Bay Area: Join us next week, 8/17, to talk about diversity (or lack thereof) in tech

Slack engineering director Leslie Miley will talk about problems with diversity in Silicon Valley.

Read the whole story

 

[Marlor_AU]

I've seen both sides of this.

At the first startup I worked for, there was an implicit policy of not hiring women, because "we'd have to tone down our office behavior". There was a strong focus on making sure people would "fit in", and that essentially meant being "one of the boys". I was pretty disgusted by their de-facto screening policies and left as soon as I found a better offer.

At another company, there were aggressive diversity policies. That unfortunately meant some staff being hired purely to meet diversity quotas, rather than on having a matching set of skills for the company's projects. In the end, they were almost inevitably shoved into low-profile side-projects with no real challenge and no real chance of career promotion. Very little effort was put into their professional development, because they were simply valued for the effect that they had on diversity reports. They were glorified interns, really, and I'm sure they would have been much better off in some other job which better matched their skill-set (some of these staff were absurdly talented - just not in areas that were applicable to the company).

The whole issue is extraordinarily complex, and taking a polarized view from either side ignores the reality of how difficult the whole situation is.

 

[Schnei]

From the press releases of major Silicon Valley companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., they hire workers that reflect the talented tech graduate pool in America. Its not an exact 1:1 ratio of the American graduates, as these companies hire from a global graduate pool, with more Asians than expected, graduating from Asian countries with respectable universities and to a lesser extent more whites than expected, graduating from European/Canadian/Australian countries with respectable universities.

If diversity is supposed to mean "not men," the answer still applies where the hired employees match the talented graduation pool.

Its a hard task to convince these companies or their industry that they are guilty of excluding minority groups when those people you want them to hire less are likely to pursue a tech career path anyway. There are many factors that go into what makes a child or teenager pursue a specific career, but Silicon Valley is not part of the "diversity problem." They are trying to address this themselves, with school outreach programs and other efforts to target people while they are young. From my experience in the career center wing of engineering school, Engineering companies will pick minorities over the rest of the population given similar qualifications.

 

[Jackattak]

Mydrrin[/url]":2haxhwnb]

To me the opportunity isn't there for Hispanics and Afro-American. Hispanics and Afro-American parents typically work low income jobs, the wages in these jobs are often subsistence. There is little left over to help go to college nor time to help with homework or extra help time for kids.

Hi, I've been a professional systems engineer since 1999. I never went to college and am completely self-taught in all manner of computer systems engineering disciplines. College is a complete farce and has zero to do with the equation. See Dilbert's comment above for the real answer.

 

[Random John Smith Guy]

tayhimself[/url]":kzg9kt2y]Great, please stop discriminating against Asians since there is actual data to back this up. Once we have data to back up discrimination against $ethnicity then we can take action.

Affirmative action in schools is discriminating against Asian students.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... ining-ever

Asian students are doing too well, and students doing well upsets our schools. The goal of our schools at present is not to have good students, it is to have average students.

 

[ApplePaladin]

ZhanMing057[/url]":1uqa6lc6]

itdraugr[/url]":1uqa6lc6]

Dilbert[/url]":1uqa6lc6]Sorry to hijack this. Or maybe it is not a hijack. It is tangentially relevant.

Don't really care who my coworkers in tech are or where they came from or if they are green or purple. As long as they are bright, can reason themselves out of problems, have analytical minds, problem solving skills, know how to find the information they need, remember that information when a similar problem occurs again.

You need to be smart to work in tech. That's often all it takes. We can train you to do the job as long as you are smart. No one wants to talk about this. Intelligence is largely determined by genes and not which fancy school one went to.

Some people were born to flip burgers. Some people were born to develop software. Not everyone can work in tech.

A university press release is not a peer-reviewed journal. Try to find some peer-reviewed literature to support your claim that intelligence is largely determined by genetics. A university press release that was celebrated in a post on stormfront seven years ago isn't a quality source.

There are actually quite a few studies that show that intelligence has a large hereditary component. The citations in this Wikipedia page summarizes things up nicely.

