4 ms·

why is a diverse workforce an objective?

by systems 10y ago

adventured 10y ago
The theory is that there's vast, intentional, discrimination against non-white candidates in technology. So the argument is that to counter that discrimination, companies such as Facebook must act to aggressively and intentionally recruit non-white candidates. Why? The argument is that it's to promote greater equality and fairness in terms of opportunities. The other common argument, which has been made frequently for at least several decades, is that increased diversity leads to greater innovation due to an increased diversity of backgrounds. In the several decades I've been reading about it, I've yet to see this last claim substantially proven in any manner (it would imply great leaps in innovation can't regularly derive from homogeneous situations (when in fact history constantly says otherwise), which would imply countries as different as Finland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, China and Japan are nearly incapable of innovation due to their low diversity).
- systems 10y ago
  I understand the value of positive discrimination, it is important in politics to give voice to minorities ... but, I am a bit skeptical, that it has a place in a commercial environment .. specially in a technical field In a non technical field, maybe it will promote tolerance and acceptance in communities .. and specially in communities with a lot of immigrants .. But again .. and I agree with you, I am very skeptical that it adds value in a highly technical, commercial environment
_qbxp 10y ago
I think the idea is that an artificial means of creating a diverse workforce will allow people in traditionally disadvantaged populations earn decent salaries so that they can live in decent neighborhoods, and therefore send their kids to decent schools, then to decent colleges, then to decent jobs, where they can have kids and send them to decent schools ... eventually leading to the point to where that population does not need artificial means of creating a diverse workforce anymore. Having grown up in an incredibly heterogeneous global environment, I personally believe diversity is good to have just because it helps break down the innate (my opinion) desire to stick to ones own group/type, which is often the source of much conflict in the world. I can't back that up with facts, just my opinion. I genuinely feel that I am a kinder/more productive/more flexible human being for having grown up in a very diverse environment. It's hard for me to explain why I think diversity just for the sake of diversity is absolutely a positive thing. At some point I'll have to hash it out and do some research.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Note, that your argument has nothing to do with software development or even any particular skill/ability to do an abstracted task or job. If we are artificially creating a diverse workplace in order to pay someone a higher salary than they otherwise command at market rates, why not skip this entirely and just give them money so they can "live in decent neighborhoods, and therefore send their kids to decent schools, then to decent colleges, then to decent jobs, where they can have kids and send them to decent schools" ? In other words, if the only obstacle is money, why bother with all the intermediate steps and involve voodoo social science, PC dogmatism and other murky aspects?
  - wakkaflokka 10y ago
    Giving people money for all those things wouldn't be socially digestible, especially in the U.S. Hence why I don't think the idea of basic income would ever really take off here, even if there were evidence that it would be sustainable and the population were starving/rioting because of job automation (not commenting either way on that). I don't think that putting extra-effort into hiring from traditionally disadvantaged populations is comparable to simply handing out money. It's not black or white IMO, there is some gray there. I think it's been shown that - all things being equal including education, resume, etc. - some populations are disadvantaged, and putting a modicum amount of effort to help them (even if it were at the expense of my own prospects - which is ludicrous to say the least, since I have it very good) - is probably OK. Clearly nothing more than an opinion. I think if there are alternative methods, they need to be brought more to the forefront in these threads. Maybe I missed the more thought out answers, but I usually don't see any alternatives to solving this problem. This is all under the assumption that a) you believe some populations are indeed disadvantaged because of systemic issues, and b) you believe it is in the best interests of society or simply the right thing to do, to try get everybody on an even ground. If you don't believe a) or b), then there's really not much common ground when it comes to these issues.
    - rpcorb 10y ago
      One can believe a) and b) but not agree that affirmative action is the fair (or even most effective) solution.

why is a diverse workforce an objective?

by systems 10y ago

why is a diverse workforce an objective?

The theory is that there's vast, intentional, discrimination against non-white candidates in technology. So the argument is that to counter that discrimination, companies such as Facebook must act to aggressively and intentionally recruit non-white candidates. Why? The argument is that it's to promote greater equality and fairness in terms of opportunities. The other common argument, which has been made frequently for at least several decades, is that increased diversity leads to greater innovation due to an increased diversity of backgrounds. In the several decades I've been reading about it, I've yet to see this last claim substantially proven in any manner (it would imply great leaps in innovation can't regularly derive from homogeneous situations (when in fact history constantly says otherwise), which would imply countries as different as Finland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, China and Japan are nearly incapable of innovation due to their low diversity).

systems 10y ago
I understand the value of positive discrimination, it is important in politics to give voice to minorities ... but, I am a bit skeptical, that it has a place in a commercial environment .. specially in a technical field In a non technical field, maybe it will promote tolerance and acceptance in communities .. and specially in communities with a lot of immigrants .. But again .. and I agree with you, I am very skeptical that it adds value in a highly technical, commercial environment

_qbxp 10y ago

I think the idea is that an artificial means of creating a diverse workforce will allow people in traditionally disadvantaged populations earn decent salaries so that they can live in decent neighborhoods, and therefore send their kids to decent schools, then to decent colleges, then to decent jobs, where they can have kids and send them to decent schools ... eventually leading to the point to where that population does not need artificial means of creating a diverse workforce anymore. Having grown up in an incredibly heterogeneous global environment, I personally believe diversity is good to have just because it helps break down the innate (my opinion) desire to stick to ones own group/type, which is often the source of much conflict in the world. I can't back that up with facts, just my opinion. I genuinely feel that I am a kinder/more productive/more flexible human being for having grown up in a very diverse environment. It's hard for me to explain why I think diversity just for the sake of diversity is absolutely a positive thing. At some point I'll have to hash it out and do some research.

antisthenes 10y ago
Note, that your argument has nothing to do with software development or even any particular skill/ability to do an abstracted task or job. If we are artificially creating a diverse workplace in order to pay someone a higher salary than they otherwise command at market rates, why not skip this entirely and just give them money so they can "live in decent neighborhoods, and therefore send their kids to decent schools, then to decent colleges, then to decent jobs, where they can have kids and send them to decent schools" ? In other words, if the only obstacle is money, why bother with all the intermediate steps and involve voodoo social science, PC dogmatism and other murky aspects?
- wakkaflokka 10y ago
  Giving people money for all those things wouldn't be socially digestible, especially in the U.S. Hence why I don't think the idea of basic income would ever really take off here, even if there were evidence that it would be sustainable and the population were starving/rioting because of job automation (not commenting either way on that). I don't think that putting extra-effort into hiring from traditionally disadvantaged populations is comparable to simply handing out money. It's not black or white IMO, there is some gray there. I think it's been shown that - all things being equal including education, resume, etc. - some populations are disadvantaged, and putting a modicum amount of effort to help them (even if it were at the expense of my own prospects - which is ludicrous to say the least, since I have it very good) - is probably OK. Clearly nothing more than an opinion. I think if there are alternative methods, they need to be brought more to the forefront in these threads. Maybe I missed the more thought out answers, but I usually don't see any alternatives to solving this problem. This is all under the assumption that a) you believe some populations are indeed disadvantaged because of systemic issues, and b) you believe it is in the best interests of society or simply the right thing to do, to try get everybody on an even ground. If you don't believe a) or b), then there's really not much common ground when it comes to these issues.
  - rpcorb 10y ago
    One can believe a) and b) but not agree that affirmative action is the fair (or even most effective) solution.