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

 

[vartec]

Viewer[/url]":29e8ksua]

ackmondual[/url]":29e8ksua]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]":29e8ksua]
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.

Viable option if you want to rise sociopaths. Otherwise, you want children to interact with other children.

 

[ApplePaladin]

JustQuestions[/url]"d66zuh4]

itdraugr[/url]"d66zuh4]But for fuck's sake, are we really supposed to believe that it's impossible for Google to find more qualified black people than simply 1% of its tech workforce? This is the company that's basically the end-all, be-all for finding shit. And we're supposed to buy that they can't get qualified black people for even 1% of their leadership?

Is this really that hard to believe? Google is an elite tech company, even when compared to the likes of Microsoft and Apple. Google might be considered the elite, although I have heard it's also nearly impossible to get a job at Facebook.

Let's think about this logically. How talented/skilled/smart/knowledgeable do you have to be to work at Google?

Of course a lot of these traits can't be measured precisely, but we can get a vague idea.

Before we get into that, let's just think about an "average" career software engineer. Not one who works at Google, just an average one, period. Now, the word "average" can be kind of meaningless when talking about people, but let's just ride it out. This average software engineer will have a degree in computer science. They will be probably have a life-long cultivated interest in science, mathematics, and computers. They will be highly intelligent compared to most of their peers over the course of their life. In mid career they will probably be earning upwards of a 6-figure salary or even a healthy amount more than that depending on where they live and what kind of responsibilities they are taking on.

Most parents would be proud to produce even an "average" software engineer. And they should be.

Now, what about the kind of software engineers that work at a place like Google? You're talking about elites. People who often excel to the point of regional or even national recognition at various points in their lives. People who crush their classes at ivy league institutions while making novel contributions. Or the kind of people who are just freakishly smart. Rare people. Rare even among the type of person who has been building up to be something like a software engineer for their entire life.

How many AAs are there majoring in CS at top tier schools? Not many. A quick search showed that Stanford has something like an average of 10 African American CS majors per year. 10. That's it.

So, how's that for an applicant pool? Even with regards to Ivy league applicants, Google does not hire 1 out of 10 people. Not even close. Google gets millions of applications. So, statistics would say that even from Stanford, it's incredibly unlikely that Google would hire any of their African American CS graduates.

I don't know. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that given the current state of affairs, that not many new hires at Google are going to be African American.

You don't have to sell me on the scarcity issue. I already agreed that there's a problem with the pipeline that starts back in early childhood and has roots in a lot of other socioeconomic problems.

But that's a lot of assumptions based on only one number. And even if we assume that your 10 black CS graduates number is accurate for other schools (gross oversimplification) that doesn't explain why Google isn't hiring more of them. We have no reason to believe that the rare, elite tech genius you describe is any more likely to be white than non-white; it's a questionable assumption that Google would have any problem finding those rare geniuses among non-white applicants, or that they don't have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff in all those millions of applications that they receive. Even accepting those shaky assumptions, shouldn't that therefore leave a reasonably large pool of black CS graduates to be hired at other tech firms? If your assumptions about Google are correct, everyone who isn't Google should be showing higher numbers.

And I'd be wary of making an argument that sounds too much like "well of course Google doesn't have that many black employees, they only hire the most elite!" Because... y'know... that just sounds bad. I understand what you're getting at, and that it goes back to the problem that there needs to be more education opportunities to produce a larger candidate pool and all that. But still, perception and all.

While this is a much more productive conversation, it still doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. What proof is there that diverse hiring practices take jobs away from qualified candidates who are straight, white, and/or male and give them specifically to unqualified candidates who are not straight, white, and/or male? That's the constant refrain when the topic of diversity in hiring practices comes up - the accusation that jobs are being taken away from qualified straight/white/male applicants. But there's never any evidence for that claim. Take one of your 10 black Stanford CS graduates. They graduated from Stanford. Obviously they should be qualified. Even taking your assumption that Google wouldn't hire any of them, what possible reason would anyone else have not to hire them? And if someone else hires them, what possible reason do any of us have to assume that the job was given to them undeserved, at the expense of a qualified white candidate? And what it comes down to is that there is no reason.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":3dcblnaw]

JustQuestions[/url]":3dcblnaw]

itdraugr[/url]":3dcblnaw]But for fuck's sake, are we really supposed to believe that it's impossible for Google to find more qualified black people than simply 1% of its tech workforce? This is the company that's basically the end-all, be-all for finding shit. And we're supposed to buy that they can't get qualified black people for even 1% of their leadership?

Is this really that hard to believe? Google is an elite tech company, even when compared to the likes of Microsoft and Apple. Google might be considered the elite, although I have heard it's also nearly impossible to get a job at Facebook.

Let's think about this logically. How talented/skilled/smart/knowledgeable do you have to be to work at Google?

Of course a lot of these traits can't be measured precisely, but we can get a vague idea.

Before we get into that, let's just think about an "average" career software engineer. Not one who works at Google, just an average one, period. Now, the word "average" can be kind of meaningless when talking about people, but let's just ride it out. This average software engineer will have a degree in computer science. They will be probably have a life-long cultivated interest in science, mathematics, and computers. They will be highly intelligent compared to most of their peers over the course of their life. In mid career they will probably be earning upwards of a 6-figure salary or even a healthy amount more than that depending on where they live and what kind of responsibilities they are taking on.

Most parents would be proud to produce even an "average" software engineer. And they should be.

Now, what about the kind of software engineers that work at a place like Google? You're talking about elites. People who often excel to the point of regional or even national recognition at various points in their lives. People who crush their classes at ivy league institutions while making novel contributions. Or the kind of people who are just freakishly smart. Rare people. Rare even among the type of person who has been building up to be something like a software engineer for their entire life.

How many AAs are there majoring in CS at top tier schools? Not many. A quick search showed that Stanford has something like an average of 10 African American CS majors per year. 10. That's it.

So, how's that for an applicant pool? Even with regards to Ivy league applicants, Google does not hire 1 out of 10 people. Not even close. Google gets millions of applications. So, statistics would say that even from Stanford, it's incredibly unlikely that Google would hire any of their African American CS graduates.

I don't know. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that given the current state of affairs, that not many new hires at Google are going to be African American.

You don't have to sell me on the scarcity issue. I already agreed that there's a problem with the pipeline that starts back in early childhood and has roots in a lot of other socioeconomic problems.

But that's a lot of assumptions based on only one number. And even if we assume that your 10 black CS graduates number is accurate for other schools (gross oversimplification) that doesn't explain why Google isn't hiring more of them. We have no reason to believe that the rare, elite tech genius you describe is any more likely to be white than non-white; it's a questionable assumption that Google would have any problem finding those rare geniuses among non-white applicants, or that they don't have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff in all those millions of applications that they receive. Even accepting those shaky assumptions, shouldn't that therefore leave a reasonably large pool of black CS graduates to be hired at other tech firms? If your assumptions about Google are correct, everyone who isn't Google should be showing higher numbers.

And I'd be wary of making an argument that sounds too much like "well of course Google doesn't have that many black employees, they only hire the most elite!" Because... y'know... that just sounds bad. I understand what you're getting at, and that it goes back to the problem that there needs to be more education opportunities to produce a larger candidate pool and all that. But still, perception and all.

While this is a much more productive conversation, it still doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. What proof is there that diverse hiring practices take jobs away from qualified candidates who are straight, white, and/or male and give them specifically to unqualified candidates who are not straight, white, and/or male? That's the constant refrain when the topic of diversity in hiring practices comes up - the accusation that jobs are being taken away from qualified straight/white/male applicants. But there's never any evidence for that claim. Take one of your 10 black Stanford CS graduates. They graduated from Stanford. Obviously they should be qualified. Even taking your assumption that Google wouldn't hire any of them, what possible reason would anyone else have not to hire them? And if someone else hires them, what possible reason do any of us have to assume that the job was given to them undeserved, at the expense of a qualified white candidate? And what it comes down to is that there is no reason.

Nobody is making an argument that hiring AAs and Hispanics (since that's what you REALLY mean when you say minority) will take jobs away from straight white males, who you have such burning hatred for. People have repeatedly pointed out that lack of AA and Hispanic representation has everything to do with the pool of qualified applicants and is not an evil straight white male conspiracy. This is illustrated by the fact that other minorities such as Asians (you know the ones that do not qualify for the prestigious SJW stamp of victimhood) are actually very much over represented, and whites are actually under represented in most major tech companies.

Therefore, achieving your dream of cleansing the tech industry of the straight white male vermin right this moment will require tech companies to shift focus to race instead of skills in order to artificially expand the pool of AA and Hispanics that meet criteria. Reducing the barrier of entry will, obviously, result in less qualified people being hired in order to meet some diversity quota.

 

[JustQuestions]

itdraugr[/url]":19f2oj76]You don't have to sell me on the scarcity issue. I already agreed that there's a problem with the pipeline that starts back in early childhood and has roots in a lot of other socioeconomic problems.

But that's a lot of assumptions based on only one number. And even if we assume that your 10 black CS graduates number is accurate for other schools (gross oversimplification) that doesn't explain why Google isn't hiring more of them. We have no reason to believe that the rare, elite tech genius you describe is any more likely to be white than non-white; it's a questionable assumption that Google would have any problem finding those rare geniuses among non-white applicants, or that they don't have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff in all those millions of applications that they receive. Even accepting those shaky assumptions, shouldn't that therefore leave a reasonably large pool of black CS graduates to be hired at other tech firms? If your assumptions about Google are correct, everyone who isn't Google should be showing higher numbers.

And I'd be wary of making an argument that sounds too much like "well of course Google doesn't have that many black employees, they only hire the most elite!" Because... y'know... that just sounds bad. I understand what you're getting at, and that it goes back to the problem that there needs to be more education opportunities to produce a larger candidate pool and all that. But still, perception and all.

While this is a much more productive conversation, it still doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. What proof is there that diverse hiring practices take jobs away from qualified candidates who are straight, white, and/or male and give them specifically to unqualified candidates who are not straight, white, and/or male? That's the constant refrain when the topic of diversity in hiring practices comes up - the accusation that jobs are being taken away from qualified straight/white/male applicants. But there's never any evidence for that claim. Take one of your 10 black Stanford CS graduates. They graduated from Stanford. Obviously they should be qualified. Even taking your assumption that Google wouldn't hire any of them, what possible reason would anyone else have not to hire them? And if someone else hires them, what possible reason do any of us have to assume that the job was given to them undeserved, at the expense of a qualified white candidate? And what it comes down to is that there is no reason.

I'm not really making all that many assumptions, and the ones I am making aren't critical.

