4 ms·

> around $400 Wrong, because they paid out 9.7 million to 10k employees [1] which is more than $400. And it was not base salary, but discretionary funds. That

> around $400 Wrong, because they paid out 9.7 million to 10k employees [1] which is more than $400. And it was not base salary, but discretionary funds. That information is straight from Google's public statement. And it was not only L4s; Google only cited L4s as being a particularly large contributor. Google also has an incentive to understate what the real damages were, since it has to pay out for discrepancies. Don't forget, Google was sued for pay fixing in a cartel with other tech companies. Please get your facts right instead of lying. > Correct, Google was not sued by the DoL They were sued by the DoL for underpaying women and for hiring bias against Asians. I mixed up the two cases there - but that doesn't change the conclusion. Look, there are two groups in the DoL lawsuit: women and Asians. Women being underpaid/underhired is explained by sexism by managers. That's obviously illegal. Asians being underhired, on the other hand, is easily explained by Google's internal policy towards DEI and their DEI KPIs. That lines up with men being underpaid due to DEI policies. I might've mixed up the male underpayment survey and the lawsuit, but it doesn't change the conclusion that diversity KPIs can lead to managers illegally biasing decisions to boost their KPIs. You literally stated yourself that it's possible for multiple instances of bias to occur at the same time. This is an obvious example of that happening. > I realize this makes the entire narrative you're pushing here fall apart The facts are: Google was sued for underhiring Asians. Google also found that men were underpaid due to use of discretionary funds. Google also sets diversity KPIs for their managers to meet, which affect managers' compensation. As you have stated in your comments, Google prioritizes resumes of "underrepresented" minorities. Do you really not see how these practices cause discrimination against Asians in hiring? > every school like Bumfuck U is unable to engage in affirmative action In these schools, affirmative action is generally not used because the school is not sufficiently selective for its use to have any impact on student demographics. My local community college accepts everyone. So yes, in practice, Bumfuck U does not use affirmative action. I don't get why you feel the need to bring up Bumfuck U when whether a white person is affected by affirmative action for some school no one cares about doesn't matter at all. The largest damage done by affirmative action is being done at the most prestigious firms and schools. That is where it matters, and that's where white people are not disadvantaged by affirmative action's use but Asians are. Do you care if you're rejected from McDonald's because of your race? Probably not. But you do care if you're rejected from Google (as the DoL stated Asians were) or Harvard because of your race. Do you disagree with the statement that 1) Asians competing for spots at prestigious firms and colleges are discriminated against by affirmative action and 2) white people competing for spots at prestigious firms and colleges are NOT discriminated against by affirmative action? Because that's what the statistics (SFFA v Harvard, UC system before/after Prop 209, etc.) show. And if you don't disagree with that, then you must come to the natural conclusion that affirmative action is racist against Asians and as a white person you are advocating for a policy that does not materially affect you but severely affects Asians. As a side note, your patronizing tone and attitude towards this are not conducive towards reasonable conversation. Acting morally superior because you can advocate for a policy that doesn't harm you but gives you nice optics is textbook white privilege. Please check your privilege. [1] https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/ensuring-we-pay-fairly-and-equitably/ https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/...

