4 ms·

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 artificial

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.

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.