I think your view here is skewed because you aren't appreciating just how small all these numbers really are. People think of concepts like "the population" and "the workforce" and they're used to internally representing it as some sort of infinite or endless quantity. It isn't. There's a very finite amount of software engineers (as an example) in total, across all races and gender. And this includes people even just studying to work in these types of professions.

The way you just brush off the scarcity issue so quickly, as if it is only a frivolous concern and not worth discussing in this context, is just vexing to me.

How many CS degrees are conferred to black people per year in the entire USA as of late? Five thousand or so? That sounds like the correct ballpark.

Is that a lot of people to you? Does it sounds like a lot? To me it sounds like almost none. If you are selecting for just the top 5% of them, that only leaves you with a mere 250 people, which is a small enough number that you can just throw a lot of your theories out the window. Individual whim is going to start playing a huge role here. These people can work nearly anywhere they want. They may not have white privilege, they have a better one. They're smart as hell, dedicated, and they have a formal education in computer science and performed well.

And there's only 250 of them. You may ask one why he doesn't work for Google. He tells you he didn't apply. He's too busy working for some foundation trying to make the world a better place. Because this is how specific it's really getting. The numbers are small enough that you may as well try finding some and interviewing them and ask about their experiences and what kind of factors influenced where they applied and what they decided to do with their lives.

Or you can continue to make pointless conjectures about how Google (the premier search company), is conspiring to not hire people because they are black.

It just sounds like you're making some mock outrage for the sake of it to prevent yourself from accepting the hard reality that these sorts of issues take shitloads of time and manpower to fix. There's no easy lever to flip. Changing hiring practices is basically a non-issue and does nothing, because changing hiring practices doesn't make more of these people rise out of the woodwork. They just don't exist to hire in any appreciable quantity, for anybody. What do you do? Advertise a little harder and maybe you get Frank on your team? Then somebody else doesn't get Frank, and there was only one Frank.

This is why I tried to really drill the importance of mentoring a few pages back. Scarcity in tech is to the point where approaching it on an individual basis is entirely justified, preferably from a young age. We're a country of individuals, not statistical concepts. If you want to make a real difference, the thing to do is to take some smart, neglected kid under your wing and offer them the support they need to succeed. Because if you don't offer it, well, nobody else was going to either.

 

[ApplePaladin]

SteveJobz[/url]":as2kxvgs]more dishonest character attacks

Sorry, Steve, you're not giving me much to work with because everything you just said was either false or just not meaningful to the conversation. If you can think of something real, honest, and meaningful to say maybe give that a shot. Maybe ponder for a while why you're so concerned about white people supposedly being underrepresented but you don't appear to give a shit about non-whites and non-Asians being underrepresented, and how that really erodes any point you might be trying to make by criticizing calls for diversity.

Also, you claim that diversity is reducing the barrier for entry. But you haven't provided any proof for that claim. Again, provide evidence that diversity results in unqualified hiring decisions.

 

[ApplePaladin]

JustQuestions[/url]":35r0xxrr]
I'm not really making all that many assumptions, and the ones I am making aren't critical.

I think your view here is skewed because you aren't appreciating just how small all these numbers really are. People think of concepts like "the population" and "the workforce" and they're used to internally representing it as some sort of infinite or endless quantity. It isn't. There's a very finite amount of software engineers (as an example) in total, across all races and gender. And this includes people even just studying to work in these types of professions.

The way you just brush off the scarcity issue so quickly, as if it is only a frivolous concern and not worth discussing in this context, is just vexing to me.

How many CS degrees are conferred to black people per year in the entire USA as of late? Five thousand or so? That sounds like the correct ballpark.

Is that a lot of people to you? Does it sounds like a lot? To me it sounds like almost none. If you are selecting for just the top 5% of them, that only leaves you with a mere 250 people, which is a small enough number that you can just throw a lot of your theories out the window. Individual whim is going to start playing a huge role here. These people can work nearly anywhere they want. They may not have white privilege, they have a better one. They're smart as hell, dedicated, and they have a formal education in computer science and performed well.

And there's only 250 of them. You may ask one why he doesn't work for Google. He tells you he didn't apply. He's too busy working for some foundation trying to make the world a better place. Because this is how specific it's really getting. The numbers are small enough that you may as well try finding some and interviewing them and ask about their experiences and what kind of factors influenced where they applied and what they decided to do with their lives.

Or you can continue to make pointless conjectures about how Google (the premier search company), is conspiring to not hire people because they are black.

It just sounds like you're making some mock outrage for the sake of it to prevent yourself from accepting the hard reality that these sorts of issues take shitloads of time and manpower to fix. There's no easy lever to flip. Changing hiring practices is basically a non-issue and does nothing, because changing hiring practices doesn't make more of these people rise out of the woodwork. They just don't exist to hire in any appreciable quantity, for anybody. What do you do? Advertise a little harder and maybe you get Frank on your team? Then somebody else doesn't get Frank, and there was only one Frank.

This is why I tried to really drill the importance of mentoring a few pages back. Scarcity in tech is to the point where approaching it on an individual basis is entirely justified, preferably from a young age. We're a country of individuals, not statistical concepts. If you want to make a real difference, the thing to do is to take some smart, neglected kid under your wing and offer them the support they need to succeed. Because if you don't offer it, well, nobody else was going to either.

Well, here's the problem with your assumptions on the scarcity issue: Race and Gender Among Computer Science Majors at Stanford

You based your assumptions on Stanford's CS population, so if we look at Stanford we see that blacks make up 6.1% of Stanford's CS majors. But only 1% of Google's tech workforce. If scarcity were the only issue at play, Google's tech workforce should be closer to 6% black than an embarrassingly meager 1%.

I'm not disagreeing with the scarcity issue or dismissing it out of hand, but it's not the only problem. If Google's and other tech firms' hiring practices were true meritocracies, the numbers should be closer to representing actual major/graduation percentages. But that's not what we're seeing. So we already know that there's no real meritocracy. Which means that we can't point the finger solely at scarcity for explaining why non-whites and non-Asians make up such a small percentage of the tech workforce.

And as I said before, even if we take your assumptions about Google's hiring practices as fact, and accept that they really only hire the absolute best of the best, why does the rest of the tech industry have a diversity problem? Let's take your made-up ballpark number of 5000 black CS graduates. So most of them don't work at Google, obviously. Why aren't the rest of them getting snapped up by every other firm in the tech industry? Better yet, why doesn't the rest of the tech industry show higher numbers of black tech workers on-staff to compensate for Google's embarrassingly low numbers? If Google is only at 1%, why doesn't that leave room for the rest of the tech industry to have 6-7%?

I understand you're hung up on the scarcity problem, and you're absolutely right, it's a very real problem. But the numbers in the tech industry should at least represent the percentages of people available to the tech industry. And they don't. Yes, obviously we need to address socioeconomic inequalities, socialization, education, and a host of other problems to open up that pipeline and increase the diversity in the available pool of talent in tech workforce. But that's just part of the problem, and it doesn't address why the current tech workforce doesn't even adequately represent the current available pool of tech talent.

And really, JQ, from your earlier posts I expected better than for you to misrepresent my arguments as if I'm claiming there's a conspiracy at Google. You can be better than that. I suspect it's very, very rare that anyone intentionally and maliciously sets out to exclude blacks and other minorities from their workforce, in and out of the tech industry. But there are lots of problems with unconscious biases and with using social hierarchies that favor members of the in-group over others. I'm not claiming it's something that people intentionally do, but the social machinery that shapes these kinds of things has been at work for generations, and it affects hiring decisions just as much as it affects the scarcity problem that you're overly focused on. It rings hollow for you to dismiss diverse hiring practices out of hand and then accuse me of ignoring the scarcity problem.

We're on the same page on mentoring. That's why my IT department has an internship program with local tech schools and universities and a program with local high schools to get more minorities and girls hands-on experience working with computers for academic credit. I'm walking the walk and talking the talk, dude.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":2hpx3uof]

JustQuestions[/url]":2hpx3uof]
I'm not really making all that many assumptions, and the ones I am making aren't critical.

I think your view here is skewed because you aren't appreciating just how small all these numbers really are. People think of concepts like "the population" and "the workforce" and they're used to internally representing it as some sort of infinite or endless quantity. It isn't. There's a very finite amount of software engineers (as an example) in total, across all races and gender. And this includes people even just studying to work in these types of professions.

The way you just brush off the scarcity issue so quickly, as if it is only a frivolous concern and not worth discussing in this context, is just vexing to me.

How many CS degrees are conferred to black people per year in the entire USA as of late? Five thousand or so? That sounds like the correct ballpark.

Is that a lot of people to you? Does it sounds like a lot? To me it sounds like almost none. If you are selecting for just the top 5% of them, that only leaves you with a mere 250 people, which is a small enough number that you can just throw a lot of your theories out the window. Individual whim is going to start playing a huge role here. These people can work nearly anywhere they want. They may not have white privilege, they have a better one. They're smart as hell, dedicated, and they have a formal education in computer science and performed well.

And there's only 250 of them. You may ask one why he doesn't work for Google. He tells you he didn't apply. He's too busy working for some foundation trying to make the world a better place. Because this is how specific it's really getting. The numbers are small enough that you may as well try finding some and interviewing them and ask about their experiences and what kind of factors influenced where they applied and what they decided to do with their lives.

Or you can continue to make pointless conjectures about how Google (the premier search company), is conspiring to not hire people because they are black.

It just sounds like you're making some mock outrage for the sake of it to prevent yourself from accepting the hard reality that these sorts of issues take shitloads of time and manpower to fix. There's no easy lever to flip. Changing hiring practices is basically a non-issue and does nothing, because changing hiring practices doesn't make more of these people rise out of the woodwork. They just don't exist to hire in any appreciable quantity, for anybody. What do you do? Advertise a little harder and maybe you get Frank on your team? Then somebody else doesn't get Frank, and there was only one Frank.

This is why I tried to really drill the importance of mentoring a few pages back. Scarcity in tech is to the point where approaching it on an individual basis is entirely justified, preferably from a young age. We're a country of individuals, not statistical concepts. If you want to make a real difference, the thing to do is to take some smart, neglected kid under your wing and offer them the support they need to succeed. Because if you don't offer it, well, nobody else was going to either.

Well, here's the problem with your assumptions on the scarcity issue: Race and Gender Among Computer Science Majors at Stanford

You based your assumptions on Stanford's CS population, so if we look at Stanford we see that blacks make up 6.1% of Stanford's CS majors. But only 1% of Google's tech workforce. If scarcity were the only issue at play, Google's tech workforce should be closer to 6% black than an embarrassingly meager 1%.

