Every year, big tech firms voluntarily announce the results of their efforts to "increase racial diversity" among their employees. But while "tech companies say they value diversity, but reports show little change in last six years." says [cnbc.com] [wired.com] . Most of the proponents of the diversity reports focus on the low percentage of Hispanics (5%) and Blacks (3%) while overlooking the high percentage of Asians (42%) and the relatively low percentage of Whites (47%)... all compared to the overall population (60% White, 18.5% Hispanic, 13.4% Black, 5.9% Asian).
What is (almost?) never reported is how do each of the percentages compare with the available pool of candidates who can thrive in the highly technical and selective environment. Irrespective of the reasons why, the percentage of people of higher IQ, a measure of problem solving skills desired by tech firms, skews in favor of Asians and against Blacks/Hispanics.
For example, if we assume that the AVERAGE IQ of these employees is 115 (the top 16% of the population), the percentage of each racial group in the "pool" of candidates will be about 2.5% Black, 7.1% Hispanic, 12.1% Asian, and 78% white. This would suggest that Blacks and Hispanics are hired at about the same rate as the qualified candidates, Asians at about 3.5 times as many, and Whites at 60% as many.
But is this enough? Should big tech firms hire more people from groups which have historically been under represented?
I have a whacky crazy idea. Let’s spend the next decade breaking the back of the teacher’s unions, and rescue the education system from the Democratic corruption that has basically guaranteed that minority children in the Democratic cities receive a piss-poor education and can only gain entry in the work force through diversity quotas. Change the system, start giving kids a fighting chance from the start.
Then, we hire on the basis of merit.
How’s that sound?
I began my working life in 1975 because of the new hiring mandates from affirmative action I was ineligible for most jobs, not because of lack of skill or qualifications but because I was a white male. this was also the ending of the Vietnam war and many returning GI's were given preferential treatment in hiring. As a result of these practices most of my early work was with illegal and migrant workers. needless to say when I see people talking about racial Inequity or preferential hiring I would appose it. Anything besides qualification based hiring is unfair to others that are applying to a position.
I mean... if there are qualified people from minority groups applying then hire them? I don't understand the push for 'more diversity' hiring in fields that typically don't have a hugely diverse group of applicants. It isnt the fault of the companies if they don't get X amount of Afican American or LGBT or female applicants when their workplace is commonly not made up of those demographics.
Hell. My husband works HVAC and they rarely see women applying despite women regularly being some of the most skilled in that sort of job (when they actually go into that field, according to all the HVAC guys I've met who have worked with women at work). Why? Because we woman typically don't WANT that job. On average we don't want to have our hands sliced all to hell with sheet metal, cramping our backs for 8 hours in a crawlspace, or getting heat stroke in a one hundred twenty degree attic. And yet somehow those facts yield a lifted nose from the 'diverse hire' crowd, as if the lack of interest from women is based in sexism and not on personal choices made by those applying.
I know I went off topic there a bit, but it applies. Hire the qualified people who apply no matter their skin, heritage, gender, sex, whatever. And if you see a dude or gal high up who is hiring only certain people because they're racist or sexist or what have you? Replace THEM with a normal, nice person who doesn't assume ridiculous things based on superficial aspects like skin or genitals.
Does anyone think blacks or Hispanics appreciate getting a job because someone is tilting the scales in their favor to meet a quota? How insulting. If blacks and Hispanics don't represent roughly 14% and 17% of the big tech work force, respectively, I'd be asking a couple of questions like, are those jobs desirable to that demographic? Are they taking advantage of education opportunities that properly prepare them?
@TheMiddleWay You, and woke 'liberals' in general, seem to be more obsessed with race than the people you are purporting to be against. If ending discrimination isn't the goal, what is? Revenge? Equity? If its equity, where do we draw the line? Maybe we should hire an equal mix of race/gender despite qualifications? Maybe CEO should be paid the same as the janitor to ensure wage equity? Maybe we should hire an equal amount of lazy to productive workers?
You look white in your profile pic. If you are and your white guilt is getting to you, why don't you offer your position to someone who is black? After all, you having your position is oppressing black people who could have filled the role.
@TheMiddleWay You don't end discrimination by changing the group you discriminate against. What you're suggesting is discriminating against white people to benefit black people due to past injustice. But how long should you continue that before we go full circle and have to discriminate against black people because white people have been discriminated against? How far back should we go back historically too?
(And for some reason, my reply button doesn't always come up. Sometimes all I get is the : report, follow or show likes option. No reply option available)
Not sure if the tech firms themselves seek to discriminate against whites or not on their own terms, but affirmative action rules certainly pave the way to discriminate (or allow discrimination) against caucasians. Indeed, over the last two or so decades now affirmative action has changed rather little in favor of the perceived minorities.