There are also numerous publications on racial differences in intelligence. Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist and don't know much about psych journals. But these are impressively cited and I do know that American Psychologist is the official APA journal and very well-regarded.

There's a difference between saying that there is some hereditary component to intelligence and claiming, as Dilbert did, that intelligence is "largely" determined by genes. Economics, nutrition, family history, experiences, and a bevy of other non-genetic factors also affect intelligence.

There's also the fact that when people talk about intelligence being heritable they often use that as a subtle way of comparing intelligence between genders or ethnic groups and saying-without-saying that this excuses social structures that favor men and whites. This is problematic because the ongoing flow of research consistently shows that genetic variability is greater within what we think of as racial groups as opposed to between what we think of as racial groups.

 

[Scud]

Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

 

[Viewer]

itdraugr[/url]":3uqnjcvj]

TK[/url]":3uqnjcvj]
Quite simply, diverse perspectives are encouraged because they allow businesses to better predict and serve a wider set of customers and their needs.

If a diverse work force is profitable, companies will do it naturally. Tech companies are broadly hiring lots of Asians, not because of legal pressures and social pressures from politicians and public figures, but because they are selfishly trying to get the best labor for the best price.

The fact that politicians and public figures are having to apply lots of legal and social pressures to get tech companies to make radical ethnic profile changes tells me that it is not profitable.

Sure, the diversity politicians can pay some academic to write them a paper that draws whatever conclusion is politically convenient. That doesn't mean that it is true.

 

[Viewer]

Scud[/url]":2i171td6]Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

But they are the "good whites". They are liberal and they support the Democratic party. They aren't the "bad whites" that vote Trump.

Or the southern whites like Ron Paul that think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.

 

[beads]

Ojref[/url]"ehw5xwb]Hiring diversity for the sake of diversity is a ridiculous premise. People should stand on their own merits and accomplishments, and they bring what they bring to the organization. As a business owner I will hire employees on qualifications, experience and how their personality and behavior fits with the established organization, never simply because they are a member of a race or gender, or based on pressure from liberal-leftist politics.

You do that and you'll ruin EVERYTHING! I work as a senior IT security analyst and have worked in IT for 30 years. Anyone having worked in IT over the years will tell you we are probably the most tolerant fields with regard to sex, race, religion, creed or physical disability - we just don't give a rat's rear unless you can't do the job. Then your gone. Quicker the better but gone.

Sorry, not everyone should work in tech. Its a field that demands you constantly update your skills for tomorrow's problem set and in case you've never realized it, is not always family friendly. I spend way too many hours working at night and weekends in order to get the job done and the organization working. That's what I get paid to do.

Diversity is best thought of in terms of working hours not race or sex.

 

[beads]

Scud[/url]":23fsf1dq]Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

Pale. I would reclassify as pale.

 

[Viewer]

Marlor[/url]":27x548a7]I've seen both sides of this.

At the first startup I worked for, there was an implicit policy of not hiring women, because "we'd have to tone down our office behavior". There was a strong focus on making sure people would "fit in", and that essentially meant being "one of the boys". I was pretty disgusted by their de-facto screening policies and left as soon as I found a better offer.

At another company, there were aggressive diversity policies. That unfortunately meant some staff being hired purely to meet diversity quotas, rather than on having a matching set of skills for the company's projects. In the end, they were almost inevitably shoved into low-profile side-projects with no real challenge and no real chance of career promotion. Very little effort was put into their professional development, because they were simply valued for the effect that they had on diversity reports. They were glorified interns, really, and I'm sure they would have been much better off in some other job which better matched their skill-set (some of these staff were absurdly talented - just not in areas that were applicable to the company).

The whole issue is extraordinarily complex, and taking a polarized view from either side ignores the reality of how difficult the whole situation is.

Solving the second problem of racial diversity quotas is as simple as getting politicians in power that eliminate the racial diversity quotas.

Solving the first problem of companies hiring for non-competitive reasons, such as racism or sexism, simply let the market naturally drive them out of business with competitors that do hire for more purely competitive reasons.