I'm not disagreeing with the scarcity issue or dismissing it out of hand, but it's not the only problem. If Google's and other tech firms' hiring practices were true meritocracies, the numbers should be closer to representing actual major/graduation percentages. But that's not what we're seeing. So we already know that there's no real meritocracy. Which means that we can't point the finger solely at scarcity for explaining why non-whites and non-Asians make up such a small percentage of the tech workforce.

And as I said before, even if we take your assumptions about Google's hiring practices as fact, and accept that they really only hire the absolute best of the best, why does the rest of the tech industry have a diversity problem? Let's take your made-up ballpark number of 5000 black CS graduates. So most of them don't work at Google, obviously. Why aren't the rest of them getting snapped up by every other firm in the tech industry? Better yet, why doesn't the rest of the tech industry show higher numbers of black tech workers on-staff to compensate for Google's embarrassingly low numbers? If Google is only at 1%, why doesn't that leave room for the rest of the tech industry to have 6-7%?

I understand you're hung up on the scarcity problem, and you're absolutely right, it's a very real problem. But the numbers in the tech industry should at least represent the percentages of people available to the tech industry. And they don't. Yes, obviously we need to address socioeconomic inequalities, socialization, education, and a host of other problems to open up that pipeline and increase the diversity in the available pool of talent in tech workforce. But that's just part of the problem, and it doesn't address why the current tech workforce doesn't even adequately represent the current available pool of tech talent.

And really, JQ, from your earlier posts I expected better than for you to misrepresent my arguments as if I'm claiming there's a conspiracy at Google. You can be better than that. I suspect it's very, very rare that anyone intentionally and maliciously sets out to exclude blacks and other minorities from their workforce, in and out of the tech industry. But there are lots of problems with unconscious biases and with using social hierarchies that favor members of the in-group over others. I'm not claiming it's something that people intentionally do, but the social machinery that shapes these kinds of things has been at work for generations, and it affects hiring decisions just as much as it affects the scarcity problem that you're overly focused on. It rings hollow for you to dismiss diverse hiring practices out of hand and then accuse me of ignoring the scarcity problem.

We're on the same page on mentoring. That's why my IT department has an internship program with local tech schools and universities and a program with local high schools to get more minorities and girls hands-on experience working with computers for academic credit. I'm walking the walk and talking the talk, dude.

Well, according to the US Census Bureau the majority of STEM graduates DON'T actually work in a STEM field. So, the answer to your question of why Hispanics and AAs are under represented could be that they're more inclined to go into non-STEM jobs after graduation. For example, as I have previously noted, AAs are over represented in government employment so it's quite possible that black STEM graduates end up choosing a government career for one reason or another.

Also, you seem to only be concerned about the alleged (you have provided no evidence that AAs and Hispanics are under represented in STEM overall compared to their STEM graduation rates) under representation of AAs and Hispanics while crusading against your mortal enemy, the straight white male, and completely discounting Asians. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely no evidence of an industry-wide conspiracy to not hire AAs and Hispanics so it's really nothing more than conjecture on your part. Do you have ANY data that shows a breakdown of qualified applicants by race? You keep asking everyone to prove that hiring AAs and Hispanics takes away jobs from straight white males, but you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that qualified AA and Hispanic applicants are systematically discriminated against in STEM employment. Also, you keep referring to these "diverse hiring practices", what exactly does that mean? Are STEM companies supposed to go door to door looking for qualified AA and Hispanic individuals who have the correct qualifications, are looking for a job and want to work at that particular firm? Keep in mind that the vast majority of resumes never even make it to the HR person or hiring manager as most companies employ key word search software to look for certain skills. So, are you saying that these systems are programmed to somehow identify and discard AA and Hispanic applicants? If so, where's your evidence? Keep in mind that "I don't see enough blacks or latinos in tech" does not constitute evidence.

US Census Bureau press release:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re ... 4-130.html

 

[JustQuestions]

itdraugr[/url]":bg95ayg6]Well, here's the problem with your assumptions on the scarcity issue: Race and Gender Among Computer Science Majors at Stanford

You based your assumptions on Stanford's CS population, so if we look at Stanford we see that blacks make up 6.1% of Stanford's CS majors. But only 1% of Google's tech workforce. If scarcity were the only issue at play, Google's tech workforce should be closer to 6% black than an embarrassingly meager 1%.

I'm not disagreeing with the scarcity issue or dismissing it out of hand, but it's not the only problem. If Google's and other tech firms' hiring practices were true meritocracies, the numbers should be closer to representing actual major/graduation percentages. But that's not what we're seeing. So we already know that there's no real meritocracy. Which means that we can't point the finger solely at scarcity for explaining why non-whites and non-Asians make up such a small percentage of the tech workforce.

And as I said before, even if we take your assumptions about Google's hiring practices as fact, and accept that they really only hire the absolute best of the best, why does the rest of the tech industry have a diversity problem? Let's take your made-up ballpark number of 5000 black CS graduates. So most of them don't work at Google, obviously. Why aren't the rest of them getting snapped up by every other firm in the tech industry? Better yet, why doesn't the rest of the tech industry show higher numbers of black tech workers on-staff to compensate for Google's embarrassingly low numbers? If Google is only at 1%, why doesn't that leave room for the rest of the tech industry to have 6-7%?

I understand you're hung up on the scarcity problem, and you're absolutely right, it's a very real problem. But the numbers in the tech industry should at least represent the percentages of people available to the tech industry. And they don't. Yes, obviously we need to address socioeconomic inequalities, socialization, education, and a host of other problems to open up that pipeline and increase the diversity in the available pool of talent in tech workforce. But that's just part of the problem, and it doesn't address why the current tech workforce doesn't even adequately represent the current available pool of tech talent.

And really, JQ, from your earlier posts I expected better than for you to misrepresent my arguments as if I'm claiming there's a conspiracy at Google. You can be better than that. I suspect it's very, very rare that anyone intentionally and maliciously sets out to exclude blacks and other minorities from their workforce, in and out of the tech industry. But there are lots of problems with unconscious biases and with using social hierarchies that favor members of the in-group over others. I'm not claiming it's something that people intentionally do, but the social machinery that shapes these kinds of things has been at work for generations, and it affects hiring decisions just as much as it affects the scarcity problem that you're overly focused on. It rings hollow for you to dismiss diverse hiring practices out of hand and then accuse me of ignoring the scarcity problem.

We're on the same page on mentoring. That's why my IT department has an internship program with local tech schools and universities and a program with local high schools to get more minorities and girls hands-on experience working with computers for academic credit. I'm walking the walk and talking the talk, dude.

OK first of all I'm on my fourth cup of coffee, so this may come off as abrupt and scattered. Bear with me.

One of the major flaws in your reasoning is thinking that the proportions at play here are going to carry over to places like Google (5% black CS majors implies 5% of Google's software devs should be black). They're not. The reason is simple. Google doesn't (nobody does, really) hire based on proportions. They hire the best, because that's how you make the most money.

So your basic premise is saying that a top black CS major is comparable to a top white/asian CS major. Why would that even remotely be the case? There is overwhelmingly more white and asian CS majors. There is room for there to be many 1-in-1000 white/asian CS majors. How many 1-in-1000 black CS majors are there per year? Half a dozen?

The idea here is that these companies hire the very best, period, out of everybody. They don't separate candidates based on race and then hire the very best blacks, and then the very best whites, and then the very best asians, etc. They specifically do not do this. You're compared to the entire pool of applicants.

So, if you have a pool of 90% white/asian and 4% black and 4% hispanic and 2% other, what are the odds that the very best candidates in this pool are going to black? Statistics would say that the number would be LESS than 4%, not equal to 4%.

Furthermore, it's generous to even look at it this way, since there are all sorts of other factors in play. Such as the fact that many more of the white/asian CS majors will be second (or more) generation students. I was a first generation student myself. Shit, my Dad never even graduated High School. I am well aware of how much harder everything is as a first generation student compared to a second generation student, even if you are white and male. Especially in STEM.

Comparatively, a much higher percentage of the black students will be first generation, and this only puts them further behind statistically.

Now, a few other things I'd like to get out of the way. The 5,000 black CS majors wasn't "made up." I was actually baiting you to look it up and find out the real number, and I can assure you that it's very close to the number I noted. Because I checked it. It's different by about 20% only.

Another thing is that I was extremely generous by even choosing CS/software as an example, rather than say engineering. For whatever reason, blacks make up a much higher proportion of CS majors than they do engineering majors. Everything is even worse within engineering, and the numbers are even more skewed against blacks.

I can also let you in on why Google is such an excellent example. Google specializes in search, and this includes talent searching. It would be an easy argument that they are perhaps the best at finding talent in the entire world, as separating wheat from chaff and more generally "the sorting problem" is their entire business. And they're the best at it. So, if Google isn't finding a lot of these hyper-talented black software engineers then it's safe to assume that there aren't a lot of them, period. Do you really believe that Google, of all companies, just needs a hand in the HR department on how to find talented black people, and they just aren't currently doing a good enough job? Again, is this a serious belief that you have? Because it seems so outside of the reality of the situation as to be kind of a joke. Google's ability to draw top talent is the reason they are so successful. That's why their software is so good. They don't just set some minimum bar and hire any random schmuck that exceeds it. They hire the best, only.

As far as I'm concerned, the scarcity problem IS the problem, and even talking about some "hiring problem" is just a joke and a distraction from the actual issues. It's a Human Resources talking point, nothing more.

Another ridiculous thing you posted was about how the "other 5000 black CS graduates should be scooped up." What makes you think any type of graduate just gets "scooped up?"

What, you think some white guy gets a degree in CS, and all the sudden he is inundated with job offers at good companies? No. Of course this does not happen. That only happens to the very best graduates who are capable of being highly productive within the very first year working. Generally it's the people who already did multiple internships and proved their worth by demonstrating that they can actually produce quality work, rather than being a receptive intern or motivated student of the job.

For most people (including whites and asians), it takes a year or two of actually working in the field before they are productive and self sufficient. It's not just some automatic thing like "oh you have a CS degree? Here's your shiny engineer job title and 90k salary!" That's not how the real world works, for anybody.

And furthermore, you completely ignored the small number syndromes at play. The numbers for blacks are small enough that again, their individual whims are going to be statistically significant. A couple dozen black people deciding they want to stay in their home state, or move to a particular place, or work at a particular company, etc etc, are going to influence the results dramatically. You just still seem to fail to appreciate that there's only going to be a few dozen (maximum) top tier black CS graduates per year, in your entire state.

To summarize, we have real and obvious evidence that there is a massive scarcity problem. We have essentially zero evidence that there is some widespread bias in hiring that is causing disparities. The numbers aren't big enough to prove anything like that. .

 

[ApplePaladin]

SteveJobz[/url]":15f6azcj]
Well, according to the US Census Bureau the majority of STEM graduates DON'T actually work in a STEM field. So, the answer to your question of why Hispanics and AAs are under represented could be that they're more inclined to go into non-STEM jobs after graduation. For example, as I have previously noted, AAs are over represented in government employment so it's quite possible that black STEM graduates end up choosing a government career for one reason or another.

Also, you seem to only be concerned about the alleged (you have provided no evidence that AAs and Hispanics are under represented in STEM overall compared to their STEM graduation rates) under representation of AAs and Hispanics while crusading against your mortal enemy, the straight white male, and completely discounting Asians. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely no evidence of an industry-wide conspiracy to not hire AAs and Hispanics so it's really nothing more than conjecture on your part. Do you have ANY data that shows a breakdown of qualified applicants by race? You keep asking everyone to prove that hiring AAs and Hispanics takes away jobs from straight white males, but you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that qualified AA and Hispanic applicants are systematically discriminated against in STEM employment. Also, you keep referring to these "diverse hiring practices", what exactly does that mean? Are STEM companies supposed to go door to door looking for qualified AA and Hispanic individuals who have the correct qualifications, are looking for a job and want to work at that particular firm? Keep in mind that the vast majority of resumes never even make it to the HR person or hiring manager as most companies employ key word search software to look for certain skills. So, are you saying that these systems are programmed to somehow identify and discard AA and Hispanic applicants? If so, where's your evidence? Keep in mind that "I don't see enough blacks or latinos in tech" does not constitute evidence.

US Census Bureau press release:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re ... 4-130.html

If you'd actually bothered to look at the tables in the link you provided you'd see that whites are only 63% of graduates in engineering, but they have 73% of the jobs in engineering.

If you'd actually looked at the breakdown of STEM degrees versus STEM employment, you would have seen that "computers, mathematics and statistics" and "engineering" are both split about 50/50 between STEM and non-STEM employment. If your argument had any merit, then the pool of workers in the STEM field would still more closely resemble the percentages of STEM graduates. But they don't. The tables from your link clearly show the percentages of black and hispanic graduates for those fields is higher than the percentages of employed STEM workers from those same groups. So yes, according to your evidence, they are underrepresented according to their graduation rates. Thanks for that.

While this diatribe on percentages is an amazing distraction, it seems you've gotten confused somewhere along the way because I never specifically advocated targeting percentages.

And that's still not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that diverse hiring practices lead to hiring unqualified candidates. Your evidence shows the inverse - that more whites are being hired for these STEM jobs than exist in the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates.

Look at the tables from your link and do the math: Whites make up 73% of engineers, but only 63% of qualified STEM graduates. That's a pretty big discrepancy that challenges the idea of meritocracy in tech. The tables you provided show that there are more qualified non-Asian minority STEM graduates than are being hired, and that there are more white STEM workers being hired than the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates can account for.

You claimed earlier that:

Reducing the barrier of entry will, obviously, result in less qualified people being hired in order to meet some diversity quota.

Yet you have no evidence to support this position. Indeed, the only evidence you have provided shows that there are plenty of qualified black and hispanic candidates who are not being hired. There is no evidence to support your claim - diverse hiring practices do not "reduce the barrier of entry." It's an unfounded myth.

So, thanks to your data, we see that the numbers of tech workers don't reflect the numbers of tech graduates, even accounting for half working in fields that are non-tech or only tech-related. Thanks again to your data we also see that qualified non-Asian minorities with tech degrees are not getting tech jobs, while tech jobs are being given to whites who lack qualifications. So, again thanks to your data, we can put to bed the myth that diversity in hiring would necessarily take jobs from qualified whites and give them to unqualified non-whites. I shouldn't have to spell this out, but since you seem to adore intentionally misrepresenting my claims, I'll spell out what should simply be an implied caveat: Obviously some bad hiring decisions will get made here and there, but these are systemic issues we're looking at.

So here's the other thing nobody has been able to adequately explain: Why are so many of you acting like diversity in tech is a bad thing?

 

[Viewer]

sylper[/url]":1au73uu2]I'll ask my usual question among the straight white male bashing.

Has there ever been any study showing a causative link between enforced diversity and better corporate outcomes?

On issues like this, you can usually find social science studies supporting opposite conclusions, and with confirmation bias, people can filter out studies that don't say what they want them to say.

One other point on "diversity": much of politics is seizing wealth/status/privilege from one group and giving to another. Political parties try to maximize good will from their parties they give to, and minimize resentment and push back from the groups they steal from. It used to be mostly on class: steal from the rich, give to the poor. Now, it's taken on a more ethnic nature: take from the whites, give to the non-whites. There was always a poisonous resentful nature to this system, but making it so racially focused seems to make it even worse.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":3qwv0m46]

SteveJobz[/url]":3qwv0m46]
Well, according to the US Census Bureau the majority of STEM graduates DON'T actually work in a STEM field. So, the answer to your question of why Hispanics and AAs are under represented could be that they're more inclined to go into non-STEM jobs after graduation. For example, as I have previously noted, AAs are over represented in government employment so it's quite possible that black STEM graduates end up choosing a government career for one reason or another.

Also, you seem to only be concerned about the alleged (you have provided no evidence that AAs and Hispanics are under represented in STEM overall compared to their STEM graduation rates) under representation of AAs and Hispanics while crusading against your mortal enemy, the straight white male, and completely discounting Asians. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely no evidence of an industry-wide conspiracy to not hire AAs and Hispanics so it's really nothing more than conjecture on your part. Do you have ANY data that shows a breakdown of qualified applicants by race? You keep asking everyone to prove that hiring AAs and Hispanics takes away jobs from straight white males, but you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that qualified AA and Hispanic applicants are systematically discriminated against in STEM employment. Also, you keep referring to these "diverse hiring practices", what exactly does that mean? Are STEM companies supposed to go door to door looking for qualified AA and Hispanic individuals who have the correct qualifications, are looking for a job and want to work at that particular firm? Keep in mind that the vast majority of resumes never even make it to the HR person or hiring manager as most companies employ key word search software to look for certain skills. So, are you saying that these systems are programmed to somehow identify and discard AA and Hispanic applicants? If so, where's your evidence? Keep in mind that "I don't see enough blacks or latinos in tech" does not constitute evidence.

US Census Bureau press release:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re ... 4-130.html

If you'd actually bothered to look at the tables in the link you provided you'd see that whites are only 63% of graduates in engineering, but they have 73% of the jobs in engineering.

If you'd actually looked at the breakdown of STEM degrees versus STEM employment, you would have seen that "computers, mathematics and statistics" and "engineering" are both split about 50/50 between STEM and non-STEM employment. If your argument had any merit, then the pool of workers in the STEM field would still more closely resemble the percentages of STEM graduates. But they don't. The tables from your link clearly show the percentages of black and hispanic graduates for those fields is higher than the percentages of employed STEM workers from those same groups. So yes, according to your evidence, they are underrepresented according to their graduation rates. Thanks for that.

While this diatribe on percentages is an amazing distraction, it seems you've gotten confused somewhere along the way because I never specifically advocated targeting percentages.

And that's still not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that diverse hiring practices lead to hiring unqualified candidates. Your evidence shows the inverse - that more whites are being hired for these STEM jobs than exist in the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates.

Look at the tables from your link and do the math: Whites make up 73% of engineers, but only 63% of qualified STEM graduates. That's a pretty big discrepancy that challenges the idea of meritocracy in tech. The tables you provided show that there are more qualified non-Asian minority STEM graduates than are being hired, and that there are more white STEM workers being hired than the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates can account for.

You claimed earlier that:

Reducing the barrier of entry will, obviously, result in less qualified people being hired in order to meet some diversity quota.

Yet you have no evidence to support this position. Indeed, the only evidence you have provided shows that there are plenty of qualified black and hispanic candidates who are not being hired. There is no evidence to support your claim - diverse hiring practices do not "reduce the barrier of entry." It's an unfounded myth.

So, thanks to your data, we see that the numbers of tech workers don't reflect the numbers of tech graduates, even accounting for half working in fields that are non-tech or only tech-related. Thanks again to your data we also see that qualified non-Asian minorities with tech degrees are not getting tech jobs, while tech jobs are being given to whites who lack qualifications. So, again thanks to your data, we can put to bed the myth that diversity in hiring would necessarily take jobs from qualified whites and give them to unqualified non-whites. I shouldn't have to spell this out, but since you seem to adore intentionally misrepresenting my claims, I'll spell out what should simply be an implied caveat: Obviously some bad hiring decisions will get made here and there, but these are systemic issues we're looking at.

So here's the other thing nobody has been able to adequately explain: Why are so many of you acting like diversity in tech is a bad thing?

Well, for one you have a very narrow definition of diversity (anyone besides white males and people of Asian descent) since you completely discount diversity of worldviews or opinions, which is far more important than skin color. And yet, you have still not provided any data showing the breakdown of qualified applicants by race along with percentage hired. Your entire argument is based an ASSUMPTION that blacks and latino applicants are systematically being denied employment based SOLELY on their race. Since you are the one making these extraordinary claims, shouldn't you have at least SOME evidence to back this up?

My stance is, the tech industry does NOT have a diversity problem as evidenced by the fact that Asians (this category encompasses many nationalities and skin tones just so you know) make up a significant chunk of tech workers. I know that you don't believe it, but your argument is EXTREMELY racist at its core. Ultimately, you want companies to prioritize black and latino applicants over whites and Asians in order to satisfy a diversity quota. However, anytime you make race a factor in the hiring decision meritocracy goes right out of the window. Not to mention the fact that you are discriminating against whites and Asian applicants, which is of course racist. So, essentially you want to fight some perceived racism (just your opinion, not reality) by forcing companies to institute racist hiring policies.

 

[Viewer]

itdraugr[/url]":3m3qv6ya]You claimed earlier that:

Reducing the barrier of entry will, obviously, result in less qualified people being hired in order to meet some diversity quota.

Yet you have no evidence to support this position. Indeed, the only evidence you have provided shows that there are plenty of qualified black and hispanic candidates who are not being hired. There is no evidence to support your claim - diverse hiring practices do not "reduce the barrier of entry." It's an unfounded myth.

Either you hire/admit/select based purely on race-neutral merit or you explicitly factor on ethnicity and diversity. There is such a simple direct logic that the the two are mutually exclusive and you can't do both.

