Jump to content

Diversity in American tech companies


rukawa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tech companies are supposedly non-diverse. Most people think its because there are too many white people. Here is the racial breakdown of Uber:

White: 50%

Asian: 33%

Black: 9%

Latino: 8.3%

 

Here is the breakdown for America as a whole:

White: 72%

Asian: 5%

Black: 12.6%

Latino: 16.3%

 

Diversity efforts are supposed to come at the expense of whites who are the dominant group. But white are already grossly underrepresented. Now of course since no one defends whites except racists and since whites are dominant in the executive suites...well the implication is obvious. White will continue to be made to suffer for the sins of...Asians. What is the sin of Asians? Well to be better educated than everyone else I guess.

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this is fair to anyone and how it won't lead to huge problems in the future. People keep defending this bullshit and I honestly don't get why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tech companies are supposedly non-diverse. Most people think its because there are too many white people. Here is the racial breakdown of Uber:

White: 50%

Asian: 33%

Black: 9%

Latino: 8.3%

 

Here is the breakdown for America as a whole:

White: 72%

Asian: 5%

Black: 12.6%

Latino: 16.3%

 

Diversity efforts are supposed to come at the expense of whites who are the dominant group. But white are already grossly underrepresented. Now of course since no one defends whites except racists and since whites are dominant in the executive suites...well the implication is obvious. White will continue to be made to suffer for the sins of...Asians. What is the sin of Asians? Well to be better educated than everyone else I guess.

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this is fair to anyone and how it won't lead to huge problems in the future. People keep defending this bullshit and I honestly don't get why.

 

Because Progressivism has become a religion and Diversity is one of their sacraments.  Why not just always hire the best person you can find for any given job regardless of race, gender, or who they have sex with?  Because that's a cardinal sin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the logic of diversity. Why not add more asians to the NBA teams?

 

Tech companies are supposedly non-diverse. Most people think its because there are too many white people. Here is the racial breakdown of Uber:

White: 50%

Asian: 33%

Black: 9%

Latino: 8.3%

 

Here is the breakdown for America as a whole:

White: 72%

Asian: 5%

Black: 12.6%

Latino: 16.3%

 

Diversity efforts are supposed to come at the expense of whites who are the dominant group. But white are already grossly underrepresented. Now of course since no one defends whites except racists and since whites are dominant in the executive suites...well the implication is obvious. White will continue to be made to suffer for the sins of...Asians. What is the sin of Asians? Well to be better educated than everyone else I guess.

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this is fair to anyone and how it won't lead to huge problems in the future. People keep defending this bullshit and I honestly don't get why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a professional level, I trained and worked in a field dominated by men (about 90 to 95%) and the main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

One of my daughters is entering a field (technology related) dominated by men. The main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

I don’t like nonspecific reverse discrimination or cabbage-brain ideological solutions but the university where my daughter goes has some policies in place to deal with the side effects related to historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. Some would suggest that the university is trying to change the ‘natural’ course of history but things really started to happen after somebody fighting feminism who felt women had no place in that school broke into classes in 1989 and shot 14 women dead.

 

Because you did something yesterday does not mean you should do it today and that often has very little to do with effort or merit. Diversity (racial or otherwise, technology or otherwise) is not a goal by itself but one should at least think about the artificial barriers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a professional level, I trained and worked in a field dominated by men (about 90 to 95%) and the main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

One of my daughters is entering a field (technology related) dominated by men. The main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

I don’t like nonspecific reverse discrimination or cabbage-brain ideological solutions but the university where my daughter goes has some policies in place to deal with the side effects related to historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. Some would suggest that the university is trying to change the ‘natural’ course of history but things really started to happen after somebody fighting feminism who felt women had no place in that school broke into classes in 1989 and shot 14 women dead.

 

Because you did something yesterday does not mean you should do it today and that often has very little to do with effort or merit. Diversity (racial or otherwise, technology or otherwise) is not a goal by itself but one should at least think about the artificial barriers.

 

Sure artificial barriers should be identified and torn down.  I don't think anyone reasonable opposes that.  But at the same time, strongly encouraging young girls to go into fields of study that they might not find as enjoyable as other fields just so the college and future employers can feel good about their gender statistics at the expense of her happiness isn't preferable either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tech companies are supposedly non-diverse. Most people think its because there are too many white people. Here is the racial breakdown of Uber:

White: 50%

Asian: 33%

Black: 9%

Latino: 8.3%

 

Here is the breakdown for America as a whole:

White: 72%

Asian: 5%

Black: 12.6%

Latino: 16.3%

 

Diversity efforts are supposed to come at the expense of whites who are the dominant group. But white are already grossly underrepresented. Now of course since no one defends whites except racists and since whites are dominant in the executive suites...well the implication is obvious. White will continue to be made to suffer for the sins of...Asians. What is the sin of Asians? Well to be better educated than everyone else I guess.

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this is fair to anyone and how it won't lead to huge problems in the future. People keep defending this bullshit and I honestly don't get why.

 

Because Progressivism has become a religion and Diversity is one of their sacraments. 

 

 

Why not just always hire the best person you can find for any given job regardless of race, gender, or who they have sex with?  Because that's a cardinal sin.

 

I think finding that best person is not easy. Many minorities don't have a strong network to tap into. My parents couldn't help. My dad is a cook and my works at garment factory. No one in my circle works in a corporate world when I was starting out in 2011.

 

I worked at 200 person financial services company. My peers all knew someone at relatively high up in the company. But the only reason their resumes got to the top of the pile was because they knew someone there. Don't get me wrong, they were all qualified to work there but so were many others in the resume pile.  I got in without any connections but I was the only person like for a few years...

 

I don't blame my peers though . If my parents/relatives worked in places I want to work, I would ask them to send along my resume too!

 

 

 

Yes, Asians have it rough. We are almost counted as white in tech/corporate world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, Asians and Jews always get the shaft.

 

Regarding hiring though, the above is right. Its almost entirely now, who you know. If you dont know anyone, you are required to send the resume through an online portal. If you are lucky some jerk off in HR will scan through while they scroll through social media feeds. But more often than not these online resume submissions are pre screened by automated programs and most never even see a human eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My dad is a Portuguese immigrant who never went to school (neither in Portugal nor in the US) and never learned to read or write.  Yet I had no problem getting a good job once I got my BSEE.  No one I knew was an engineer, no one my parents knew where engineers. Yet my career has gone quite well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely every career is a little different. After 30 years in sales - it all about ability and results. You might get in with a connection, but if you

don't produce you are out fast, like 6 months. Doesn't matter what color or sex or religion you are, it's definitely a meritocracy - you make money

for the company - or you are gone fast. Very difficult to hide revenue production.  I'd imagine government and academics are the other end of the spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a professional level, I trained and worked in a field dominated by men (about 90 to 95%) and the main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

One of my daughters is entering a field (technology related) dominated by men. The main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

I don’t like nonspecific reverse discrimination or cabbage-brain ideological solutions but the university where my daughter goes has some policies in place to deal with the side effects related to historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. Some would suggest that the university is trying to change the ‘natural’ course of history but things really started to happen after somebody fighting feminism who felt women had no place in that school broke into classes in 1989 and shot 14 women dead.

 

Because you did something yesterday does not mean you should do it today and that often has very little to do with effort or merit. Diversity (racial or otherwise, technology or otherwise) is not a goal by itself but one should at least think about the artificial barriers.

 

Sure artificial barriers should be identified and torn down.  I don't think anyone reasonable opposes that.  But at the same time, strongly encouraging young girls to go into fields of study that they might not find as enjoyable as other fields just so the college and future employers can feel good about their gender statistics at the expense of her happiness isn't preferable either.

Fair enough.

I would add though that there are "invisible" barriers. If involved or interested in the hiring process, Google (in the process of recruiting employees) has realized (and may be trying to optimize this aspect) that there are implicit (in the sense that you may not realize you have biases) biases when selecting candidates (biases based on race, gender or whatever). A fascinating aspect is that women also tend to discriminate against women (not to same extent) and racial groups may also discriminate against their own clan.

I understand that someone like you would have "succeeded" (school, work etc) under pretty much any circumstances but it seems that artificial or implicit barriers may constitute an incremental and sufficient difference for those who are more average.

I've come across some work showing that unrecognized biases are perhaps the most insidious in a way and there are solutions. For classical music performers, auditions of new members are often done with a veil in order for the decision makers to focus on the end result (music played) and not on the person playing. Selection results have been spectacularly different with this approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discrimination works both ways. There are plenty of fields dominated by women. Nursing and elementary school education to name a few. Is this due to discrimination? Or is this due to the other gender not seeking out that field? Probably a bit of both, but I do think that mix of “reasons” is a sliding scale that changes with time.

 

What I find appalling is the rise in extreme feminism in today’s culture. I think it’s sad that young boys (who have had zero impact on the world) are being told things like “men caused all the issues in society” and seeing their young female classmates wear shirts (and being told) that say things like “the future is female!”. Not sure that would go over well the other way around. I guess that’s a bit off topic so I’ll leave it at that.

 

In the end I wish society would actually follow what MLK said....

 

But as we see everywhere else, the pendulum swings with Increasing momentum from one extreme to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my son was touring colleges we went to look at NHTI in New Hampshire, when we got to the dental hygienists program building they had pictures on the wall of every graduating class going back all the way to the late 1950s. And there had to be about 3 or 4 males total to graduate from the program in 60 or so years. The tour guide  even mentioned that the first boy to graduate the program was in 1990s (he said the year but I don't remember).  What is it about being a dental hygienist that keeps men away?  There are certainly more male nurses and even grade-school teachers than male dental hygienists.  Some fields just seem to be attractive to one gender or another for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences (racial or gender) may explain uneven or disproportionate distributions and that's OK if the result reflects true intrinsic preferences, abilities etc

However, if you look at the graph below which I interpret as a return to the mean (% of women enrollment in dentistry), I doubt that the rise to 50% happened because girls were somehow forced to become dentists. It wonder if a changing culture and fading barriers may have something to do with it.

http://www.jdentaled.org/content/jde/79/5suppl/S13/F1.large.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a professional level, I trained and worked in a field dominated by men (about 90 to 95%) and the main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

One of my daughters is entering a field (technology related) dominated by men. The main reasons for that are historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. It’s slowly changing and I’m OK with the direction of the change but it has been far too slow.

 

I don’t like nonspecific reverse discrimination or cabbage-brain ideological solutions but the university where my daughter goes has some policies in place to deal with the side effects related to historical path dependency, passive resistance and some discrimination. Some would suggest that the university is trying to change the ‘natural’ course of history but things really started to happen after somebody fighting feminism who felt women had no place in that school broke into classes in 1989 and shot 14 women dead.

 

Because you did something yesterday does not mean you should do it today and that often has very little to do with effort or merit. Diversity (racial or otherwise, technology or otherwise) is not a goal by itself but one should at least think about the artificial barriers.

 

I don't really disagree with an intelligent approach to this. Thomas Sowell has a pretty excellent book called "Myths of Black Education". He made the point that many of these outreach programs where run by white liberals whose idea of a disadvantaged youth was a poor black kid living in the inner city who went to bad schools who did badly in school. Many of these outreach programs were targeted to finding these type of kids and typically they did horribly in university.

 

Sowell's point was that there was a large number of very smart black kids who could have been recruited and easily filled a slots. He was challenged on this by a colleague at a university and basically went out and found these kids. His point is that it wasn't that hard if you really were interested in finding them and many of them would have enormously benefited from these programs. I do agree with what people on here have said...your networks does limit you and your awareness of the world around you. Outreach efforts if done similar to how athletic recruitment works...could be a very good approach.

 

Sowell himself thought blond hair was mythical went he was a kid because he had never seen a person with blond hair. His relatives send him to NY and connected him with a kid called Eddie Mapp who knew how the school system worked. If he had never met that person and his relatives didn't know of the guy...Sowell's life would have been wildly different. Who you know and the environment you are in can matter hugely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences (racial or gender) may explain uneven or disproportionate distributions and that's OK if the result reflects true intrinsic preferences, abilities etc

However, if you look at the graph below which I interpret as a return to the mean (% of women enrollment in dentistry), I doubt that the rise to 50% happened because girls were somehow forced to become dentists. It wonder if a changing culture and fading barriers may have something to do with it.

http://www.jdentaled.org/content/jde/79/5suppl/S13/F1.large.jpg

 

I wouldn’t say barriers. But I do think interests amount genders are changing and that’s why you’re beginning to see more women in STEM. Go back 50 years and female peers would scoff at the idea of a girl liking mathematics, sports or the like. I don’t buy into the it was all societal pressure. You’re peers are often one of the largest influences in your decision making. Like I said, it’s a mixed bag of inputs and outputs.

 

Everyone wants to point to some systemic institutional pressure for changes or lack thereof. Perhaps some things just change naturally?

