5 ms·

Equality of outcome is an ideological rather than rational stance and is losing its foothold on account of rationally justified kickback. Both because it necess

Equality of outcome is an ideological rather than rational stance and is losing its foothold on account of rationally justified kickback. Both because it necessitates active, purposeful discrimination to enforce and because the result is less value to shareholders (at least on account of the cost to enforce).

ShabbosGoy 8y ago
I’m slightly more pessimistic. I think the shareholders want to make salary discussion as opaque as possible, so they can continue to screw their employees.
albertgoeswoof 8y ago
You’ve created a strawman by assuming that equality of outcome is the goal of this proposal. A drive for increased diversity doesn’t necessarily mean equality of outcome, I think even hard line activists know that this is an unachievable goal with diminishing returns.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Google is already committed to matching the distribution of genders in the job market by 2020. What would a proposal that goes even further than that look like, where women and some minorities are over-represented at Google relative to the job market? Can that be anything other than equality of outcome?
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    Outcome equality would imply matching up all jobs to employees that fit diversity characteristics to some agreed ratio based on population of working age people within a given area. How you set those two variable sets is arbitrary and subjective depending on your own prejudices and diversity preferences. E.g. Distribution of genders is probably the easiest one as it’s binary (almost) and even throughout all cohorts. But choosing the ratio to target is subjective.
- Borealid 8y ago
  Increased diversity is an outcome. Seeking equal/"better"/"more representative" numbers (percentage-wise) is not an equality-of-opportunity situation; it's about outcomes regardless of how they came about. To be clear, I'm not saying that's moral or immoral, just that seeking "increased diversity" is factually seeking to affect an outcome, not an input/opportunity.
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    Increased diversity is not the same as equal diversity though.

ShabbosGoy 8y ago

I’m slightly more pessimistic. I think the shareholders want to make salary discussion as opaque as possible, so they can continue to screw their employees.

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

You’ve created a strawman by assuming that equality of outcome is the goal of this proposal. A drive for increased diversity doesn’t necessarily mean equality of outcome, I think even hard line activists know that this is an unachievable goal with diminishing returns.

oh_sigh 8y ago
Google is already committed to matching the distribution of genders in the job market by 2020. What would a proposal that goes even further than that look like, where women and some minorities are over-represented at Google relative to the job market? Can that be anything other than equality of outcome?
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  Outcome equality would imply matching up all jobs to employees that fit diversity characteristics to some agreed ratio based on population of working age people within a given area. How you set those two variable sets is arbitrary and subjective depending on your own prejudices and diversity preferences. E.g. Distribution of genders is probably the easiest one as it’s binary (almost) and even throughout all cohorts. But choosing the ratio to target is subjective.
Borealid 8y ago
Increased diversity is an outcome. Seeking equal/"better"/"more representative" numbers (percentage-wise) is not an equality-of-opportunity situation; it's about outcomes regardless of how they came about. To be clear, I'm not saying that's moral or immoral, just that seeking "increased diversity" is factually seeking to affect an outcome, not an input/opportunity.
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  Increased diversity is not the same as equal diversity though.