Even most supporters of affirmative action and coerced ethnic hiring/admission practices admit this. This is usually justified by historic wrongs or as part of a larger social engineering strategy. To quote Wikipedia on a famous supreme court case:

"In 2003 Justice O'Connor authored a majority Supreme Court opinion (Grutter v. Bollinger) saying racial affirmative action wouldn't be constitutional permanently but long enough to correct past discrimination ─ an approximation limit of around 25 years, or until 2028.[48]"

At some level, denying the basic logic that a pure race-neutral merit selection process is mutually exclusive with explicitly factoring in race is just unreasonable. You are saying this is a myth and there is no evidence. You are just unreasonable.

 

[ApplePaladin]

JustQuestions[/url]":2oj8rshf]

Spoiler

itdraugr[/url]":2oj8rshf]Well, here's the problem with your assumptions on the scarcity issue: Race and Gender Among Computer Science Majors at Stanford

You based your assumptions on Stanford's CS population, so if we look at Stanford we see that blacks make up 6.1% of Stanford's CS majors. But only 1% of Google's tech workforce. If scarcity were the only issue at play, Google's tech workforce should be closer to 6% black than an embarrassingly meager 1%.

I'm not disagreeing with the scarcity issue or dismissing it out of hand, but it's not the only problem. If Google's and other tech firms' hiring practices were true meritocracies, the numbers should be closer to representing actual major/graduation percentages. But that's not what we're seeing. So we already know that there's no real meritocracy. Which means that we can't point the finger solely at scarcity for explaining why non-whites and non-Asians make up such a small percentage of the tech workforce.

And as I said before, even if we take your assumptions about Google's hiring practices as fact, and accept that they really only hire the absolute best of the best, why does the rest of the tech industry have a diversity problem? Let's take your made-up ballpark number of 5000 black CS graduates. So most of them don't work at Google, obviously. Why aren't the rest of them getting snapped up by every other firm in the tech industry? Better yet, why doesn't the rest of the tech industry show higher numbers of black tech workers on-staff to compensate for Google's embarrassingly low numbers? If Google is only at 1%, why doesn't that leave room for the rest of the tech industry to have 6-7%?

I understand you're hung up on the scarcity problem, and you're absolutely right, it's a very real problem. But the numbers in the tech industry should at least represent the percentages of people available to the tech industry. And they don't. Yes, obviously we need to address socioeconomic inequalities, socialization, education, and a host of other problems to open up that pipeline and increase the diversity in the available pool of talent in tech workforce. But that's just part of the problem, and it doesn't address why the current tech workforce doesn't even adequately represent the current available pool of tech talent.

And really, JQ, from your earlier posts I expected better than for you to misrepresent my arguments as if I'm claiming there's a conspiracy at Google. You can be better than that. I suspect it's very, very rare that anyone intentionally and maliciously sets out to exclude blacks and other minorities from their workforce, in and out of the tech industry. But there are lots of problems with unconscious biases and with using social hierarchies that favor members of the in-group over others. I'm not claiming it's something that people intentionally do, but the social machinery that shapes these kinds of things has been at work for generations, and it affects hiring decisions just as much as it affects the scarcity problem that you're overly focused on. It rings hollow for you to dismiss diverse hiring practices out of hand and then accuse me of ignoring the scarcity problem.

We're on the same page on mentoring. That's why my IT department has an internship program with local tech schools and universities and a program with local high schools to get more minorities and girls hands-on experience working with computers for academic credit. I'm walking the walk and talking the talk, dude.

OK first of all I'm on my fourth cup of coffee, so this may come off as abrupt and scattered. Bear with me.

One of the major flaws in your reasoning is thinking that the proportions at play here are going to carry over to places like Google (5% black CS majors implies 5% of Google's software devs should be black). They're not. The reason is simple. Google doesn't (nobody does, really) hire based on proportions. They hire the best, because that's how you make the most money.

So your basic premise is saying that a top black CS major is comparable to a top white/asian CS major. Why would that even remotely be the case? There is overwhelmingly more white and asian CS majors. There is room for there to be many 1-in-1000 white/asian CS majors. How many 1-in-1000 black CS majors are there per year? Half a dozen?

The idea here is that these companies hire the very best, period, out of everybody. They don't separate candidates based on race and then hire the very best blacks, and then the very best whites, and then the very best asians, etc. They specifically do not do this. You're compared to the entire pool of applicants.

So, if you have a pool of 90% white/asian and 4% black and 4% hispanic and 2% other, what are the odds that the very best candidates in this pool are going to black? Statistics would say that the number would be LESS than 4%, not equal to 4%.

Furthermore, it's generous to even look at it this way, since there are all sorts of other factors in play. Such as the fact that many more of the white/asian CS majors will be second (or more) generation students. I was a first generation student myself. Shit, my Dad never even graduated High School. I am well aware of how much harder everything is as a first generation student compared to a second generation student, even if you are white and male. Especially in STEM.

Comparatively, a much higher percentage of the black students will be first generation, and this only puts them further behind statistically.

Now, a few other things I'd like to get out of the way. The 5,000 black CS majors wasn't "made up." I was actually baiting you to look it up and find out the real number, and I can assure you that it's very close to the number I noted. Because I checked it. It's different by about 20% only.

Another thing is that I was extremely generous by even choosing CS/software as an example, rather than say engineering. For whatever reason, blacks make up a much higher proportion of CS majors than they do engineering majors. Everything is even worse within engineering, and the numbers are even more skewed against blacks.

I can also let you in on why Google is such an excellent example. Google specializes in search, and this includes talent searching. It would be an easy argument that they are perhaps the best at finding talent in the entire world, as separating wheat from chaff and more generally "the sorting problem" is their entire business. And they're the best at it. So, if Google isn't finding a lot of these hyper-talented black software engineers then it's safe to assume that there aren't a lot of them, period. Do you really believe that Google, of all companies, just needs a hand in the HR department on how to find talented black people, and they just aren't currently doing a good enough job? Again, is this a serious belief that you have? Because it seems so outside of the reality of the situation as to be kind of a joke. Google's ability to draw top talent is the reason they are so successful. That's why their software is so good. They don't just set some minimum bar and hire any random schmuck that exceeds it. They hire the best, only.

As far as I'm concerned, the scarcity problem IS the problem, and even talking about some "hiring problem" is just a joke and a distraction from the actual issues. It's a Human Resources talking point, nothing more.

Another ridiculous thing you posted was about how the "other 5000 black CS graduates should be scooped up." What makes you think any type of graduate just gets "scooped up?"

What, you think some white guy gets a degree in CS, and all the sudden he is inundated with job offers at good companies? No. Of course this does not happen. That only happens to the very best graduates who are capable of being highly productive within the very first year working. Generally it's the people who already did multiple internships and proved their worth by demonstrating that they can actually produce quality work, rather than being a receptive intern or motivated student of the job.

For most people (including whites and asians), it takes a year or two of actually working in the field before they are productive and self sufficient. It's not just some automatic thing like "oh you have a CS degree? Here's your shiny engineer job title and 90k salary!" That's not how the real world works, for anybody.

And furthermore, you completely ignored the small number syndromes at play. The numbers for blacks are small enough that again, their individual whims are going to be statistically significant. A couple dozen black people deciding they want to stay in their home state, or move to a particular place, or work at a particular company, etc etc, are going to influence the results dramatically. You just still seem to fail to appreciate that there's only going to be a few dozen (maximum) top tier black CS graduates per year, in your entire state.

To summarize, we have real and obvious evidence that there is a massive scarcity problem. We have essentially zero evidence that there is some widespread bias in hiring that is causing disparities. The numbers aren't big enough to prove anything like that. .

The problem appears to be that we're talking past each other, because I'm saying that hiring practices are one of many problems, and you're saying that hiring practices aren't a problem at all. I understand that, because your perspective is that scarcity is the only problem, anything I mention about hiring practices seems like I'm ignoring everything else, because to you there's only the one problem. In a weird way we disagree in agreeing, because I'm right there with you on fixing the way society discourages so many kids from being excited by and pursuing education and careers in STEM. That's a problem. But I think what you're shutting yourself off to is that that isn't the only problem. There are still more diverse tech graduates than there are diverse tech hires. Even accounting for scarcity, that's nothing to be proud of.

The other problem is that I know you wholeheartedly believe that Google only hires the best of the best. But can you really sit there and tell me that you absolutely, honestly believe that whites have a higher "best of the best" percentage? That only 1% of blacks can be the best of the best, but 57% of whites can be the best of the best? Tell me you see how implausible that is.

You keep sticking the conversation on Google, and it's misleading to claim that I'm ignoring the statistical significance of small numbers. You're looking at one company and trying to use their "best of the best" hiring practices (which you haven't shown to be perfectly capable of only and always hiring the best of the best). As I said before, Google not hiring these qualified black tech graduates doesn't explain why no one else is hiring them in proportion to their graduation rates. If, as you say, they "have to start somewhere," then where precisely are all of them starting? Because the numbers seem to be showing that a lot of them aren't starting anywhere.

 

[SteveJobz]

You keep sticking the conversation on Google, and it's misleading to claim that I'm ignoring the statistical significance of small numbers. You're looking at one company and trying to use their "best of the best" hiring practices (which you haven't shown to be perfectly capable of only and always hiring the best of the best). As I said before, Google not hiring these qualified black tech graduates doesn't explain why no one else is hiring them in proportion to their graduation rates. If, as you say, they "have to start somewhere," then where precisely are all of them starting? Because the numbers seem to be showing that a lot of them aren't starting anywhere.

Well, do you have any proof that they are seeking employment in the tech industry? What if a lot of them are going into the public sector (AA over representation in government jobs and lots of government jobs are tech-related nowadays)? Again, your argument rests on the premise that the tech industry is racist despite the fact that other minority groups are greatly over represented. Extraordinary (and in your case illogical) claims require some strong evidence, which you failed to provide.

 

[ApplePaladin]

SteveJobz[/url]"z7xns7o]

Spoiler

itdraugr[/url]"z7xns7o]

SteveJobz[/url]"z7xns7o]
Well, according to the US Census Bureau the majority of STEM graduates DON'T actually work in a STEM field. So, the answer to your question of why Hispanics and AAs are under represented could be that they're more inclined to go into non-STEM jobs after graduation. For example, as I have previously noted, AAs are over represented in government employment so it's quite possible that black STEM graduates end up choosing a government career for one reason or another.

