4 ms·

I can understand that underprivileged people has to be educated in order to be able to compete. That's why I support quotas for them in universities. But, why i

I can understand that underprivileged people has to be educated in order to be able to compete. That's why I support quotas for them in universities. But, why is this needed at work? Shouldn't this be solved by the market? If a company only hires white men then you should be at a competitive disadvantage against another company that can chose the best workers from other backgrounds too. Or is this an admission that white men actually perform better than the rest? I don't think so, but maybe the ones who write the policies do.

emodendroket 10y ago
Did you read the article you're commenting on? There are far fewer of these positions than there are applicants and if employers across the board just don't think kids with the "wrong" socioeconomic background are gonna fit in the market isn't going to fix the problem. It seems hard to argue that this is all about merit when the only difference between the hypothetical candidates in the study are class markers and gender.
- hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
  Parent to your comment is arguing that other law firms should be able to see that highly qualified talent is being undervalued, and those firms would then come in to get that talent to be at an advantage. I don't necessarily agree, but note this Malcolm Gladwell argues in Outliers that this is exactly what happened to Jewish lawyers in NY in the mid 20th century. White shoe firms wouldn't hire the Jewish lawyers, so they started their own firms and focused on "distained" but ultimately highly lucrative areas of law.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I understood that but I think it is not that likely. What the article describes is that these kids get shunted into less lucrative areas of practice instead. Also I'm pretty suspicious of Gladwell. He spins a good yarn but his work is less than rigorous.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The same story happened in many fields, not just law. Historically, the marked exploiting cheap resources was so pervasive that we generally needed the government to prevent it. For example, to prevent employers from hiring cheaper negroes over whites, we passed Jim Crow and Davis Bacon laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        If the idea here is that more diverse companies can pay lower wages and benefit that way then it may have something to it but it's hard to see that as the market "solving the problem."
        aurelianito 10y ago
        When people are hired their salaries go up, solving the issue.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Except that the whole reason these smart companies are hiring them is that they can get them for bargain-basement wages, so a large disparity continues to exist.
        mos_basik 10y ago
        If I understand correctly, the extension of the argument (in light of your objection) is this: assuming two equally sized and skilled pools of employees, Company Diversity will spend less on salaries than Company Bigot - meaning those funds are able to be spent elsewhere, giving Company Diversity a competitive advantage in the market. Eventually Company Bigot goes out of business (or lowers their salaries). Of course we assume, in this thought experiment, that all the other things Company Bigot could do to become more competitive (invest in more employee training, better infrastructure, etc) are also available to Company Diversity. This isn't always the case. Maybe Company Diversity's hiring practices have alienated it from potential suppliers or clients who prefer Company Bigot's views. Specifically I'm thinking of Japan, where (apparently; source: this site) the cultural emphasis on the salaryman paradigm means that hiring from the significant pool of contract labor can hurt your company image as far as working with the established corporations is concerned.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
The market isn't a magic genie that imposes rationality.
framed4Blame 10y ago
You're missing the gist of the logic. Integrity of a company is almost entirely instigated by hiring those who represent the ideals of the founder(s), and iff those ideals are centered on profit, then it's logical to the rich to presume that their wealthy peers are more well suited to creating wealth in their respective roles. Unfotunately for whomever published this study, and for those that agree with the findings, advancement within markets is not solely promulgated by a singular mindset, but instead by a collection of contrasting views that accommodate many, many perspectives and thereby glean an aggregate position on how to act in varying circumstances. If Bob, Bill, and Brian are all in the same yacht club, and all come from similar backgrounds, have similar motivations, and similar perspectives, then they will miss opportunities that someone from a 'hardscrabble' upbringing would recognize more instinctually due to having to deal with much more stressful environs. To make this a bit more technically obvious: if I write an AI algorithm and it's too greedy in only choosing the most optimum components when evolving a solution, then it won't ever accommodate circumstances that require an instrument that can negotiate around, or through, moments of volatility that the 'rich boy' set has never had to endure. I find it laughable that people think they are so enlightened that they understand the potential of another being enough to judge them unworthy while simultaneously giving themselves plaudits for being so capable. If someone is truly that great of a manager, then why aren't they confident enough in their ability to manage, or even work with, someone of lower class? Surely the dichotomy is apparent. Why isn't it acknowledged that it's less(!) good to discriminate via class than it is to be capable enough to accommodate someone you find 'beneath' your standards? It's like people who have that mindset are so happy to pat themselves on the back for being great at what they do, but cannot fathom working with someone who comes from a household that wasn't as supportive. The f nerve of it is, well, unnerving. Companies have to learn to grow culture via inclusivity, not by being exclusive. All for one, one for all, that kind of thing. Otherwise you get cronyism, and if you read a little history you'll see numerous examples of how that strategy turns out. Ask George II and see what he says.
icebraining 10y ago
Or is this an admission that white men actually perform better than the rest? Wouldn't surprise me. Considering we're talking about legal firms, a good chunk of the job is social interactions: with the clients and their partners, the judges, etc. If we make the not-exactly-absurd assumption that white men are more likely to be perceived as sound, then they could in fact "perform better" than others of the same ability.
- aurelianito 10y ago
  If so, then it is reasonable to hire them, isn't it?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The concept of systemic discrimination means the system makes taking discriminatory actions reasonable - even necessary - for people who wouldn't otherwise discriminate of their own accord. Which is why it's often considered even more problematic than individual discrimination, but also often easily dismissed, since the actors don't consider themselves as biased, they're just doing what's "reasonable".
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Sure; it's also economically rational to dump industrial waste into drinking water if that's the cheapest way to dispose of it. So?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

emodendroket 10y ago

Did you read the article you're commenting on? There are far fewer of these positions than there are applicants and if employers across the board just don't think kids with the "wrong" socioeconomic background are gonna fit in the market isn't going to fix the problem. It seems hard to argue that this is all about merit when the only difference between the hypothetical candidates in the study are class markers and gender.

hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
Parent to your comment is arguing that other law firms should be able to see that highly qualified talent is being undervalued, and those firms would then come in to get that talent to be at an advantage. I don't necessarily agree, but note this Malcolm Gladwell argues in Outliers that this is exactly what happened to Jewish lawyers in NY in the mid 20th century. White shoe firms wouldn't hire the Jewish lawyers, so they started their own firms and focused on "distained" but ultimately highly lucrative areas of law.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I understood that but I think it is not that likely. What the article describes is that these kids get shunted into less lucrative areas of practice instead. Also I'm pretty suspicious of Gladwell. He spins a good yarn but his work is less than rigorous.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The same story happened in many fields, not just law. Historically, the marked exploiting cheap resources was so pervasive that we generally needed the government to prevent it. For example, to prevent employers from hiring cheaper negroes over whites, we passed Jim Crow and Davis Bacon laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      If the idea here is that more diverse companies can pay lower wages and benefit that way then it may have something to it but it's hard to see that as the market "solving the problem."
      - aurelianito 10y ago
        When people are hired their salaries go up, solving the issue.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Except that the whole reason these smart companies are hiring them is that they can get them for bargain-basement wages, so a large disparity continues to exist.
        mos_basik 10y ago
        If I understand correctly, the extension of the argument (in light of your objection) is this: assuming two equally sized and skilled pools of employees, Company Diversity will spend less on salaries than Company Bigot - meaning those funds are able to be spent elsewhere, giving Company Diversity a competitive advantage in the market. Eventually Company Bigot goes out of business (or lowers their salaries). Of course we assume, in this thought experiment, that all the other things Company Bigot could do to become more competitive (invest in more employee training, better infrastructure, etc) are also available to Company Diversity. This isn't always the case. Maybe Company Diversity's hiring practices have alienated it from potential suppliers or clients who prefer Company Bigot's views. Specifically I'm thinking of Japan, where (apparently; source: this site) the cultural emphasis on the salaryman paradigm means that hiring from the significant pool of contract labor can hurt your company image as far as working with the established corporations is concerned.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

The market isn't a magic genie that imposes rationality.

framed4Blame 10y ago

You're missing the gist of the logic. Integrity of a company is almost entirely instigated by hiring those who represent the ideals of the founder(s), and iff those ideals are centered on profit, then it's logical to the rich to presume that their wealthy peers are more well suited to creating wealth in their respective roles. Unfotunately for whomever published this study, and for those that agree with the findings, advancement within markets is not solely promulgated by a singular mindset, but instead by a collection of contrasting views that accommodate many, many perspectives and thereby glean an aggregate position on how to act in varying circumstances. If Bob, Bill, and Brian are all in the same yacht club, and all come from similar backgrounds, have similar motivations, and similar perspectives, then they will miss opportunities that someone from a 'hardscrabble' upbringing would recognize more instinctually due to having to deal with much more stressful environs. To make this a bit more technically obvious: if I write an AI algorithm and it's too greedy in only choosing the most optimum components when evolving a solution, then it won't ever accommodate circumstances that require an instrument that can negotiate around, or through, moments of volatility that the 'rich boy' set has never had to endure. I find it laughable that people think they are so enlightened that they understand the potential of another being enough to judge them unworthy while simultaneously giving themselves plaudits for being so capable. If someone is truly that great of a manager, then why aren't they confident enough in their ability to manage, or even work with, someone of lower class? Surely the dichotomy is apparent. Why isn't it acknowledged that it's less(!) good to discriminate via class than it is to be capable enough to accommodate someone you find 'beneath' your standards? It's like people who have that mindset are so happy to pat themselves on the back for being great at what they do, but cannot fathom working with someone who comes from a household that wasn't as supportive. The f nerve of it is, well, unnerving. Companies have to learn to grow culture via inclusivity, not by being exclusive. All for one, one for all, that kind of thing. Otherwise you get cronyism, and if you read a little history you'll see numerous examples of how that strategy turns out. Ask George II and see what he says.

icebraining 10y ago

Or is this an admission that white men actually perform better than the rest? Wouldn't surprise me. Considering we're talking about legal firms, a good chunk of the job is social interactions: with the clients and their partners, the judges, etc. If we make the not-exactly-absurd assumption that white men are more likely to be perceived as sound, then they could in fact "perform better" than others of the same ability.

aurelianito 10y ago
If so, then it is reasonable to hire them, isn't it?
- icebraining 10y ago
  The concept of systemic discrimination means the system makes taking discriminatory actions reasonable - even necessary - for people who wouldn't otherwise discriminate of their own accord. Which is why it's often considered even more problematic than individual discrimination, but also often easily dismissed, since the actors don't consider themselves as biased, they're just doing what's "reasonable".
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Sure; it's also economically rational to dump industrial waste into drinking water if that's the cheapest way to dispose of it. So?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]