extent the middle class. The bill already gutted the lower class.

Graduation-rate comparisons to white or Asian students are completely irrelevant to the labor-market reality behind the 2025 pattern. The meaningful metrics here are per-capita and per-sector, not broad racial graduation averages. • Per capita, Black women earn more bachelor’s degrees than white men and are the most educated demographic within their racial group (NCES/Brookings). • Per sector, Black women are strongly represented and highly credentialed in the exact fields where the 2025 losses occurred — government, finance, transportation, and professional services (OPM/EEOC). • These sectors require degrees, certifications, and mid-career experience, and Black women hold those qualifications at above-average rates.

So education or skill levels cannot explain why Black women saw the sharpest 2025 losses while white women stayed stable and white men gained jobs. Graduation-rate comparisons have nothing to do with the timing, sectors, or scale of what happened.

I didn’t bring up enrollment. My point was simply that, as a demographic, Black women possess higher levels of professional experience and educational attainment than most groups, especially in the sectors where the 2025 losses occurred.

Since you’re framing this in terms of sector patterns and shifting legal incentives, this piece gives the broader context behind those dynamics. It lays out the structural factors that fit the mechanisms you’re describing:

The Second Reconstruction: The Legal, Immoral, and Political Effort to Reverse it #1288677

The federal-cuts point is your strongest argument, but it only explains part of the pattern. Black women also saw major 2025 losses in finance, transportation, and professional services, where white women didn’t and white men gained.

I agree that the buyout idea is speculative and not supported by data or historic patterns for mid-career workers. The DEI-only framing is too small to account for losses across multiple sectors. And major-choice or graduation-rate differences can’t explain a sudden 2025 spike, especially since Black women remain one of the most educated and professionally qualified demographics.

So the gov-cuts argument fits within a single-sector frame, but the rest doesn’t match the timing, scale, or cross-sector divergence.

The points you’re raising don’t actually explain the 2025 data: • “There are margins in every group.” True but irrelevant. It doesn’t explain why Black women as a group saw the steepest losses while white women and white men didn’t. • “Government layoffs.” That’s part of the story, but it doesn’t explain why the impact was disproportionately concentrated on Black women compared to their peers in the same agencies. • “College enrollment is crude.” Maybe, but Black women have strong representation in the very degree-required sectors where the losses occurred (gov/finance/pro services), so this doesn’t account for the divergence. • “Men pick higher-earning majors.” Major choice years ago can’t explain a 2025 spike in unemployment, especially since white women with similar majors weren’t hit the same way.

So none of these general points actually address the core question: Why did Black women see the largest job losses in high-skill sectors this year while white women stayed stable and white men gained jobs?

The “marginal workers lose jobs first” explanation doesn’t fit the data. Black women are actually one of the most educated groups in the workforce. They have the highest college enrollment rate of any demographic (NCES/Pew) and strong representation in government, finance, and professional services.

The 2025 losses hit mid-career, higher-skill sectors where Black women traditionally perform strongly, not the low-wage or low-skill jobs where marginal-worker effects usually show up.

Tight labor markets usually help Black women, not hurt them, so that explanation doesn’t fit. And minimum-wage theory doesn’t apply here. There was no federal increase, and the job losses are in higher-pay sectors, while white men gained jobs. The pattern is a data divergence, not a minimum-wage effect.

In theory, yes, legal interpretation should be independent of outcomes. But the immunity ruling already broke that standard. SCOTUS didn’t just interpret law; it constructed a political reality: an executive shielded from accountability. Once the Court created that imbalance, it stopped being a clean separation-of-powers question.

So while we should be able to talk about tariffs and trade law in the abstract, the Court itself blurred the line.