4 ms·
> 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 unrela
by 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.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago> Ok so now you've changed your argument yet again. Like I said, you are arguing in bad faith and quibbling over an honest mistake when I explained to you exactly why you're wrong. I've presented the evidence and you refuse to acknowledge it, so there's no more to discuss. > 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 Even if the scenario you're proposing existed (the acceptance rate at these state schools is well over 50%), affirmative action still wouldn't affect white people. Whites, for example, are admitted to Harvard at around the same rate that they are to the University of Washington Tacoma [1] [2] or to SUNY Stony Brook [3]. So regardless of whether you're talking about some random state school or Harvard, and regardless of whether affirmative action is allowed (as it is at Harvard and Stony Brook) or not allowed (UW), white people are admitted at around the same rate. In fact, in some state schools in the deep South, whites make up over 60% of admitted students, despite affirmative action being allowed there. That is by definition, unaffected by affirmative action. > 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 Affirmative action is bad for society. It is racist and reduces the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. It violates the Civil Rights Act and will hopefully be illegal come the next SCOTUS session. It makes some white liberals such as yourself feel better about yourselves, that's it. The fact that you believe you know what's "good for society" and no one else (especially not minorities! [4]) is exactly the sort of white supremacy that progressives nowadays embody. [1] https://studentdata.washington.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/Quick_Stats_Tacoma_Spring_2022.pdf https://studentdata.washington.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/... [2] https://blog.collegevine.com/harvard-university-diversity-statistics/ https://blog.collegevine.com/harvard-university-diversity-st... [3] https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/irpe/fact_book/data_and_reports/_files/enrollment/FallbyMultiRaceEthnicity.pdf https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/irpe/fact_book/data_and_r... [4] https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe...
- joshuamorton 4y ago> Even if the scenario you're proposing existed (the acceptance rate at these state schools is well over 50%), affirmative action still wouldn't affect white people. Whites, for example, are admitted to Harvard at around the same rate that they are to the University of Washington Tacoma [1] [2] or to SUNY Stony Brook [3]. You've cherrypicked examples. Look at UNC Chapel Hill or Georgia Tech or Duke or Tulane or Emory (granted not all are State schools). These schools have acceptance rates of less than 25%, and some lower than 10% and, and relatively small Asian populations, with white populations as high as 65% and in some cases more Black than Asian students. You're claiming that none of them engage in race-aware, holistic admissions processes, despite contrary statements on all of their undergraduate admissions websites? > In fact, in some state schools in the deep South, whites make up over 60% of admitted students, despite affirmative action being allowed there. That is by definition, unaffected by affirmative action. Wait what? Are you claiming that being overrepresented compared to the baseline population is evidence that a group is unaffected by affirmative action? If so than Asian students, who are overrepresented compared to population percentages at every school you've mentioned, are unaffected by affirmative action. > The fact that you believe you know what's "good for society" I'm confused, are you saying I should support policies I think are bad for society, or are you saying that it is white supremacy for me to have opinions that differ from yours?