 

Perhaps this is all attributed to money and lucrative careers? I know a few guys who became nurses because of the flexible schedule, job security, and solid pay. Not to mention they would be around young women their age lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences (racial or gender) may explain uneven or disproportionate distributions and that's OK if the result reflects true intrinsic preferences, abilities etc

However, if you look at the graph below which I interpret as a return to the mean (% of women enrollment in dentistry), I doubt that the rise to 50% happened because girls were somehow forced to become dentists. It wonder if a changing culture and fading barriers may have something to do with it.

http://www.jdentaled.org/content/jde/79/5suppl/S13/F1.large.jpg

 

 

I agree with everything you said. If you look at that graph it starts increasing in the late 1960s which is around the time that removing obstacles for advancement for women and minorities became an important mainstream issue in society.  We have come a long way from that point in our history.  There are undoubtedly still some obstacles left and things like unconscious biases etc, but the answer isn't enforced quotas and social justice grandstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences (racial or gender) may explain uneven or disproportionate distributions and that's OK if the result reflects true intrinsic preferences, abilities etc

However, if you look at the graph below which I interpret as a return to the mean (% of women enrollment in dentistry), I doubt that the rise to 50% happened because girls were somehow forced to become dentists. It wonder if a changing culture and fading barriers may have something to do with it.

http://www.jdentaled.org/content/jde/79/5suppl/S13/F1.large.jpg

 

This all depends on the social desirability of having a generation of women become dentists instead of spending time at home. Most jobs suck and most corporations are filled with back-biting psychopaths. Cleaning peoples smelly mouths for a living (even a great one) doesn't really sound like a more meaningful activity than taking care of family. I'm not sure why we consider it some great achievement that we managed to turn women into men. I would have rather gone in the opposite direction and had men focus less on their careers and spend more time with their families. I mean that is the reason I invest..so I don't have to be beholden to a job I hate, bosses I don't trust and a corporate environment filled with shit.

 

I don't really get this valorization of work. It seems like a very Anglo-Saxon form of protestant stupidity. To me its obvious that the vast majority of people are not going to find their jobs tremendously fulfilling since for that to happen there would have a fairly big coincidence between the things people desire to work on and the things society as a whole demands people work on based on what people decide to consume. What I mean is that for every thing you decide you want to consume there has to be a person on the other side of that equation who will do the work to make that happen. And for that person to happen to wantto do the work required to enable your consumption requires a huge coincidence between your desires for stuff and the desires of workers to make that happen. And that is hugely unlikely. Thus most people will hate their jobs.

 

Spreading this misery to women is stupid. Buffett wife left him. I remember her saying: "There is more to life than spending your whole day reading financial statements". She is right. But in a world where work and money are valorized we praise a useless boring hermit like Warren Buffett. I think his wife lived a better and more worthwhile life. I think Starbucks baristas do more for the world in a single day that Warren Buffett ever has or ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rukawa, so true, and admirably well stated.

 

The societal trends today are all things that undermine morality and family values. Careers and earning dollars has been glorified to an extent that many seem to ignore or even worse not even be able to cognitively capture the inherent values in certain roles previously considered imperative to a healthy lifestyle.

 

It should not be desired, let alone glorified, to spend ones life at a desk or on a trading floor. It is unequivocally true that the pursuit of money, at best leads one to an unfulfilling lifestyle and at worst, leads to ruin for all those whom make the mistake of surrounding themselves with "career oriented" individuals. Ironically, as Ive stated before a good number of times, the greatest example of this are people whom work in the financial industry. 95% of them are total pieces of shit. Complete cheapskates whom have no clue what life and living are about and instead inproportionately value dollars and savings and "arbitrages", often resulting in taking advantage of people along the way, just to save or make an extra couple bucks. But America has glorified this materialism and now encourages women to join the circus under the guise of "equality". Those that see past this shallow existence should be commended. Those that can't, probably dont know any better.

 

Yes, look at Buffett, his own biggest failure was that he was a shitty father and shitty husband. Bezos? LOL now walks town with his skank Hollywood arm piece. And this is whats being presented to people as "the model"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences (racial or gender) may explain uneven or disproportionate distributions and that's OK if the result reflects true intrinsic preferences, abilities etc

However, if you look at the graph below which I interpret as a return to the mean (% of women enrollment in dentistry), I doubt that the rise to 50% happened because girls were somehow forced to become dentists. It wonder if a changing culture and fading barriers may have something to do with it.

http://www.jdentaled.org/content/jde/79/5suppl/S13/F1.large.jpg

 

This all depends on the social desirability of having a generation of women become dentists instead of spending time at home. Most jobs suck and most corporations are filled with back-biting psychopaths. Cleaning peoples smelly mouths for a living (even a great one) doesn't really sound like a more meaningful activity than taking care of family. I'm not sure why we consider it some great achievement that we managed to turn women into men. I would have rather gone in the opposite direction and had men focus less on their careers and spend more time with their families. I mean that is the reason I invest..so I don't have to be beholden to a job I hate, bosses I don't trust and a corporate environment filled with shit.

