3 ms·

>If anything Google needs more different minorities if anything, for instance Latinos and Blacks. Why? I think equal opportunity is a better goal than equal r

>If anything Google needs more different minorities if anything, for instance Latinos and Blacks. Why? I think equal opportunity is a better goal than equal representation. Forced equal representation can quickly deteriorate to racism/sexism. Inequality in the name of equality.

x5n1 11y ago
I seriously don't think there can be anything such as equal opportunity. As there is bias at every part of the hiring process. Equal representation means that more or less wealth is being directed far and wide to people that represent all groups. Having money means having power to affect policies and politics as well as economics. So for creating any sense of equality in society it's a fact that there needs to be more or less equal representation. Yes there is IQ disparity which probably decreases chances further of finding elite employment. But there are outliers in every population, enough to create equal representation.
- home_boi 11y ago
  You can segment the human population in any way and assign equal power to each of these groups. Why segment the population by race? Life is inherently unfair. There will always be differences in power. The goal can't be to assign equal power to everyone because it is impossible. The best goal is to ensure that there isn't a huge difference in power. Equal opportunity provides that guarantee.
  - majormajor 11y ago
    In regard to the US, the obvious answer is that some races were literally oppressed on that very basis for decades/centuries. That was not a passive activity. So is it any real surprise that it might have long-lasting effects that need active, rather than passive, countering? EDIT: your comment reads differently after your addition of the second paragraph so now I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or answering a rhetorical question or what. Regardless...
    - hueving 11y ago
      No, an individual's circumstances cannot be determined by their skin color. Forcing a company to take a candidate that is objectively worse than others with different skin colors or genitalia is stupid and makes everyone else bitter when they realize the incompetence. Government sponsored education for the unprivileged is much better than the ham fisted bandaid of making companies match percentages of different segments.
      - majormajor 11y ago
        Forcing employment would be a rather extreme attempt at a remedy, but the graph here[0] illustrates rather nicely a problem that race-blind attempts at fixes will run into. What works in one environment may not work in another, and their are dramatically different environments for different races in the USA. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black...
    - home_boi 11y ago
      The problem is that reparations in the form of equal representation hurt people that have nothing to do with the original oppression. It is a zero sum game. The groups that suffer the most from "equal representation" are immigrants and their children. These people tend to be high achievers, competing in the upper echelon where every little difference counts. It is unfair to punish these people for actions that were done when they were not even in the country. Even if there is some way to only target the children of the perpetrators, it isn't fair to punish people for simply being related to the perpetrators. What happened in the past is wrong and unfair, but reparations will just displace the hurt from one group to another.
- hueving 11y ago
  Jobs are not for spreading wealth to different groups. If that's all Google was doing it wouldnt need any of the employees to come into the office. Companies hire people to provide services, not to be an open hand waiting for money.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    No one said that, you are putting words into my mouth. Obviously any employer should hire people best qualified for the job, but there are literally thousands of people to choose from. One aspect of the choice is that it affects wealth of the individual and thereby people that are socially close and related to the individual.

x5n1 11y ago

I seriously don't think there can be anything such as equal opportunity. As there is bias at every part of the hiring process. Equal representation means that more or less wealth is being directed far and wide to people that represent all groups. Having money means having power to affect policies and politics as well as economics. So for creating any sense of equality in society it's a fact that there needs to be more or less equal representation. Yes there is IQ disparity which probably decreases chances further of finding elite employment. But there are outliers in every population, enough to create equal representation.

home_boi 11y ago
You can segment the human population in any way and assign equal power to each of these groups. Why segment the population by race? Life is inherently unfair. There will always be differences in power. The goal can't be to assign equal power to everyone because it is impossible. The best goal is to ensure that there isn't a huge difference in power. Equal opportunity provides that guarantee.
- majormajor 11y ago
  In regard to the US, the obvious answer is that some races were literally oppressed on that very basis for decades/centuries. That was not a passive activity. So is it any real surprise that it might have long-lasting effects that need active, rather than passive, countering? EDIT: your comment reads differently after your addition of the second paragraph so now I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or answering a rhetorical question or what. Regardless...
  - hueving 11y ago
    No, an individual's circumstances cannot be determined by their skin color. Forcing a company to take a candidate that is objectively worse than others with different skin colors or genitalia is stupid and makes everyone else bitter when they realize the incompetence. Government sponsored education for the unprivileged is much better than the ham fisted bandaid of making companies match percentages of different segments.
    - majormajor 11y ago
      Forcing employment would be a rather extreme attempt at a remedy, but the graph here[0] illustrates rather nicely a problem that race-blind attempts at fixes will run into. What works in one environment may not work in another, and their are dramatically different environments for different races in the USA. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black...
  - home_boi 11y ago
    The problem is that reparations in the form of equal representation hurt people that have nothing to do with the original oppression. It is a zero sum game. The groups that suffer the most from "equal representation" are immigrants and their children. These people tend to be high achievers, competing in the upper echelon where every little difference counts. It is unfair to punish these people for actions that were done when they were not even in the country. Even if there is some way to only target the children of the perpetrators, it isn't fair to punish people for simply being related to the perpetrators. What happened in the past is wrong and unfair, but reparations will just displace the hurt from one group to another.
hueving 11y ago
Jobs are not for spreading wealth to different groups. If that's all Google was doing it wouldnt need any of the employees to come into the office. Companies hire people to provide services, not to be an open hand waiting for money.
- x5n1 11y ago
  No one said that, you are putting words into my mouth. Obviously any employer should hire people best qualified for the job, but there are literally thousands of people to choose from. One aspect of the choice is that it affects wealth of the individual and thereby people that are socially close and related to the individual.