Also, you seem to only be concerned about the alleged (you have provided no evidence that AAs and Hispanics are under represented in STEM overall compared to their STEM graduation rates) under representation of AAs and Hispanics while crusading against your mortal enemy, the straight white male, and completely discounting Asians. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely no evidence of an industry-wide conspiracy to not hire AAs and Hispanics so it's really nothing more than conjecture on your part. Do you have ANY data that shows a breakdown of qualified applicants by race? You keep asking everyone to prove that hiring AAs and Hispanics takes away jobs from straight white males, but you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that qualified AA and Hispanic applicants are systematically discriminated against in STEM employment. Also, you keep referring to these "diverse hiring practices", what exactly does that mean? Are STEM companies supposed to go door to door looking for qualified AA and Hispanic individuals who have the correct qualifications, are looking for a job and want to work at that particular firm? Keep in mind that the vast majority of resumes never even make it to the HR person or hiring manager as most companies employ key word search software to look for certain skills. So, are you saying that these systems are programmed to somehow identify and discard AA and Hispanic applicants? If so, where's your evidence? Keep in mind that "I don't see enough blacks or latinos in tech" does not constitute evidence.

US Census Bureau press release:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re ... 4-130.html

If you'd actually bothered to look at the tables in the link you provided you'd see that whites are only 63% of graduates in engineering, but they have 73% of the jobs in engineering.

If you'd actually looked at the breakdown of STEM degrees versus STEM employment, you would have seen that "computers, mathematics and statistics" and "engineering" are both split about 50/50 between STEM and non-STEM employment. If your argument had any merit, then the pool of workers in the STEM field would still more closely resemble the percentages of STEM graduates. But they don't. The tables from your link clearly show the percentages of black and hispanic graduates for those fields is higher than the percentages of employed STEM workers from those same groups. So yes, according to your evidence, they are underrepresented according to their graduation rates. Thanks for that.

While this diatribe on percentages is an amazing distraction, it seems you've gotten confused somewhere along the way because I never specifically advocated targeting percentages.

And that's still not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that diverse hiring practices lead to hiring unqualified candidates. Your evidence shows the inverse - that more whites are being hired for these STEM jobs than exist in the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates.

Look at the tables from your link and do the math: Whites make up 73% of engineers, but only 63% of qualified STEM graduates. That's a pretty big discrepancy that challenges the idea of meritocracy in tech. The tables you provided show that there are more qualified non-Asian minority STEM graduates than are being hired, and that there are more white STEM workers being hired than the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates can account for.

You claimed earlier that:

Reducing the barrier of entry will, obviously, result in less qualified people being hired in order to meet some diversity quota.

Yet you have no evidence to support this position. Indeed, the only evidence you have provided shows that there are plenty of qualified black and hispanic candidates who are not being hired. There is no evidence to support your claim - diverse hiring practices do not "reduce the barrier of entry." It's an unfounded myth.

So, thanks to your data, we see that the numbers of tech workers don't reflect the numbers of tech graduates, even accounting for half working in fields that are non-tech or only tech-related. Thanks again to your data we also see that qualified non-Asian minorities with tech degrees are not getting tech jobs, while tech jobs are being given to whites who lack qualifications. So, again thanks to your data, we can put to bed the myth that diversity in hiring would necessarily take jobs from qualified whites and give them to unqualified non-whites. I shouldn't have to spell this out, but since you seem to adore intentionally misrepresenting my claims, I'll spell out what should simply be an implied caveat: Obviously some bad hiring decisions will get made here and there, but these are systemic issues we're looking at.

So here's the other thing nobody has been able to adequately explain: Why are so many of you acting like diversity in tech is a bad thing?

Well, for one you have a very narrow definition of diversity (anyone besides white males and people of Asian descent) since you completely discount diversity of worldviews or opinions, which is far more important than skin color. And yet, you have still not provided any data showing the breakdown of qualified applicants by race along with percentage hired. Your entire argument is based an ASSUMPTION that blacks and latino applicants are systematically being denied employment based SOLELY on their race. Since you are the one making these extraordinary claims, shouldn't you have at least SOME evidence to back this up?

My stance is, the tech industry does NOT have a diversity problem as evidenced by the fact that Asians (this category encompasses many nationalities and skin tones just so you know) make up a significant chunk of tech workers. I know that you don't believe it, but your argument is EXTREMELY racist at its core. Ultimately, you want companies to prioritize black and latino applicants over whites and Asians in order to satisfy a diversity quota. However, anytime you make race a factor in the hiring decision meritocracy goes right out of the window. Not to mention the fact that you are discriminating against whites and Asian applicants, which is of course racist. So, essentially you want to fight what some perceived racism (just your opinion, not reality) by forcing companies to institute racist hiring policies.

You don't have enough data to say that I have a narrow definition of diversity. I was using the tables from the link you provided, which shows a limited number of racial and gender categories. When you provide the information that defines the data sets, you don't get to complain about the definitions.

You're also conveniently ignoring other examples of diversity I used earlier in the discussion thread. I suppose being honest is just too much to ask of you.

You're continuing to misrepresent my arguments, so since you won't engage in good faith it's impossible to have a worthwhile discussion with you. Just crying "racist" because you don't like that I'm advocating diversity based on the fact that whites are overrepresented in tech isn't productive. Frankly, it just makes you look as deluded as all of the racists who rant about "white genocide" because their fragile sense of identity is being challenged by the growing visibility of people of color.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":3r20h18e]

SteveJobz[/url]":3r20h18e]

Spoiler

itdraugr[/url]":3r20h18e]

SteveJobz[/url]":3r20h18e]
Well, according to the US Census Bureau the majority of STEM graduates DON'T actually work in a STEM field. So, the answer to your question of why Hispanics and AAs are under represented could be that they're more inclined to go into non-STEM jobs after graduation. For example, as I have previously noted, AAs are over represented in government employment so it's quite possible that black STEM graduates end up choosing a government career for one reason or another.

Also, you seem to only be concerned about the alleged (you have provided no evidence that AAs and Hispanics are under represented in STEM overall compared to their STEM graduation rates) under representation of AAs and Hispanics while crusading against your mortal enemy, the straight white male, and completely discounting Asians. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely no evidence of an industry-wide conspiracy to not hire AAs and Hispanics so it's really nothing more than conjecture on your part. Do you have ANY data that shows a breakdown of qualified applicants by race? You keep asking everyone to prove that hiring AAs and Hispanics takes away jobs from straight white males, but you provide ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that qualified AA and Hispanic applicants are systematically discriminated against in STEM employment. Also, you keep referring to these "diverse hiring practices", what exactly does that mean? Are STEM companies supposed to go door to door looking for qualified AA and Hispanic individuals who have the correct qualifications, are looking for a job and want to work at that particular firm? Keep in mind that the vast majority of resumes never even make it to the HR person or hiring manager as most companies employ key word search software to look for certain skills. So, are you saying that these systems are programmed to somehow identify and discard AA and Hispanic applicants? If so, where's your evidence? Keep in mind that "I don't see enough blacks or latinos in tech" does not constitute evidence.

US Census Bureau press release:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re ... 4-130.html

If you'd actually bothered to look at the tables in the link you provided you'd see that whites are only 63% of graduates in engineering, but they have 73% of the jobs in engineering.

If you'd actually looked at the breakdown of STEM degrees versus STEM employment, you would have seen that "computers, mathematics and statistics" and "engineering" are both split about 50/50 between STEM and non-STEM employment. If your argument had any merit, then the pool of workers in the STEM field would still more closely resemble the percentages of STEM graduates. But they don't. The tables from your link clearly show the percentages of black and hispanic graduates for those fields is higher than the percentages of employed STEM workers from those same groups. So yes, according to your evidence, they are underrepresented according to their graduation rates. Thanks for that.

While this diatribe on percentages is an amazing distraction, it seems you've gotten confused somewhere along the way because I never specifically advocated targeting percentages.

And that's still not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that diverse hiring practices lead to hiring unqualified candidates. Your evidence shows the inverse - that more whites are being hired for these STEM jobs than exist in the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates.

Look at the tables from your link and do the math: Whites make up 73% of engineers, but only 63% of qualified STEM graduates. That's a pretty big discrepancy that challenges the idea of meritocracy in tech. The tables you provided show that there are more qualified non-Asian minority STEM graduates than are being hired, and that there are more white STEM workers being hired than the actual pool of qualified white STEM graduates can account for.

You claimed earlier that:

Reducing the barrier of entry will, obviously, result in less qualified people being hired in order to meet some diversity quota.

Yet you have no evidence to support this position. Indeed, the only evidence you have provided shows that there are plenty of qualified black and hispanic candidates who are not being hired. There is no evidence to support your claim - diverse hiring practices do not "reduce the barrier of entry." It's an unfounded myth.

So, thanks to your data, we see that the numbers of tech workers don't reflect the numbers of tech graduates, even accounting for half working in fields that are non-tech or only tech-related. Thanks again to your data we also see that qualified non-Asian minorities with tech degrees are not getting tech jobs, while tech jobs are being given to whites who lack qualifications. So, again thanks to your data, we can put to bed the myth that diversity in hiring would necessarily take jobs from qualified whites and give them to unqualified non-whites. I shouldn't have to spell this out, but since you seem to adore intentionally misrepresenting my claims, I'll spell out what should simply be an implied caveat: Obviously some bad hiring decisions will get made here and there, but these are systemic issues we're looking at.

So here's the other thing nobody has been able to adequately explain: Why are so many of you acting like diversity in tech is a bad thing?

Well, for one you have a very narrow definition of diversity (anyone besides white males and people of Asian descent) since you completely discount diversity of worldviews or opinions, which is far more important than skin color. And yet, you have still not provided any data showing the breakdown of qualified applicants by race along with percentage hired. Your entire argument is based an ASSUMPTION that blacks and latino applicants are systematically being denied employment based SOLELY on their race. Since you are the one making these extraordinary claims, shouldn't you have at least SOME evidence to back this up?

My stance is, the tech industry does NOT have a diversity problem as evidenced by the fact that Asians (this category encompasses many nationalities and skin tones just so you know) make up a significant chunk of tech workers. I know that you don't believe it, but your argument is EXTREMELY racist at its core. Ultimately, you want companies to prioritize black and latino applicants over whites and Asians in order to satisfy a diversity quota. However, anytime you make race a factor in the hiring decision meritocracy goes right out of the window. Not to mention the fact that you are discriminating against whites and Asian applicants, which is of course racist. So, essentially you want to fight what some perceived racism (just your opinion, not reality) by forcing companies to institute racist hiring policies.

You don't have enough data to say that I have a narrow definition of diversity. I was using the tables from the link you provided, which shows four racial categories and two gender categories. When you provide the information that defines the data sets, you don't get to complain about the definitions.

You're also conveniently ignoring other examples of diversity I used earlier in the discussion thread. I suppose being honest is just too much to ask of you.