Of course, what if talent is legitimately skewed along ethnicity, where some ethnic groups really are better at certain jobs as an aggregate than others? Well, there the free market will pressure companies to hire the best talent for the best price, not necessarily a racially diverse mix.

 

[theramenman]

Scud[/url]":258y91x2]Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

Typical upper middle class white guilt. You wont find working class people from any race caring much. Only those who lack diversity and have an immense amount of time on their hands are the ones hell bent on enforcing diversity on everyone else (except themselves ofc).

 

[Deleted member 330960]

Viewer[/url]":157mixkx]

Scud[/url]":157mixkx]Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

But they are the "good whites". They are liberal and they support the Democratic party. They aren't the "bad whites" that vote Trump.

Or the southern whites like Ron Paul that think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.

Viewer, do you just sit around waiting to post your racist drivel? I would encourage everyone to down vote his posts into oblivion. See this thread for example or his posting record in general. Terrible.
viewtopic.php?p=31675157#p31675157

 

[ZhanMing057]

itdraugr[/url]":3ahzchmz]

ZhanMing057[/url]":3ahzchmz]

itdraugr[/url]":3ahzchmz]

Dilbert[/url]":3ahzchmz]Sorry to hijack this. Or maybe it is not a hijack. It is tangentially relevant.

Don't really care who my coworkers in tech are or where they came from or if they are green or purple. As long as they are bright, can reason themselves out of problems, have analytical minds, problem solving skills, know how to find the information they need, remember that information when a similar problem occurs again.

You need to be smart to work in tech. That's often all it takes. We can train you to do the job as long as you are smart. No one wants to talk about this. Intelligence is largely determined by genes and not which fancy school one went to.

Some people were born to flip burgers. Some people were born to develop software. Not everyone can work in tech.

A university press release is not a peer-reviewed journal. Try to find some peer-reviewed literature to support your claim that intelligence is largely determined by genetics. A university press release that was celebrated in a post on stormfront seven years ago isn't a quality source.

There are actually quite a few studies that show that intelligence has a large hereditary component. The citations in this Wikipedia page summarizes things up nicely.

There are also numerous publications on racial differences in intelligence. Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist and don't know much about psych journals. But these are impressively cited and I do know that American Psychologist is the official APA journal and very well-regarded.

There's a difference between saying that there is some hereditary component to intelligence and claiming, as Dilbert did, that intelligence is "largely" determined by genes. Economics, nutrition, family history, experiences, and a bevy of other non-genetic factors also affect intelligence.

There's also the fact that when people talk about intelligence being heritable they often use that as a subtle way of comparing intelligence between genders or ethnic groups and saying-without-saying that this excuses social structures that favor men and whites. This is problematic because the ongoing flow of research consistently shows that genetic variability is greater within what we think of as racial groups as opposed to between what we think of as racial groups.

Are you suggesting that something shouldn't even be open to discussion simply because there is potential for the discussion to be abused? I'm sorry but I think that's a terrible way to approach social issues.

The fiscal gap makes people uncomfortable. The fact that Social Security will almost certainly break in the not-distant future makes people uncomfortable. There is potential for abuse in these discussions and having the discussion might not help, but we certainly won't fix these issues by not talking about them.

And my one biggest criticism of modern liberalism is that it wants to reject these discussions in favor of feel-good talk about morality, justice and diversity. Even if you strong-arm companies into hiring more of the "right" minorities, you're only pushing the problem further down the road. That's not helping.

 

[Viewer]

tayhimself[/url]":11uadro7]

Viewer[/url]":11uadro7]

Scud[/url]":11uadro7]Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

But they are the "good whites". They are liberal and they support the Democratic party. They aren't the "bad whites" that vote Trump.

Or the southern whites like Ron Paul that think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.

Viewer, do you just sit around waiting to post your racist drivel? I would encourage everyone to down vote his posts into oblivion. See this thread for example or his posting record in general. Terrible.
viewtopic.php?p=31675157#p31675157

I genuinely believe I am more truthful and more of a morally good person than you or the Democrats or the Ars editors.

