3 ms·

"While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asia

"While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian). This disproportionately South Asian and Indian workforce, by race and national origin, is a result of Infosys’s intentional employment discrimination against individuals who are not South Asian, including discrimination in the hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination of individuals." What kind of argument is this? When the time to elect the 100th president comes, should all non-South Asian candidates be excluded from the start? (Assuming no South Asian is elected until then. And by then the 1% might have changed, of course).

pvg 9y ago
It's an argument that's a lot easier to follow than whatever it is you are trying to say about a hypothetical future presidential candidates and how might be related to their point.
- ominous 9y ago
  It is an argument in the sense that it is a chain of facts and a conclusion is implied. "x% of all A have property X. We have been taking A's for the purpose of Y. The record shows the y% of our A's have property X". A = population X = being South Asian x = 1 y = 93-94 Y = working at infosys And the conclusion seems to be that when making a selection, the selection should be 'fair' for all properties of A, and not 'fair' for the purpose Y. And I am not even mentioning the fact that the selection is made by infosys, whereas if fairness was that important no selection should be made at all. Maybe we could just ask the government (with their census data) to send the 'fair' distribution of people to work at infosys.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    That's how legal complaints work. You set forth a chain of facts that plausibly imply a conclusion. Proving the conclusion is what you do at trial, after having the benefit of discovery.
    - ominous 9y ago
      Agreed, the legal system is in place to decide who wins, not what makes sense.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        At least this part of the system makes sense. There is a two-step process: pleading and merits. The first stage is a filter for the second. At the pleading stage, there is a trade-off between getting the right answer and the expense to businesses of defending litigation. The pleading standard (the level of facts you have to allege to get to the merits) is a knob you can turn to trade-off between those two things. If you make the pleading standard liberal, as it is in the U.S., you'll get the right answer more often because you'll actually delve into the emails, witnesses interviews, etc. to see if the defendant actually did do what the plaintiff says he did. If you make the pleading standard more stringent, you reduce the expense of litigation for companies, but you also deny more meritorious claims. E.g. companies that discriminate don't exactly advertise that fact. If you require a high standard of proof to simply bring the claim (as distinguished from proving liability), then most people who have actually been discriminated against will not be able to recover.
  - pvg 9y ago
    Where do the presidential elections and stuff come in here again?
    - ominous 9y ago
      It is a selection over a large pool of people. So is dating. Have you dated your fair share of minorities?
      - pvg 9y ago
        wat
trhway 9y ago
>While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian) the argument is screwed in more ways than one. In particular the whole population makeup isn't relevant here. The US IT industry makeup is, and South Asian is [from my casual view] more like 30-40% of it, and while not 93%-94%, it is still much less dramatic of a difference (i.e. 2 out of 3 applicants have to be eliminated using the "culture fit" criteria instead of 19 out of 20).

pvg 9y ago

It's an argument that's a lot easier to follow than whatever it is you are trying to say about a hypothetical future presidential candidates and how might be related to their point.

ominous 9y ago
It is an argument in the sense that it is a chain of facts and a conclusion is implied. "x% of all A have property X. We have been taking A's for the purpose of Y. The record shows the y% of our A's have property X". A = population X = being South Asian x = 1 y = 93-94 Y = working at infosys And the conclusion seems to be that when making a selection, the selection should be 'fair' for all properties of A, and not 'fair' for the purpose Y. And I am not even mentioning the fact that the selection is made by infosys, whereas if fairness was that important no selection should be made at all. Maybe we could just ask the government (with their census data) to send the 'fair' distribution of people to work at infosys.
- rayiner 9y ago
  That's how legal complaints work. You set forth a chain of facts that plausibly imply a conclusion. Proving the conclusion is what you do at trial, after having the benefit of discovery.
  - ominous 9y ago
    Agreed, the legal system is in place to decide who wins, not what makes sense.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      At least this part of the system makes sense. There is a two-step process: pleading and merits. The first stage is a filter for the second. At the pleading stage, there is a trade-off between getting the right answer and the expense to businesses of defending litigation. The pleading standard (the level of facts you have to allege to get to the merits) is a knob you can turn to trade-off between those two things. If you make the pleading standard liberal, as it is in the U.S., you'll get the right answer more often because you'll actually delve into the emails, witnesses interviews, etc. to see if the defendant actually did do what the plaintiff says he did. If you make the pleading standard more stringent, you reduce the expense of litigation for companies, but you also deny more meritorious claims. E.g. companies that discriminate don't exactly advertise that fact. If you require a high standard of proof to simply bring the claim (as distinguished from proving liability), then most people who have actually been discriminated against will not be able to recover.
- pvg 9y ago
  Where do the presidential elections and stuff come in here again?
  - ominous 9y ago
    It is a selection over a large pool of people. So is dating. Have you dated your fair share of minorities?
    - pvg 9y ago
      wat

trhway 9y ago

>While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian) the argument is screwed in more ways than one. In particular the whole population makeup isn't relevant here. The US IT industry makeup is, and South Asian is [from my casual view] more like 30-40% of it, and while not 93%-94%, it is still much less dramatic of a difference (i.e. 2 out of 3 applicants have to be eliminated using the "culture fit" criteria instead of 19 out of 20).