joshuamorton 4y ago
> Wrong, because they paid out 9.7 million to 10k employees [1] which is more than $400. And 49% of those funds were paid out to a much smaller group of unrelated people, if you read to the next line. > And it was not base salary, but discretionary funds. That information is straight from Google's public statement. Yes, discretionary funds to adjust base salary. > And it was not only L4s; Google only cited L4s as being a particularly large contributor. Google also has an incentive to understate what the real damages were, since it has to pay out for discrepancies. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that Google's DEI policies were causing managers to pay women to prevent them from leaving. I'm not the one getting confused here. Get your argument straight and stop bringing up unrelated distractions. I'll reiterate: as someone who was employed by Google in 2018 and affected by this policy, I was given a $400 raise, as were other affected swes I discussed with. It was $400. You're denial of this isn't factual. It's driven by a narrative that simply isn't there. > Do you really not see how these practices cause discrimination against Asians in hiring? No, I have absolutely no clue how Google underpaying men has anything to do with discriminating against Asians. > Asians being underhired, on the other hand, is easily explained by Google's internal policy towards DEI and their DEI KPIs. Ok so now you've changed your argument yet again. > That lines up with men being underpaid due to DEI policies. But contradicts women being underhired, and of course if you know anything about Google's hiring you'd know that (especially back in 2017) hiring decisions were made before a manager even knew anything about an applicant, so individual managers diversity KPI's couldn't affect the underhiring of applicants. > You literally stated yourself that it's possible for multiple instances of bias to occur at the same time. This is an obvious example of that happening. Sure, but the the whole conspiracy part is how this is related to diversity KPIs. In one instance you're saying that the diversity KPIs somehow resulted in women being paid more en masse (even though they were being paid less!) and in the other case they resulted in Asian men getting hired less even though it also led to women being hired less. You'd expect the impact to be like, somewhat similar in both cases, but you're arguing it had opposite effects. > I don't get why you feel the need to bring up Bumfuck U when whether a white person is affected by affirmative action for some school no one cares about doesn't matter at all. The largest damage done by affirmative action is being done at the most prestigious firms and schools. That is where it matters, and that's where white people are not disadvantaged by affirmative action's use but Asians are. Do you care if you're rejected from McDonald's because of your race? Probably not. But you do care if you're rejected from Google (as the DoL stated Asians were) or Harvard because of your race. It's pretty privileged (and weird!) to categorically reject the idea that people "in the middle" can lose out to even worse people from AA. Isn't that the entire way AA causes harm: by replacing some middling people from one group with ostensibly worse people from another group? Like, do you think that someone who doesn't get into their stretch school is unaffected just because they're stretch is a state university and not Harvard? But here you're saying that actually harm only matters when it affects Asians. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it makes me question your motives. > And if you don't disagree with that, then you must come to the natural conclusion that affirmative action is racist against Asians and as a white person you are advocating for a policy that does not materially affect you but severely affects Asians. There are lots of policies that I advocate for against or that don't materially affect me (or even are directly adverse for me, including the one we're discussing!). We live in a society, and I try to support policies that will be good for society, not just ones that will be directly beneficial to me.

joshuamorton 4y ago

> Wrong, because they paid out 9.7 million to 10k employees [1] which is more than $400. And 49% of those funds were paid out to a much smaller group of unrelated people, if you read to the next line. > And it was not base salary, but discretionary funds. That information is straight from Google's public statement. Yes, discretionary funds to adjust base salary. > And it was not only L4s; Google only cited L4s as being a particularly large contributor. Google also has an incentive to understate what the real damages were, since it has to pay out for discrepancies. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that Google's DEI policies were causing managers to pay women to prevent them from leaving. I'm not the one getting confused here. Get your argument straight and stop bringing up unrelated distractions. I'll reiterate: as someone who was employed by Google in 2018 and affected by this policy, I was given a $400 raise, as were other affected swes I discussed with. It was $400. You're denial of this isn't factual. It's driven by a narrative that simply isn't there. > Do you really not see how these practices cause discrimination against Asians in hiring? No, I have absolutely no clue how Google underpaying men has anything to do with discriminating against Asians. > Asians being underhired, on the other hand, is easily explained by Google's internal policy towards DEI and their DEI KPIs. Ok so now you've changed your argument yet again. > That lines up with men being underpaid due to DEI policies. But contradicts women being underhired, and of course if you know anything about Google's hiring you'd know that (especially back in 2017) hiring decisions were made before a manager even knew anything about an applicant, so individual managers diversity KPI's couldn't affect the underhiring of applicants. > You literally stated yourself that it's possible for multiple instances of bias to occur at the same time. This is an obvious example of that happening. Sure, but the the whole conspiracy part is how this is related to diversity KPIs. In one instance you're saying that the diversity KPIs somehow resulted in women being paid more en masse (even though they were being paid less!) and in the other case they resulted in Asian men getting hired less even though it also led to women being hired less. You'd expect the impact to be like, somewhat similar in both cases, but you're arguing it had opposite effects. > I don't get why you feel the need to bring up Bumfuck U when whether a white person is affected by affirmative action for some school no one cares about doesn't matter at all. The largest damage done by affirmative action is being done at the most prestigious firms and schools. That is where it matters, and that's where white people are not disadvantaged by affirmative action's use but Asians are. Do you care if you're rejected from McDonald's because of your race? Probably not. But you do care if you're rejected from Google (as the DoL stated Asians were) or Harvard because of your race. It's pretty privileged (and weird!) to categorically reject the idea that people "in the middle" can lose out to even worse people from AA. Isn't that the entire way AA causes harm: by replacing some middling people from one group with ostensibly worse people from another group? Like, do you think that someone who doesn't get into their stretch school is unaffected just because they're stretch is a state university and not Harvard? But here you're saying that actually harm only matters when it affects Asians. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it makes me question your motives. > And if you don't disagree with that, then you must come to the natural conclusion that affirmative action is racist against Asians and as a white person you are advocating for a policy that does not materially affect you but severely affects Asians. There are lots of policies that I advocate for against or that don't materially affect me (or even are directly adverse for me, including the one we're discussing!). We live in a society, and I try to support policies that will be good for society, not just ones that will be directly beneficial to me.