You are insulting me and my posts and name calling them "drivel". I have a different point of view.

I'm actually proud of my posts regarding "clock boy". When Obama and Zuckerberg lurched to condemn the mostly white city officials and suggest they were racist, I condemn the Obama's and Zuckerbergs of the world of vile racism.

 

[pacocornholio]

I'm in. Sending my admin. Don't worry - she's smoking hot.

 

[Viewer]

itdraugr[/url]":kpf55an9]
There's a difference between saying that there is some hereditary component to intelligence and claiming, as Dilbert did, that intelligence is "largely" determined by genes. Economics, nutrition, family history, experiences, and a bevy of other non-genetic factors also affect intelligence.

Sure, like physical height isn't just determined just by genes but also by economics, nutrition, family history, life experiences, etc.

itdraugr[/url]":kpf55an9]
There's also the fact that when people talk about intelligence being heritable they often use that as a subtle way of comparing intelligence between genders or ethnic groups and saying-without-saying that this excuses social structures that favor men and whites. This is problematic because the ongoing flow of research consistently shows that genetic variability is greater within what we think of as racial groups as opposed to between what we think of as racial groups.

Sure, acknowledging heritable differences excuses or presents a non-sinister justification for different ethnic patterns in sports, tech companies, academia, etc.

 

[ziegler]

tayhimself[/url]":1vtmwv3z]

Viewer[/url]":1vtmwv3z]

Scud[/url]":1vtmwv3z]Kind of ironic given the source, no? Aren't Arstechnicas staff mostly white?

But they are the "good whites". They are liberal and they support the Democratic party. They aren't the "bad whites" that vote Trump.

Or the southern whites like Ron Paul that think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.

Viewer, do you just sit around waiting to post your racist drivel? I would encourage everyone to down vote his posts into oblivion. See this thread for example or his posting record in general. Terrible.
viewtopic.php?p=31675157#p31675157

Not going to review his posts. Doesnt matter. I rarely, if ever in my 20 years on the net, ignore/mute/report/downvote commenters/posts. The reason is explained below.

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

[logic_88]

theramenman[/url]":2s3d5tu4]

tayhimself[/url]":2s3d5tu4]Great, please stop discriminating against Asians since there is actual data to back this up. Once we have data to back up discrimination against $ethnicity then we can take action.

Affirmative action in schools is discriminating against Asian students.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... ining-ever

LOL you thing they give a shit about Asian's? We're the one minority that its okay to make fun of, okay to exclude, okay to pretend like we don't count as a minority because we typically do better than others given the same resources. Good luck trying to convince anyone that putting Asians down to artificially give other minorities a slight boost is unfair. By the down-vote's on your comment despite linking an objective, data rich article, you can already tell how much these so called egalitarian people care about Asians.

That's a big problem with the diversity push. It's a zero-sum game. If you increase representation for one ethnic group, who are you going to take it away from? The assumption is that it's going to be Asians since they don't have the power base to defend.

 

[Einstein76]

itdraugr[/url]":3dd0fe0s]Yeah, this comment thread is going to be a garbage fire. For some reason a certain subset of people really get their wookie in a tangle when others have the temerity to suggest that diversity is a good thing.

May I suggest shaving the wookie and avoiding the tangle?

 

[ackmondual]

Bloomberg, or was it Forbes? (one of the print magazines) mentioned how women are at a disadvantage since they tend to get stuck with child rearing. It's hard to contribute to Git Hub projects when you have to do that at the same time, to get your foot in the door.

While tech jobs tend to have pretty good maternity policies, they can still scary to think about. A coworker knows a couple who work at Google in Mountain View. Child care costs $3K per month per child. If they have a 3rd child, they're better off if one of them quits their job to care for the kids.

 

[Falos]

Sure, I'll oblige the poorly woven inb4s: Lack of diversity is not a problem.

It is an indicator of a potential problem, arguably a serious one.

Not that I'm here to argue it, just being pedantic. But I think when the distinction gets forgotten it introduces extra confusion and discord into conversations that are already tense.

