You should hire based on talent and experience. And if the company is all white, then be it, that's the market.
Of course that way doesn't fix racism, but the US way also doesn't.
The reason for this was that all of the company's clients were also companies that were mostly comprised of people of that same nationality, many who spoke limited English.
Because this company was small, everyone wore many hats, including technical staff having to interact with the clients.
So while a candidate of a different nationality/ethnicity/race could technically be hired, the odds of this happening was extremely unlikely - because the language in question was usually not spoken by people outside of this nationality (this was nearly 15 years ago, things have changed a bit now).
The one employee who was of a different nationality was part of that tiny exception - he had picked up the language from somewhere.
Would you classify this hiring policy as racist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
Of course this only describes how a legal framework might negotiate between adverse impacts and technical merit. In terms of who has the responsibility of fixing the ripples of current and historical wrongdoings between races, I don't think businesses are the right place to start. By the time it gets to business, asking people to make potentially unmeritorious decisions is a kind of corruption.
Society-wide grievances ought to be addressed at the national level via a reparations program which funds education and family.
Typically when people are using the phrase "white people", they are not including latinos so I would rate "America has far more poor white people than poor non-white people" mostly false.
Also I really hate how the standard demographics in the US are WHITE, BLACK, ASIAN, or OTHER with an additional binary of HISPANIC or NON-HISPANIC.
I recently moved to a majority hispanic area, 80ish percent. It was a bit of culture shock for me in a lot of ways, one of which is you better have cash.
Everyone I've hired to do anything will only take cash. If you offer a check, they'll sometimes say no, sometimes say OK, but I have to add tax. Not one would accept a credit card. Plumbers, electricians, handymen, guys with 50k dollar trucks and 80k dollar skid steers.
I don't mean to intend to paint this as a solely hispanic thing, this is just the first place I've lived that functions that way. The guy who did our floor was white, and made the same demands in fact.
It occurred to me there's likely a not insignificant amount of people making 6 figures who are according to the government, below the poverty line.
I finally found the following data source, and multiplied out the population count by race with the percentage below 100% of the poverty line by race.
If you have a different data source, or methodology, please share.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Poverty%20by%20race&t...
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 188537199 Less than 100% of poverty line 9.5% = 17,911,033
Versus
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 61398400 Less than 100% of poverty line 17.5% = 10,744,720
By absolute count, the assertion that White, Hispanic population have more people in poverty than White, non-Hispanic population, appears to be incorrect.
From the data, there are 324173084 people in the US, with an overall poverty rate of 12.8%, meaning that 41,494,154 people are in poverty. 17,911,033 White non-Hispanic in poverty
41,494,154 - 17,911,033 = 23,583,121 (rest of the population)
So, the White Non Hispanic Population in Poverty is less than the number of non (White Non Hispanic) Population.
So, neither of you were correct?
But there are a ton of poor white people in the US. Significantly more than any other single race.
Thank you for correcting me.
While better laws are conceivable, this is what judges are there for, to determine if the intent and effect was harming someone based on race. The gov doesn't force them to use race metrics, it just sues them if they, let's say, layoff 5k people and 4900 are all of a certain race and that happens to be 99% of people of that race. That doesn't make the company guilty, it just forces them to justify in front of a jury their reasoning (perhaps people of that race all worked in one department that was really not needes?). Their aversion to lawsuits is what drives their insanity.
If you can prove that all the applicants of a certain race did not meet an objective criteria which can be scrutinized by outside industry experts then I see no problem with excluding those people and I have never heard of the EEOC suing companies otherwise (although I would be glad to be educated on this), and you will find many companies do have entire all white or all some nationality (east or south asian in tech) departments solely based on objective metrics.
I am just saying, no law forced twilio so perhaps blame twilion in this case instead of the law/gov?
What quota is “enough” to overcome this (unmeasurable) “unconscious bias” that allegedly exists?
I don’t want “someone like me” in positions of power over me. I have no idea what that’s such a popular phrase in America. I want someone vastly better than me in positions of power.
When are these slackers going to start demonstrating their worth!?
Given that scientific discourse and outcomes fluctuate, we can assume the same is true social science.
Furthermore, social science is much more dependent on current fashionable political trends. This can be seen in the example of the American Psychological Association accepting recent political topics such as "toxic masculinity" [1] as new definitions in psychological phenomena.
