5 ms·

> It's only zero sum because people like you claim it's zero sum and create the perception that it is so It is by definition zero sum. There are a fixed number

> It's only zero sum because people like you claim it's zero sum and create the perception that it is so It is by definition zero sum. There are a fixed number of college acceptance spots at prestigious colleges each year and by the nature of prestige it must stay so for the colleges to continue being prestigious. There are (roughly) a fixed number of jobs in prestigious fields. There are a fixed number of C level positions in Fortune 500 companies. When you deliberately reallocate these spots on the basis of skin color instead of merit, you doom the nation to eventual failure as it's outcompeted by nations like China. Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes, and not substantially raising LT capital gains taxes. Not only that, but you can still deduct huge amounts for real estate ownership and business ownership.

joshuamorton 4y ago
No one was talking about allocating headcount. > Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. This begs the question. > You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes. Sanders and Warren both advocate for wealth taxes, and have higher support among the college educated cadre of the dem party!
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. That means DEI programs and affirmative action to favor minorities, because that's what's being pushed by the left right now. Those policies do affect headcount and college admissions and are zero sum. I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes and promotions. Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-fi... [2] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-settles-hiring-pay-bias-claims-for-over-5-000-workers https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-sett...
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. Correct. > That means DEI programs Let me know where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies. We were discussing a particular minority aware funding program. You decided to bring up headcount, something no one else was discussing. > I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes Sure, yes, this is fine. > and promotions. Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. > Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. You should really read those links better. Your first showed that a particular crosstab of engineers (that I belonged to, in fact!) were being systemically underpaid (by, if I recall, something like .25%). Your second link notes that Google settled both against Asian applicants, and against female applicants and employees. So, Google was, per your own source, systematically underpaying women (by a larger margin over a larger period) and their internal study failed to recognize that, and instead gave me a small bonus.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > Sure, yes, this is fine. Most minorities themselves don't think it's fine: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe.... Hispanics oppose the practice 69-27, and Black people oppose it 54-37. To put that into context, Hispanics are more unified in opposing taking race into account in hiring than they are in supporting Joe Biden. White liberals are imposing this practice upon them.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        Your link and what I said I support aren't the same thing. I'm going to ask you to ensure that you're responding to the strongest interpretation of what I'm saying (and maybe reconsider your priors if "DEI" to you means "explicitly favor applicants based on race"). I really don't like having to deal with motte and bailey, even if it's unintentional. Google doesn't consider race or ethnicity (or gender or..) during the hiring or promotion process. Prioritizing someone's resume (e.g. giving them an interview first) because they're underrepresented is vastly different than hiring or promoting someone less qualified.
nemo44x 4y ago
> There are a fixed number of college acceptance spots at prestigious colleges each year and by the nature of prestige it must stay so for the colleges to continue being prestigious. This is exactly why affirmative action will be overturned in the next Supreme Court session later this year. The argument that Justice Ginsburg and others made in support of it is that you aren’t taking anything away from other people by making a special exception for an arbitrary group of people. But you are. Seats are limited and coveted by all. It’s literally against the civil rights act and should be abolished.

joshuamorton 4y ago

No one was talking about allocating headcount. > Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. This begs the question. > You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes. Sanders and Warren both advocate for wealth taxes, and have higher support among the college educated cadre of the dem party!

ceeplusplus 4y ago
You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. That means DEI programs and affirmative action to favor minorities, because that's what's being pushed by the left right now. Those policies do affect headcount and college admissions and are zero sum. I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes and promotions. Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-fi... [2] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-settles-hiring-pay-bias-claims-for-over-5-000-workers https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-sett...
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. Correct. > That means DEI programs Let me know where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies. We were discussing a particular minority aware funding program. You decided to bring up headcount, something no one else was discussing. > I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes Sure, yes, this is fine. > and promotions. Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. > Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. You should really read those links better. Your first showed that a particular crosstab of engineers (that I belonged to, in fact!) were being systemically underpaid (by, if I recall, something like .25%). Your second link notes that Google settled both against Asian applicants, and against female applicants and employees. So, Google was, per your own source, systematically underpaying women (by a larger margin over a larger period) and their internal study failed to recognize that, and instead gave me a small bonus.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > Sure, yes, this is fine. Most minorities themselves don't think it's fine: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe.... Hispanics oppose the practice 69-27, and Black people oppose it 54-37. To put that into context, Hispanics are more unified in opposing taking race into account in hiring than they are in supporting Joe Biden. White liberals are imposing this practice upon them.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      Your link and what I said I support aren't the same thing. I'm going to ask you to ensure that you're responding to the strongest interpretation of what I'm saying (and maybe reconsider your priors if "DEI" to you means "explicitly favor applicants based on race"). I really don't like having to deal with motte and bailey, even if it's unintentional. Google doesn't consider race or ethnicity (or gender or..) during the hiring or promotion process. Prioritizing someone's resume (e.g. giving them an interview first) because they're underrepresented is vastly different than hiring or promoting someone less qualified.

nemo44x 4y ago

> There are a fixed number of college acceptance spots at prestigious colleges each year and by the nature of prestige it must stay so for the colleges to continue being prestigious. This is exactly why affirmative action will be overturned in the next Supreme Court session later this year. The argument that Justice Ginsburg and others made in support of it is that you aren’t taking anything away from other people by making a special exception for an arbitrary group of people. But you are. Seats are limited and coveted by all. It’s literally against the civil rights act and should be abolished.