 

[soulbadguy]

theramenman[/url]":s0c26ryd]

tayhimself[/url]":s0c26ryd]Great, please stop discriminating against Asians since there is actual data to back this up. Once we have data to back up discrimination against $ethnicity then we can take action.

Affirmative action in schools is discriminating against Asian students.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... ining-ever

LOL you thing they give a shit about Asian's? We're the one minority that its okay to make fun of, okay to exclude, okay to pretend like we don't count as a minority because we typically do better than others given the same resources. Good luck trying to convince anyone that putting Asians down to artificially give other minorities a slight boost is unfair. By the down-vote's on your comment despite linking an objective, data rich article, you can already tell how much these so called egalitarian people care about Asians.

okay to pretend like we don't count as a minority because we typically do better than others given the same resources.

Sources pleases ?

 

[enilc]

beads[/url]":2i63zwst]

Ojref[/url]":2i63zwst]Hiring diversity for the sake of diversity is a ridiculous premise. People should stand on their own merits and accomplishments, and they bring what they bring to the organization. As a business owner I will hire employees on qualifications, experience and how their personality and behavior fits with the established organization, never simply because they are a member of a race or gender, or based on pressure from liberal-leftist politics.

You do that and you'll ruin EVERYTHING! I work as a senior IT security analyst and have worked in IT for 30 years. Anyone having worked in IT over the years will tell you we are probably the most tolerant fields with regard to sex, race, religion, creed or physical disability - we just don't give a rat's rear unless you can't do the job. Then your gone. Quicker the better but gone.

Sorry, not everyone should work in tech. Its a field that demands you constantly update your skills for tomorrow's problem set and in case you've never realized it, is not always family friendly. I spend way too many hours working at night and weekends in order to get the job done and the organization working. That's what I get paid to do.

Diversity is best thought of in terms of working hours not race or sex.

Well, that's sort of the same argument made by Scandinavian countries when they talk about how tolerant they are and show statistics about the lack of violent crime and race-based crime.

Of course, they forget to mention the homogeneity of their population that kind of makes it easy to coast along without anyone making any waves. Add in a few displaced refugees from the M.E. that don't look the same and suddenly everyone starts freaking-out.

The homogeneity of you and your IT mates is what makes you feel 'tolerant' of one another.

 

[grizzlyaddams]

How about this:

1) Advertise your intent to hire in a manner visible to as many people as possible
2) Review all applications
3) Interview those who meet the criteria required for the position
4) Hire the most suitable person for the job

Where does race or other class status fit into this, exactly?

 

[enilc]

grizzlyaddams[/url]":434r2cjz]How about this:

1) Advertise your intent to hire in a manner visible to as many people as possible
2) Review all applications
3) Interview those who meet the criteria required for the position
4) Hire the most suitable person for the job

Where does race or other class status fit into this, exactly?

1) Where is this mystical place that people of all ethnicitiy, ability and socio-economic background have access?

2-4) Who are the people with absolutely no history/bias-baggage (conscious or subconscious) in your company that are going to make these decisions?

It's always fun to fantasize about a mythical place that logically could never exist (with humans running the show.)

 

[ziegler]

enilc[/url]":26lv022t]

beads[/url]":26lv022t]

Ojref[/url]":26lv022t]Hiring diversity for the sake of diversity is a ridiculous premise. People should stand on their own merits and accomplishments, and they bring what they bring to the organization. As a business owner I will hire employees on qualifications, experience and how their personality and behavior fits with the established organization, never simply because they are a member of a race or gender, or based on pressure from liberal-leftist politics.

You do that and you'll ruin EVERYTHING! I work as a senior IT security analyst and have worked in IT for 30 years. Anyone having worked in IT over the years will tell you we are probably the most tolerant fields with regard to sex, race, religion, creed or physical disability - we just don't give a rat's rear unless you can't do the job. Then your gone. Quicker the better but gone.