You're continuing to misrepresent my arguments, so since you won't engage in good faith it's impossible to have a worthwhile discussion with you. Just crying "racist" because you don't like that I'm advocating diversity based on the fact that whites are overrepresented in tech isn't productive. Frankly, it just makes you look as deluded as all of the racists who rant about "white genocide" because their fragile sense of identity is being challenged by the growing visibility of people of color.

Why are you so fixated with straight white males (did one kick your dog or steal your girlfriend?) when Asians is the group that is greatly over represented in tech employment? Should the straight Asian male play the role of the boogeyman in this case? I don't have a problem with a sense of identity, in fact my spouse is not white and I have a bi-racial child (I guess he would technically be considered black like Obama). I have a problem with your argument, because it holds no water. You are just making ridiculous assumptions about blacks and latinos being systematically discriminated against when it comes to tech employment with no solid evidence to back that up.

Again, can you provide a breakdown of qualified tech applicants (let's say those who get to the interview stage are considered qualified) by race and percentage hired? Based on those numbers, are blacks and latino applicants being turned down at a higher rate than whites? Since Asians make up a very significant number of tech workers (including MS and Google CEO positions), does that mean that straight white males only discriminate against blacks and latinos? If so, what proof do you have to that effect?

 

[Viewer]

itdraugr[/url]":4kcttbui]
The other problem is that I know you wholeheartedly believe that Google only hires the best of the best. But can you really sit there and tell me that you absolutely, honestly believe that whites have a higher "best of the best" percentage? That only 1% of blacks can be the best of the best, but 57% of whites can be the best of the best? Tell me you see how implausible that is.

Google's current 2016 reported racial employment stats are 59%/2%/3%/32% racially white/black/hispanic/asian.

That doesn't mean that 59% of whites are best of the best, it means 59% of the people Google hired (and didn't quit or get fired) are white. And of course, there are more whites and asians in that field and applying to tech jobs at Google than blacks and hispanics.

Also, NFL football players are ~68% ethnically black after a quick google search. No field is supposed to be demographically representative with the broader population.

 

[SteveJobz]

Viewer[/url]":15e3e02o]

itdraugr[/url]":15e3e02o]
The other problem is that I know you wholeheartedly believe that Google only hires the best of the best. But can you really sit there and tell me that you absolutely, honestly believe that whites have a higher "best of the best" percentage? That only 1% of blacks can be the best of the best, but 57% of whites can be the best of the best? Tell me you see how implausible that is.

Google's current 2016 reported racial employment stats are 59%/2%/3%/32% racially white/black/hispanic/asian.

That doesn't mean that 59% of whites are best of the best, it means 59% of the people Google hired (and didn't quite or get fired) are white. And of course, there are more whites and asians in that field and applying to tech jobs at Google than blacks and hispanics.

Also, NFL football players are ~68% ethnically black after a quick google search. No field is supposed to be demographically representative with the broader population.

Isn't it interesting how the SJW types never have a problem with blacks being vastly over represented in the NBA or NFL? According to itdraugr's logic shouldn't this be a far more pressing issue than the tech sector? In fact, I DEMAND that NBA and NFL institute "diversity hiring" policies right this moment!

 

[Viewer]

SteveJobz[/url]":7ze8b1bh]
Isn't it interesting how the SJW types never have a problem with blacks being vastly over represented in the NBA or NFL? According to itdraugr's logic shouldn't this be a far more pressing issue than the tech sector? In fact, I DEMAND that NBA and NFL institute "diversity hiring" policies right this moment!

There is no political constituency supporting government pressure to seize high paying, high prestige sports player jobs from blacks and give to whites/asians.

There is a political constituency supporting government pressure to seize high paying tech jobs from whites/asians and give to blacks and maybe hispanics.

 

[MaximusTech]

I hate seeing otherwise (at least ostensibly) educated people decompose into idiotic flambait posters. That applies to most of the last few pages, at least. This is a combination of psychological effects, where those skilled in singular areas with limited scope assume their expertise applies to other fields, and also whatever thrill seeking powers the kids who are blatantly misinterpreting issues in false equivalencies.

The issue is one where truly random sampling results in greater representation than exists, and one where skill-based but still random sampling still results in greater representation than exists. This means there are problems in HR hiring practices because they are failing to produce the greatest benefits for their firms. Diversity pursuit isn't a gift to any individuals, it is rather the acknowledgement of the business benefits acquired when it exists. Fake "complaints" created in response to material social problems are simply deceptive arguments, and fail to add anything to any discussion aimed at a practical improvement.

 

[Bengie25]

JustQuestions[/url]":3pcq41qu]
Even with the matter of women, culturally our society trains young girls to be interested in "girl" things" and trains boys to be interested in "boy things." Right now, fiddling with gadgets and programming computers is on the "boy things" side of the fence.

Ahh... the non gifted or talented. Anyone exceptionally good at something pretty much never cared what others thought. If a child's interests are easily influenced, they'll never be great at something.

Short of being a starving artist, great people do what they love. For the rest of society that don't know what they want to be when they grow up.... How? Do they not know what they love to do? Are they that extroverted that they have to define themselves entirely by others?

Too many reports are full of idealist propaganda. Trying to paint human ability as a bell-curve. Sorry people, it's a power curve, and 80% are below average. Yes, individual skills can be on a bell-curve, but guess what happens when you take a group of individual skills that complement each other, you get a power curve. Funny that.

Find what you're good at and be in that top 20%. Don't let others tell you what you should do.

 

[Viewer]

MaximusTech[/url]":x1algtu3]I hate seeing otherwise (at least ostensibly) educated people decompose into idiotic flambait posters. That applies to most of the last few pages, at least. This is a combination of psychological effects, where those skilled in singular areas with limited scope assume their expertise applies to other fields, and also whatever thrill seeking powers the kids who are blatantly misinterpreting issues in false equivalencies.

The issue is one where truly random sampling results in greater representation than exists, and one where skill-based but still random sampling still results in greater representation than exists. This means there are problems in HR hiring practices because they are failing to produce the greatest benefits for their firms. Diversity pursuit isn't a gift to any individuals, it is rather the acknowledgement of the business benefits acquired when it exists. Fake "complaints" created in response to material social problems are simply deceptive arguments, and fail to add anything to any discussion aimed at a practical improvement.

When you say that "there are problems in HR hiring practices because they are failing to produce the greatest benefits for their firms", so sure, often firms recognize that their hiring practices aren't getting the best talent and they adjust their hiring practices accordingly.

When outside groups with ideological or political motivation recognize problems with a firm's hiring practices, the natural suspicion is that they are not actually concerned with the firm's best interest but with their own ideological or political goals.

 

[MaximusTech]

There are no outside powers here, this is about the IT industry in Silicon Valley attempting to duplicate the successful practices from other industries. In management that is typical practice, and especially this concept bringing more consumer focus has more validity than most of the fads of the past decades like TQM that failed to really understand processes before trying to duplicate them. Consumer knowledge is the real source of differentiation between these companies now. In regards to competitiveness, largely it is the top-tier world-class service companies that have already completed significant efforts in every other profitably addressed facet but which neglected diversity due to their lack of awareness of problems, which is the very problem diversity helps them to effectively address. This is what is being addressed.

As for the source of the resentment and suspicion in this thread, I believe it is the misinterpretation of core vocabulary and carry-over spite from other areas that causes much of it, not just here but throughout the IT industry. Ageism is real, as is racism, able-ism, and sexism. The active opposition to all of those and more is the meaning of the pursuit of diversity. No characteristics unrelated to real world work performance should be a part of hiring decisions. In the US all above are illegal, without reservation. Even the army is integrated in full, while there are still recruitment issues with economic inequality resulting in more minority recruitment in many areas it is at least acknowledged.

For those in doubt, for example see: Esty, K., R. Griffi and M. Schorr-Hirsh. 1995. Workplace diversity. A manager’s guide to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage. Avon, MA: Adams Media Corporation. This is a 20+ year old text in HR and management providing a thorough argument for diversity in the workplace for tangible benefits.

 

[boondox]

I think it's important to state the obvious to those with problems with diversity in general - that it's not a zero-sum game.

You can hire people from different walks of life without feeling or thinking that you've lost something precious or essential to your well-being.

"There's enough for everyone to go around."

No need to clutch those database pearls or your network purse when a person of colour/woman/retiree walks into your server room. Once they can do the job, especially if they can do it better than you can, you should welcome, not fear, them.

 

[.劉煒]

Pretty sure that it's zero-sum, in the sense that most orgs have a fixed budget for headcount.

 

[shieldw0lf]

JustQuestions[/url]":mmy6avy0]

shieldw0lf[/url]":mmy6avy0]IT is the sort of profession that doesn't require an education, and doesn't require expensive tools, and therefore doesn't require an employer.

Of all the professions, it is the least susceptable to gatekeepers, the least susceptable to nepotism. You can do good work and make a fortune, literally without anyone knowing what you look like.

If you can't find work in this sector, you don't deserve to work in this sector.

This doesn't line up with reality.

There are people who don't care about your educational background, but it's less and less. It is very common these days for employers to want to see a degree in computer science.

It's possible to make a lot of money working for yourself in something like web development, but you're staking a lot in your ability to market yourself and find continuous work. It's easy for talent to get lost in the shuffle.

I think it's quite possible to make a lot of money and get jobs in IT without much of a formal education, but it's not necessarily any easier to do this in IT than in many other jobs. Shit, there's a guy near me who started with a push lawnmower a few years ago and grew it into a successful landscaping business in a few short years. He's making more money than many software developers make.

Even claiming that you "don't need tools in IT" is absurd. Of course you need tools.

IT is a great line of work, but it's not some holy grail of meritocracy and job entry. There are human resource gatekeeper pricks everywhere, in every line of work.

I said you don't need expensive tools.

I've literally set my phone up so I can sit at the bar with a Scotch in my hand and develop code, then deploy it to an Amazon EC2 instance, which is free for the first year.

Though, you'd obviously be better off with a PC. Which pretty much everyone owns anyway.

Contast that with, say, a mechanic, or a carpenter, and it's pretty fucking cheap.

And, frankly, no one has EVER asked about my education. They look at my portfolio, we discuss the work they need done, and I start working. Been that way for going on two decades.

Talking about being an entrepreneur is irrelevant. Entrepreneurs are, speaking generally, paid for creating and maintaining a structured team, not for the actual doing of work.

 

[MaximusTech]

Zero sum refers to a fixed total; while you refer to budgets that has a time characteristic applying to sequential periods each influenced by the previous to various degrees. That means the effect of a hiring decision depends on the contributions to the firm, to the growth they enable. In that sense, and due to the advantages from creating a better work environment, better consumer knowledge, and improvements in innovation (not the same as raw spending by a long shot) so there is no fixed sum of anything.