Check out this PhD's work to show how usage of bombastic identity politics terminology increased in mainstream journalism in a non-organic way. It seems driven by top-down institution-based entryism. [2] & [3]
[1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner
[2] "Many trends develop over decades but I’ve never seen change so rapid as the breathtaking success of what one might call social justice concerns. Beginning around 2010-2014 there appears to have been a inflection point. Here from Zach Goldberg on twitter are various words drawn from Lexis-Nexis." https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...
[3] "1/n Spent some time on LexisNexis over the weekend. Depending on your political orientation, what follows will either disturb or encourage you. But regardless of political orientation, I'm sure we can all say 'holy f*** s**'"
From [1]:
> "Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly."
Masculinity kept humanity alive in the face of various dangerous precipices facing a group of social animals seeking to survive during the course of their evolution.
Just because it has become recently politically fashionable to discount it, does not mean it is harmful.
Nor do I believe any absolute-ist interpretation that boys suppress emotions, or that society forces them to suppress emotions. It varies across time & space-- relative to culture, which fluctuates.
To make a blanket statement on the concept is just plain silly, in my view. Human emotions, cultures, and societies are not static.
Therefore any sort of claim by any institution that their <some number> of years of study results in <some outcome> which speaks for <some absolute phenomena> in my opinion, again, is just plain silly.
And it attempts to gatekeep healthy masculinity-- again, pure silliness which demonstrates the nanny mentality of those who attempt such gatekeeping.
Why is that? To me, it seems like you're saying masculinity diametrically opposes femininity.
> Just because it has become recently politically fashionable to discount it, does not mean it is harmful.
I agree that masculinity in itself is not harmful. I believe you are conflating the specific term "toxic masculinity" with masculinity in general, though. I also believe that there are toxic aspects to masculinity that absolutely cause harm in many facets of life; for example, educational barriers, suicide rate, mental illness, and incarceration are all much higher in the male population. I don't think that these are aspects of masculinity that one must accept hand-in-hand with the benefits (earnings potential, proportion of leadership positions, etc). I would call these aspects of masculinity toxic.
> To make a blanket statement on the concept is just plain silly, in my view. Human emotions, cultures, and societies are not static.
To the extreme, this means nothing concrete can be said about human emotions, culture, and societies. I know you don't believe that.
But you raise an interesting possibility; did the modern notion of masculinity always exist? If, say, a past society (or modern, non-Western culture) achieved lower suicide rates in teenage boys, would it not be worth studying how those societies treated masculinity?
> Therefore any sort of claim by any institution that their <some number> of years of study results in <some outcome> which speaks for <some absolute phenomena> in my opinion, again, is just plain silly.
Would it help to point out that these studies have scientific methodologies; for example, they measure different treatment outcomes among a large and diverse enough population such that a statistical conclusion can be made?
> And it attempts to gatekeep healthy masculinity- again, pure silliness which demonstrates the nanny mentality of those who attempt such gatekeeping.
That's certainly a take I didn't get from reading the publication. The APA doesn't seem to be under the delusion that they can control how masculinity is viewed in society, anyway. To me, they have identified evidentiary harms caused to society as a whole through the negative conditioning of boys, given that conditioning a name that you disagree with, and have measured successful results by directly addressing that conditioning in psychological assessments. I am struggling to see a downside here.
What statistical conclusion is being made here? How does one quantify what is “toxic masculinity” and what isn’t?
The APA-- the professional org. which represents the field of psychology in the USA--[1] literally instituted a definition of "toxic masculinity".
If that isn't an attempt to control masculinity in society, I don't know what is.
[1] "APA is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 133,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students as its members." https://www.apa.org/about
The “structure” of the economy doesn’t benefit at all from a precarious underclass. It would be better if people had savings! Welfare and unemployment insurance is a drag on the economy.
You need to ask yourself if these statements you’re making are facts. Are they? How did you come to believe them? (They’re not, and there’s a ton of evidence on this matter.)
I agree that you shouldn’t hire unqualified people. However, oftentimes as a hiring manager you have a bunch of relatively equivalent candidates (let’s say the top 5 of the 100 that applied). In this case there isn’t really a clear choice of who is better and diversity metrics can and should play a role in the hiring decision.
Also, how the hell does “perspective” matter for say…an accountant? Programmer? Vet tech? I’d buy it in marketing, product development, and some other random situations, but as a whole?