Sorry, not everyone should work in tech. Its a field that demands you constantly update your skills for tomorrow's problem set and in case you've never realized it, is not always family friendly. I spend way too many hours working at night and weekends in order to get the job done and the organization working. That's what I get paid to do.

Diversity is best thought of in terms of working hours not race or sex.

Well, that's sort of the same argument made by Scandinavian countries when they talk about how tolerant they are and show statistics about the lack of violent crime and race-based crime.

Of course, they forget to mention the homogeneity of their population that kind of makes it easy to coast along without anyone making any waves. Add in a few displaced refugees from the M.E. that don't look the same and suddenly everyone starts freaking-out.

The homogeneity of you and your IT mates is what makes you feel 'tolerant' of one another.

Did I just read an argument in favor of segregation?

 

[SteveJobz]

I wouldn't miss the "let's shit on white people to show how progressive we are" convention for the world! In fact, I'll be bringing some koolaid so let me know what flavor you guys prefer.

 

[SteveJobz]

logic_88[/url]":2tt63taj]

theramenman[/url]":2tt63taj]

tayhimself[/url]":2tt63taj]Great, please stop discriminating against Asians since there is actual data to back this up. Once we have data to back up discrimination against $ethnicity then we can take action.

Affirmative action in schools is discriminating against Asian students.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... ining-ever

LOL you thing they give a shit about Asian's? We're the one minority that its okay to make fun of, okay to exclude, okay to pretend like we don't count as a minority because we typically do better than others given the same resources. Good luck trying to convince anyone that putting Asians down to artificially give other minorities a slight boost is unfair. By the down-vote's on your comment despite linking an objective, data rich article, you can already tell how much these so called egalitarian people care about Asians.

That's a big problem with the diversity push. It's a zero-sum game. If you increase representation for one ethnic group, who are you going to take it away from? The assumption is that it's going to be Asians since they don't have the power base to defend.

Yeah, Asians get absolutely screwed with the whole diversity nonsense. I actually can't believe that they're not making a shit storm of epic proportions about that. It's a classic case of a group being collectively punished for GOOD behavior. Oh, you sacrificed and studied hard? Too bad, we already have too may of your kind and better luck next time! Now, THAT is racist as fuck.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":sxxyclos]

TK[/url]":sxxyclos]

itdraugr[/url]":sxxyclos]

The problem with invoking straw opponents who supposedly respond to criticism with accusations is that it derails from the actual conversation about whatever is being discussed.

itdraugr[/url]":sxxyclos] For some reason a certain subset of people really get their wookie in a tangle when others have the temerity to suggest that diversity is a good thing.

Indeed.

But that doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion about why diversity helps businesses by injecting new perspectives into homogeneous business structures...

..and how targeting diversity as a hiring practice reveals the problem with the way social networking is often used to grant jobs to underqualified jobs of the favored in-group of the hiring party.

Finally, something that can be discussed! Perhaps we could begin by discussing why and how these "new perspectives" are worth the time and effort that Silicon Vally seems to spend working itself up over? And why your gender or race is taken as predictive of these valuable perspectives? I mean, I thought the whole point here was that prejudging people by things they can't control is a shitty thing to do.

And speaking of hiring practices granting positions to unqualified workers, that makes sense, I think we can agree here that qualifications should be the most important thing when hiring. But then why is the answer to put *less* stress on qualifications and more on your identity, i.e. things you have no control over?

Quite simply, diverse perspectives are encouraged because they allow businesses to better predict and serve a wider set of customers and their needs. The benefits of having a person with a disability on-staff to tell you how your amazing new product would be useless to a person with mobility problems and provide suggestions for how to serve those needs better seems obvious. The same with developing and marketing products and services for people outside of the "straight white dude" demographic.

You're assuming that practicing diverse hiring practices puts less stress on qualifications. Why? There's no qualitative evidence to support that position.

But here's the thing. Diverse perspectives have very little, if anything in common, with racial diversity. For example, you can hire a black, white and hispanic person all of whom came from middle to upper class families, went to an Ivy league school and have similar interests. Or you can hire a white guy from South Africa and a white guy from France who have totally different life experiences. In this case, wouldn't the 2 white guys have far more diverse perspectives?

