4 ms·

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 a

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.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  > where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies Well, the CA Democratic Party's official position is that you should have supported Prop 16, which would have unbanned race based affirmative action (racism) [1]. > Sure, yes, this is fine. It is not fine. Myself and many others reject this sort of practice. California voters rejected Prop 16 by a 15 pt margin. It is illegal under federal discrimination laws to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. It is racism, plain and simple. Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. Pretending you are morally superior by discriminating against minorities through affirmative action is just as bad as white supremacy. This sort of "it's fine" attitude is why Trump got elected. And before you accuse me of being a white cis-male, I'm not white. > You should really read those links better > Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. I quote from the article: "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". This is literally the sort of DEI affirmative action sexism I was mentioning. You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against because women being underpaid fits your political narrative better. One of these things is a direct result of Google's internal policy to discriminate against "overrepresented" minorities like Asians and one of these things is not. [1] https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositions-on-the-2020-November-Ballot-.pdf https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositi...

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.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
> where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies Well, the CA Democratic Party's official position is that you should have supported Prop 16, which would have unbanned race based affirmative action (racism) [1]. > Sure, yes, this is fine. It is not fine. Myself and many others reject this sort of practice. California voters rejected Prop 16 by a 15 pt margin. It is illegal under federal discrimination laws to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. It is racism, plain and simple. Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. Pretending you are morally superior by discriminating against minorities through affirmative action is just as bad as white supremacy. This sort of "it's fine" attitude is why Trump got elected. And before you accuse me of being a white cis-male, I'm not white. > You should really read those links better > Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. I quote from the article: "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". This is literally the sort of DEI affirmative action sexism I was mentioning. You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against because women being underpaid fits your political narrative better. One of these things is a direct result of Google's internal policy to discriminate against "overrepresented" minorities like Asians and one of these things is not. [1] https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositions-on-the-2020-November-Ballot-.pdf https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositi...