4 ms·

> Disfavoring Asians in such a place is ineffective, as there aren't enough to have an appreciable effect. Are you claiming affirmative action doesn't exist in

> Disfavoring Asians in such a place is ineffective, as there aren't enough to have an appreciable effect. Are you claiming affirmative action doesn't exist in such areas? Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing. You'll notice also that California is aggressively trying to implement affirmative action to disadvantage Asians despite Asians being only 15% of the population in CA. Are you claiming that affirmative action doesn't disadvantage Asians? Because that is demonstrably false, as evidenced by SFFA vs Harvard, the data out of the UC system before and after Prop 209, and comparing the racial makeup schools of similar caliber that do and do not utilize affirmative action. > like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent I never mentioned any numbers in my post. Please don't lie. > the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more It is a fact that Google managers used internal discretionary funds to pay women more. It is also a fact that Google managers have diversity KPIs they are encouraged to meet as part of their performance: "At Google, we measure the progress against these [DEI] goals with various metrics across hiring, progression, retention, and inclusion" [1]. I will let you come to your own conclusion as to how the latter could lead to the former. [1] https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/future-of-marketing/management-and-culture/diversity-and-inclusion/inclusivity-builder-diverse-workforce/ https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/future-of-marketi...

joshuamorton 4y ago
> I will let you come to your own conclusion as to how the latter could lead to the former. Given that I know the size of these discretionary funds, I can practically guarantee it didn't. For context, my manager recently stretched his discretion to the limit for a coworker, and was able to bend their salary by around half a percent. A few hundred dollars isn't going to retain anyone at a FAANG. > Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing. No, but you did say it doesn't disfavor whites, it disfavors Asians. I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  > I can practically guarantee it didn't If that was the case, then Google would not have been sued by the Department of Labor. Don't presume to understand what a manager is capable of doing when you are a mere engineer IC. The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers). A few hundred dollars is probably less than your team gets for a single social event. If retaining a woman would boost the manager's diversity KPIs, it's easy to see how the diversity KPIs would cause discriminatory retention bonuses. > I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians. Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country? Even if locally there are few Asians, they are still discriminated against by affirmative action. If I'm an Asian in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky and I apply to Harvard, I still get screwed by affirmative action equally as much as the Asian applying from California. The situation you're talking about where there are no Asians competing for a spot doesn't exist for jobs and schools with any level of selectivity.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > If that was the case, then Google would not have been sued by the Department of Labor. Correct, Google was not sued by the DoL for overpaying women. > Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers). Well aware ;) > The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about. So what you don't appear to realize is that in the situation where Google found themselves to be overpaying women, this applied specifically to L4 SWEs, and only in regards to base salary. The difference was found to be around $400. Just to be really, really clear here: your average L4's manager is probably an L6. There's significant restrictions on what such a manager can do with their discretionary comp, and 500-1000$ in base salary really is the upper limit for what they can do. Anything larger would require escalation to a director or a VP, and even there, the amount you can move a base salary is relatively limited. I realize this makes the entire narrative you're pushing here fall apart, but that's the reason I think it's so important to make this clear to you. From someone who actually has knowlege of the circumstances, you're pushing a sexist conspiracy theory. Don't do that. > Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country? You're missing my point. You've claimed that white people are unaffected by AA. There's a university in Bumfuck. It has practically no Asian applicants, because the population is low. Are you claiming, categorically that every school like Bumfuck U is unable to engage in affirmative action because the don't have an Asian population to discriminate against? And if not, what group does their policy harm?

joshuamorton 4y ago

> I will let you come to your own conclusion as to how the latter could lead to the former. Given that I know the size of these discretionary funds, I can practically guarantee it didn't. For context, my manager recently stretched his discretion to the limit for a coworker, and was able to bend their salary by around half a percent. A few hundred dollars isn't going to retain anyone at a FAANG. > Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing. No, but you did say it doesn't disfavor whites, it disfavors Asians. I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
> I can practically guarantee it didn't If that was the case, then Google would not have been sued by the Department of Labor. Don't presume to understand what a manager is capable of doing when you are a mere engineer IC. The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers). A few hundred dollars is probably less than your team gets for a single social event. If retaining a woman would boost the manager's diversity KPIs, it's easy to see how the diversity KPIs would cause discriminatory retention bonuses. > I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians. Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country? Even if locally there are few Asians, they are still discriminated against by affirmative action. If I'm an Asian in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky and I apply to Harvard, I still get screwed by affirmative action equally as much as the Asian applying from California. The situation you're talking about where there are no Asians competing for a spot doesn't exist for jobs and schools with any level of selectivity.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > If that was the case, then Google would not have been sued by the Department of Labor. Correct, Google was not sued by the DoL for overpaying women. > Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers). Well aware ;) > The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about. So what you don't appear to realize is that in the situation where Google found themselves to be overpaying women, this applied specifically to L4 SWEs, and only in regards to base salary. The difference was found to be around $400. Just to be really, really clear here: your average L4's manager is probably an L6. There's significant restrictions on what such a manager can do with their discretionary comp, and 500-1000$ in base salary really is the upper limit for what they can do. Anything larger would require escalation to a director or a VP, and even there, the amount you can move a base salary is relatively limited. I realize this makes the entire narrative you're pushing here fall apart, but that's the reason I think it's so important to make this clear to you. From someone who actually has knowlege of the circumstances, you're pushing a sexist conspiracy theory. Don't do that. > Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country? You're missing my point. You've claimed that white people are unaffected by AA. There's a university in Bumfuck. It has practically no Asian applicants, because the population is low. Are you claiming, categorically that every school like Bumfuck U is unable to engage in affirmative action because the don't have an Asian population to discriminate against? And if not, what group does their policy harm?