 

I don't really get this valorization of work. It seems like a very Anglo-Saxon form of protestant stupidity. To me its obvious that the vast majority of people are not going to find their jobs tremendously fulfilling since for that to happen there would have a fairly big coincidence between the things people desire to work on and the things society as a whole demands people work on based on what people decide to consume. What I mean is that for every thing you decide you want to consume there has to be a person on the other side of that equation who will do the work to make that happen. And for that person to happen to wantto do the work required to enable your consumption requires a huge coincidence between your desires for stuff and the desires of workers to make that happen. And that is hugely unlikely. Thus most people will hate their jobs.

 

Spreading this misery to women is stupid. Buffett wife left him. I remember her saying: "There is more to life than spending your whole day reading financial statements". She is right. But in a world where work and money are valorized we praise a useless boring hermit like Warren Buffett. I think his wife lived a better and more worthwhile life. I think Starbucks baristas do more for the world in a single day that Warren Buffett ever has or ever will.

 

I think the sociologist Jordan Peterson has some good insights into current trends. Although I don't agree with everything he said a few of his personal examples were interesting. For example he has a lot of high level corporate clients. He undoubtedly states that his female clients are by far the smarted and most driven. Yet almost all of them burnout by their mid 30's not because they can't hack it. But because a lot of them find no worth in it and want to have a family. I think men in general are less instinctual about having a family (not always the case of course). I've also seen other studies that show men in general gravitate towards certain careers because we are less affectionate and less people oriented. We tend to like working with "things" or numbers over people.

 

In regards to what rukawa had to say about the family life, I completely agree. It's pretty clear that strong family relations lead to better outcomes, yet society is apparently "progressing" to other family units. Perhaps the of family unit does not matter as long as there is tight cohesion? I'm skeptical of that but I am by no means an expert on the subject.

 

Paging Cigarbutt :p this sounds like something you would have studied in your past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

I think the above posts are interesting but perhaps are undermined by a thesis drift.

Initial « intent » of the thread: work hard and you will get what you “deserve” (if you happen to think that landing a job in a tech company is the way to go).

Evolution of the thread: you (the individual) don’t define social desirability, I do.

 

If you believe in personal and very individual freedom and the invisible hand of the free market, why decide for somebody else what is good or bad for him or her?

 

@Gregmal

Maybe I’m mistaken but you come across the various posts as someone who is highly career motivated (I’m not saying it is necessarily a bad thing).

 

@rukawa

Isn’t the capitalist system based on the value of the work that individuals produce? Just to go back to the dentist example (which is useful and relevant to illustrate), most people would consider that dentists produce valuable work and this is one of the reasons that we, individually, put a relatively high price on their services. It’s interesting to note that a woman’s earning power working as a dentist may allow the spouse to perhaps contribute to the family’s well-being. It’s interesting also because women dentists have not become male dentists (it’s been shown that they tend to conciliate better {value judgement on my part here} work and family priorities).

 

@Castanza

I’ve been interested in this and similar topics for a long time but most of the above is based on personal reflection. I understand the conservative arguments (my wife made the conscious decision to become a home mother) and have mixed feelings about both parents participating in the work force with the associated consumerist attitude but I’m now surrounded in my household by a majority of young women who somehow want to fully realize their amazing potential (whichever way they want to define that) as human beings.

 

 

If you disagree with the target, that’s fine but I would suggest to let individuals trace their own trajectories. There is a risk here that the definition of what a family is may be a more dynamic concept than what the traditional definition implies.

 

Note:

This is an investment board and I often wonder if these discussions are too prominent but I realize that investment results has allowed a more flexible time allocation to various topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am highly goal/task oriented. I also love investing as it is one of the great, and criminally underrated paths to freedom. Perhaps similar, but in the context of my life, very different from career oriented. To me, career oriented, is basically a shallow existence predicated upon looking up the food chain seeking acceptance and relying on the judgment of others, with money being your carrot. There is so much more to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...