 

[Viewer]

ackmondual[/url]":1ud8poz9]women are at a disadvantage since they tend to get stuck with child rearing.

Raising kids is a massive time sink but also deeply rewarding. It's a trade off. Life involves lots of trade offs.

ackmondual[/url]":1ud8poz9]
A coworker knows a couple who work at Google in Mountain View. Child care costs $3K per child. If they have a 3rd child, they're better off if one of them quits their job to care for the kids.

$3k per month per child is expensive.

You can hire a full time nanny for $4k-$5k per month to handle two or three children for less per child/month.

 

[Viewer]

SteveJobz[/url]":20mmtk2g]I wouldn't miss the "let's shit on white people to show how progressive we are" convention for the world!

The Democratic National Convention was a few weeks ago. You missed it.

 

[Viewer]

SteveJobz[/url]":6734bkqd]Oh, you sacrificed and studied hard? Too bad, we already have too may of your kind and better luck next time! Now, THAT is racist as fuck.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2007: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

 

[bigstrat2003]

itdraugr[/url]":26f040fa]You're assuming that practicing diverse hiring practices puts less stress on qualifications. Why? There's no qualitative evidence to support that position.

You'd probably have to define "diverse hiring practices" to make sure we're talking about the same thing, but usually people interpret that as meaning "companies should first and foremost hire people to ensure that a certain percentage is hit for minority employees". If a company is doing that, then it necessarily puts less stress on qualifications. Assuming that companies are hiring the most qualified people to begin with (which I do realize isn't always true due to things like nepotism etc), that means that their employee demographics will show you roughly what the demographics of the qualified applicants are. In other words, if your employees are 40% Asian, 40% white, 10% black, and 10% Hispanic, and you always hire the most qualified applicant, that means you are getting less qualified black/Hispanic applicants. If you then start making hiring decisions based primarily on the desire to hit certain diversity targets, that necessarily means you're going to have to start hiring underqualified employees on the basis of their race, unless the makeup of the applicant pool changes. Which, I hope we can agree, would be bad for multiple reasons.

Now perhaps that isn't what you mean by "diverse hiring practices", and perhaps that isn't what people mean when they get together to shake their proverbial fists at lack of diversity in tech and demand that companies fix it. But that is what many people understand such things to mean, and hence they complain that such practices would mean hiring underqualified people solely because of their race.

 

[vartec]

ziegler[/url]":12knbr4u]

Jackattak[/url]":12knbr4u]

ziegler[/url]":12knbr4u]

itdraugr[/url]":12knbr4u]Yeah, this comment thread is going to be a garbage fire. For some reason a certain subset of people really get their wookie in a tangle when others have the temerity to suggest that diversity is a good thing.

<snip>
I want to see more mexicans working in chinese restaurants
<snip>

Move to San Francisco.

In that case, I want to see more straight people working in gay bars and vice versa. Matter of fact, I want to see gay bars forced to admit 93.8% straight people so it can be diverse and reflect the population mix correctly. source

Well, in SF it's like:

“I’m not heterophobic, but I don’t want to go to a gay bar and buy some guy a drink and have him smirk and tell me he’s straight”
[...]
“I do like to go to places in and around the Castro for Happy Hour or a snack and I’ve noticed more straight people making out at these places where I go deliberately to NOT feel like I am oppressed by heterosexuality. Really, straight people do you HAVE to make out in the Castro as well? Good Lord.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... o-district

 

[KreepLX]

CraigJ[/url]":udldgzh4]

TK[/url]":udldgzh4]Welp, I can see right now how this thread is going to go.

Article: Identity politics rah rah!

Comment 1: All identity politics is bigotry

Comment 2: Commenter 1 and anyone who thinks that way is a bigot.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Commenter 1 was right, by the way.

Anyone looking at this objectively in the US must surly see that neither position is completely correct. Some is and some isn't, completely depending on context.

