Comparing the white versus the black and Latino men, there are no character, academic, or work-orientation differences, yet Latino and black men fared the worst in the labor market, unlike their white peers. One may ask, what may be causing the differences? The answer resides in the racially and incredibly rich exclusive networks that white men have, which enable them to learn more about opportunities and in fact, get jobs. Black and Latino's workers never learn about these opportunities. The combination of believing in rhetoric concerning "reverse racism" and living in segregated spaces created a potent disincentive for counting African American and Latino in the powerful networks of the white tradesmen who are actually the gatekeepers of job opportunities. From market-orientation perspective, African Americans are not automatically members of the gate-keeping networks as far as entry into the blue-collar trades is concerned. Customarily, whites have tried to shield blue-collar opportunities from other minority workers. This system of racial privilege inside the working class has not significantly changed, despite the “Philadelphia Plan” as well as other “hometown” plans which were designed to improve the representation of African American and other minority groups like Latino workers in fields like construction. While anyone would hardly dispute that conventional white racism is totally gone, its heyday might be long past. On that note, Majority are truly bewildered by the gaps that keep on emerging even amid equally promising young African American. Others suggest there is a need to be optimistic because these gaps have narrowed down with time. Sociologists have endorsed this market-oriented perspective, which means that undeserved white privilege has been successfully disrupted. (Waldinger & Lichter, 2003) Isolate the main factors which explain the existence of unskilled immigrants midst American society and how market-orientation that renders it hard for blacks or immigrants to access blue-collar opportunities. From the embeddedness perspective, contemporary and historical discrimination have converged in the present, implying the persistent pattern of opportunity-hoarding amongst whites have caused exploitative economic and political conditions that harm blacks. (Royster, 2003) explore how institutional arrangements shape network-based job finding behaviors among American. An examination of cross-national survey data shows that informal job matching is extremely clustered among specific firms and types of individuals in the United States, compared to Germany where it`s more ubiquitous. These differences are associated with hierarchical and loosely regulated employment relations in America that ease network dominance in particular economic sectors. These findings exemplify how social institutions influence access to economic resources via network relations. (Royster, 2003, p. 19) tries to determine why African American men are somehow less desirable as workers compared to their white peers. Royster seeks an answer with conduction of her own extensive research and studies of the experience of 25 white men and 25 African American men who graduated from a similar vocational school and required jobs in the same blue-collar job market in the early 1990s. From the moment of Booker T. Washington, African American and Latino men have since been advised to get a fair share, but it`s not so easy as it sounds.