 

[Viewer]

boondox[/url]":2m5q00zb]
No need to clutch those database pearls or your network purse when a person of colour/woman/retiree walks into your server room. Once they can do the job, especially if they can do it better than you can, you should welcome, not fear, them.

If the "person of color" is better skilled than the white person complaining here, then they should have no problem competing in a race-blind merit system.

Even the white people complaining here are advocating for a race blind system, so if a person is hired for a desirable job, it shouldn't matter what their race or skin color is. It shouldn't matter to them as a coworker, and it shouldn't matter to the hiring process.

 

[boondox]

Viewer[/url]":qg49gmm6]

boondox[/url]":qg49gmm6]
No need to clutch those database pearls or your network purse when a person of colour/woman/retiree walks into your server room. Once they can do the job, especially if they can do it better than you can, you should welcome, not fear, them.

If the "person of color" is better skilled than the white person complaining here, then they should have no problem competing in a race-blind merit system.

...and I'm sure they won't. They'd probably welcome the opportunity to be part of said system in the first place.

Even the white people complaining here are advocating for a race blind system, so if a person is hired for a desirable job, it shouldn't matter what their race or skin color is. It shouldn't matter to them as a coworker, and it shouldn't matter to the hiring process.

Exactly. No need for anyone's panties to bunch.

 

[boondox]

SteveJobz[/url]":248odzlr]

Spoiler

Viewer[/url]":248odzlr]

itdraugr[/url]":248odzlr]
The other problem is that I know you wholeheartedly believe that Google only hires the best of the best. But can you really sit there and tell me that you absolutely, honestly believe that whites have a higher "best of the best" percentage? That only 1% of blacks can be the best of the best, but 57% of whites can be the best of the best? Tell me you see how implausible that is.

Google's current 2016 reported racial employment stats are 59%/2%/3%/32% racially white/black/hispanic/asian.

That doesn't mean that 59% of whites are best of the best, it means 59% of the people Google hired (and didn't quite or get fired) are white. And of course, there are more whites and asians in that field and applying to tech jobs at Google than blacks and hispanics.

Also, NFL football players are ~68% ethnically black after a quick google search. No field is supposed to be demographically representative with the broader population.

Isn't it interesting how the SJW types never have a problem with blacks being vastly over represented in the NBA or NFL? According to itdraugr's logic shouldn't this be a far more pressing issue than the tech sector? In fact, I DEMAND that NBA and NFL institute "diversity hiring" policies right this moment!

Ah, the sporting arena. An arena where you can truly succeed based on your efforts, barring those who resort to doping to get ahead.

You do realize that most "blacks" were brought to "the New World" to do manual Labour, right? And that brawn and physical aptitude were traits that were desired and bred into their descendants? Athletics were one of the few areas where blacks were "allowed" to compete without restrictions both against each other and against others'of different races.

Why are you then surprised at their dominance today in fields that require strength, speed and agility?

Here's something for you to ponder; could the performance of Jesse Owens and the other black American athletes in the 1936 Berlin Olympics be considered motivational and critical to the Allies' winning of the Second World War?

What would've happened had the US Team not been racially diverse and inclusive?

 

[Viewer]

boondox[/url]":3k8xxhhn]
You do realize that most "blacks" were brought to "the New World" to do manual Labour, right?

Everyone did manual labor. The whites that founded the US were mostly an agrarian people of farmers. Do you think that they got cushy desk jobs and iPhones?

boondox[/url]":3k8xxhhn]
And that brawn and physical aptitude were traits that were desired and bred into their descendants? Athletics were one of the few areas where blacks were "allowed" to compete without restrictions both against each other and against others'of different races.

Humans in general have evolved as mostly hunter gatherers. Agriculture and farming are only ~12,000 years old. Every living person of every ethnic group has ancestors that were both slaves and slavers.

boondox[/url]":3k8xxhhn]
What would've happened had the US Team not been racially diverse and inclusive?

The US team would not be as competitive if they didn't adopt a strict meritocratic mindset. Athletics and olympics aren't trying to be "diverse" or "representative" or proportionate with the population, just strictly merit focused. So if certain ethic groups are under represented like Hindus and Americans of ethnic Hindu descent, there is no systemic effort to change that or include them.

 

[logic_88]

MaximusTech[/url]":1cbmlyx8]Zero sum refers to a fixed total; while you refer to budgets that has a time characteristic applying to sequential periods each influenced by the previous to various degrees. That means the effect of a hiring decision depends on the contributions to the firm, to the growth they enable. In that sense, and due to the advantages from creating a better work environment, better consumer knowledge, and improvements in innovation (not the same as raw spending by a long shot) so there is no fixed sum of anything.

It's zero-sum in that you can only add to 100% when looking at a company's diversity numbers.

For example, if a company is 60/30/6/4 (White/Asian/Hispanic/Black) and you want the double the Hispanic/Black percentage, you need to subtract 10% from either the White or Asian portion.

 

[boondox]

Viewer[/url]":knmkvsfr]

boondox[/url]":knmkvsfr]
You do realize that most "blacks" were brought to "the New World" to do manual Labour, right?

Everyone did manual labor. The whites that founded the US were mostly an agrarian people of farmers. Do you think that they got cushy desk jobs and iPhones?

Now you're being ridiculous and obtuse. Everyone did manual labour, yes... but some did more (and were brought to America to do more) than others.

boondox[/url]":knmkvsfr]
And that brawn and physical aptitude were traits that were desired and bred into their descendants? Athletics were one of the few areas where blacks were "allowed" to compete without restrictions both against each other and against others'of different races.

Humans in general have evolved as mostly hunter gatherers. Agriculture and farming are only ~12,000 years old. Every living person of every ethnic group has ancestors that were both slaves and slavers.

Again, being ridiculous and obtuse...and ignoring my salient point, but why should I be surprised?

boondox[/url]":knmkvsfr]
What would've happened had the US Team not been racially diverse and inclusive?

The US team would not be as competitive if they didn't adopt a strict meritocratic mindset. Athletics and olympics aren't trying to be "diverse" or "representative" or proportionate with the population, just strictly merit focused. So if certain ethic groups are under represented like Hindus and Americans of ethnic Hindu descent, there is no systemic effort to change that or include them.

My point was that the team was able to accomplish more because it was diverse, allowing some of those who qualified to compete (there were a few women and men who were benched for various reasons), regardless of race and gender. If other aspects of modern living and professional life adopted a similar approach, we'd all be better off. If an all white team had gone on to compete, despite there being better performing athletes capable of winning their events, I'd wager we'd both possibly having this conversation in German instead of English.

Historically though, that hasn't always been the case, as society prevented varying groups from having access to educational, professional, recreational and other facilities due to religious, sexual, racial and other forms of discrimination.

I'm done here. I wish you and everyone else all the best that life has to offer.

 

[Einstein76]

Ser Dood[/url]":2ihawqpf]

Einstein76[/url]":2ihawqpf]

TurboPower[/url]":2ihawqpf]

SteveJobz[/url]":2ihawqpf]

bigstrat2003[/url]":2ihawqpf]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!

He's certainly a troll, he may or may not be a racist.

Edit: Wow! Did Stevejobz register 5 extra accounts or am I really getting that many downvotes for calling out someone who is obviously a troll?

I am going to go with more people agree with him than you. Stop sniffing your own farts, they don't smell good.

He has a history of trolling the comments. That said his posts in this thread seem well thought out and I apologize for calling him a troll when he doesn't appear to be trolling this article.

You on the other hand are welcome to fuck right off.

 

[Einstein76]

SteveJobz[/url]":10ml7vug]

Ser Dood[/url]":10ml7vug]

Einstein76[/url]":10ml7vug]

TurboPower[/url]":10ml7vug]

SteveJobz[/url]":10ml7vug]

bigstrat2003[/url]":10ml7vug]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!

He's certainly a troll, he may or may not be a racist.

Edit: Wow! Did Stevejobz register 5 extra accounts or am I really getting that many downvotes for calling out someone who is obviously a troll?

I am going to go with more people agree with him than you. Stop sniffing your own farts, they don't smell good.

This one's for you Einstein:

Wow guess maybe I should rescind my previous apology.

This is a perfect example of why I label you a troll.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

itdraugr[/url]":39e9y77o]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.

Or they get their wookie in a tangle when their opinion is deliberately misstated.

The problem is everyone is talking past one another.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

Viewer[/url]":15nl7bus]There is no political constituency supporting government pressure to seize high paying, high prestige sports player jobs from blacks and give to whites/asians.

Well you just dashed my hopes of being an NBA star. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

Viewer[/url]":78xzwvu9]On issues like this, you can usually find social science studies supporting opposite conclusions, and with confirmation bias, people can filter out studies that don't say what they want them to say.

Or they are just trying to draw trend lines over data noise.

 

[j.biggs]

Why should skin color take precedence over qualifications? So if I apply for a job and am better qualified than someone of a different race, they should get it because they have a different skin color? How is that not prejudice? Why not look at college graduation in certain fields? Are tech graduates evenly diversified among all races? HAHAHAHAH, of course not. This whole diversity workforce theme is hogwash. If ethnicities are underrepresented in these useless statistics, then maybe these underrepresented ethnicities need to graduate with relevant degrees more frequently.

 

[dnjake]

The demand for diversity in tech comes from sexists or racists who think their sex or their race entitles them to some quota of the rewards. The fact of American technology employment is a very large amount of international diversity with an high representation of Indians and Chinese among others. That high representation is the result of the reality that the tech industry depends on particularly skilled employees and looks for them wherever they can be found. Asians have been particularly successful in using their technical skills and the pursuit of education to move up the American social ladder. The reality of one substantial tech company, IBM, that I happen to know from personal experience has been an effort to encourage diversity that goes back more than 30 years. The sexist effort to demand more privileges for women is particularly based on politics. Women have had a position in the tech world for decades that goes far beyond the threshold that might justify some kind of affirmative action. In my two decades of working as a tech professional women were always part of my world. I never saw a case where a woman was held back because of her sex. African Americans and Africans in general are a more difficult case. IBM certainly succeeded in finding African Americans to move up the career ladder. During the later part of my work at IBM in the late 1990s, my sixth level manager was African American. But IBM did not find as many qualified African Americans as it wanted. The limited presence of African Americans does still seem to be at a level that justifies some concern that the inevitable profiling that results from that limited presence could be a barrier to recognizing the abilities of particular individuals. But, this problem is part of the particular problem that African Americans have had moving up the American economic ladder and not some general problem of the tech industry only employing privileged males of European ancestry.