Regarding the black lives matter movement, if you aren't black and your reaction to the BLM movement is that all lives matter, you're missing the point. Of course all lives matter. The BLM message is really that black lives matter too, not that they matter more than any other lives. And if you look at how they are treated economically, by the police and by the justice system, they have a valid (very) complaint.

When a group is being systematically discriminated against, it's not bigotry for them try to address the issues politically.

Anyone who argues that blacks in this country aren't at a significant disadvantage do to systemic issues in society and the various government systems is blind, or willfully ignorant.

Note that this does not constitute pity, nor am I saying that all black people suffer from this.

Yes, I am a privileged white male, but obvious is obvious.

BTW I'm focusing on this topic becasue the the lead image of a black lives matter hashtag in case it gets changed.

Great conspiracy theory. Alex Jones would be proud.

Clumping all of the people in the U.S. into a few small groups and pointing a finger of guilt is not going to help anything. It is not empathy, and it encourages victimization businesses and bigotry rhetoric. This way of thinking totally perplexes me because it further divides everyone by encouraging more racism. This reciprocal nonsense has to stop.

Be an individual and stand for what you believe in, but please don't tell me that I am privileged because of your silver spoon. Maybe I just live in a part of the country that's socially more advanced than others. Perhaps you could volunteer some time at an outreach program to use that energy in a positive manner?

 

[TurboPower]

itdraugr[/url]":8akpfr7u]

TK[/url]":8akpfr7u]

itdraugr[/url]":8akpfr7u]

The problem with invoking straw opponents who supposedly respond to criticism with accusations is that it derails from the actual conversation about whatever is being discussed.

itdraugr[/url]":8akpfr7u] For some reason a certain subset of people really get their wookie in a tangle when others have the temerity to suggest that diversity is a good thing.

Indeed.

But that doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion about why diversity helps businesses by injecting new perspectives into homogeneous business structures...

..and how targeting diversity as a hiring practice reveals the problem with the way social networking is often used to grant jobs to underqualified jobs of the favored in-group of the hiring party.

Finally, something that can be discussed! Perhaps we could begin by discussing why and how these "new perspectives" are worth the time and effort that Silicon Vally seems to spend working itself up over? And why your gender or race is taken as predictive of these valuable perspectives? I mean, I thought the whole point here was that prejudging people by things they can't control is a shitty thing to do.

And speaking of hiring practices granting positions to unqualified workers, that makes sense, I think we can agree here that qualifications should be the most important thing when hiring. But then why is the answer to put *less* stress on qualifications and more on your identity, i.e. things you have no control over?

Quite simply, diverse perspectives are encouraged because they allow businesses to better predict and serve a wider set of customers and their needs. The benefits of having a person with a disability on-staff to tell you how your amazing new product would be useless to a person with mobility problems and provide suggestions for how to serve those needs better seems obvious. The same with developing and marketing products and services for people outside of the "straight white dude" demographic.

You're assuming that practicing diverse hiring practices puts less stress on qualifications. Why? There's no qualitative evidence to support that position.

Cool! Then why the fuck are you trying to force it with laws when it's clearly a massive advantage? Won't the non-diverse go out of business to the most diverse anyway?

Because the most successful companies are clearly the most diverse! Obviously it's not the exact fucking opposite.

Right.. Right?

 

[bigstrat2003]

On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

 

[SteveJobz]

bigstrat2003[/url]":1d3lxgpm]On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

I can't see how a claim that "minorities are discriminated against in hiring" can hold up when Asians make up a disproportionate number of tech workers. How could this happen when the evil white man is purposely not hiring minorities? Therefore, logic would dictate that the most qualified candidates ARE actually being hired.

 

[TurboPower]

SteveJobz[/url]":37mrp51h]

bigstrat2003[/url]":37mrp51h]On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

I can't see how a claim that "minorities are discriminated against in hiring" can hold up when Asians make up a disproportionate number of tech workers. How could this happen when the evil white man is purposely not hiring minorities? Therefore, logic would dictate that the most qualified candidates ARE actually being hired.

RAAAAAACIIIIISSSTTTTTTTT!