6 ms·

More than "improve the world", it's "improve the part of the world that matters to Google". They've done the same thing with advocating for a free and open Int

More than "improve the world", it's "improve the part of the world that matters to Google". They've done the same thing with advocating for a free and open Internet for over a decade--a better internet makes a better Google. Let's look at what this might mean for Google, in practical terms. Some 10-15% of people are LGBT. It stands to reason that the same holds true of engineers. Now, it's well-established that the well is running dry in SV; talent needs to be imported. So if I'm a gay engineer thinking of moving to SV, how does this change my thoughts about where I want to work? It stands to reason that a significant number of LGBT engineers would be motivated to work for Google by this announcement. Let's look at non-gay immigrants. Outside of places like China and India, most of the countries Google is looking to recruit from are way ahead of the US on gay rights. So much so that the mere fact that gay marriage is an "issue" in the US serves to perpetuate the bible-thumping moron stereotype of Americans. So even for non-LGBT engineers from Europe, Canada, Australia, etc, this would be viewed by the majority as a reason to work for Google. Now, how would this hurt them? The argument can be made that, among more conservative (read: Indian and Chinese) societies, where gay rights are not accepted as human rights, that some percentage of potential hires would be put off by such a move. Perhaps, but I think that there are a number of mitigating factors, here. First, gay rights aren't nearly as big a political issue in those countries as in the US. It's frowned upon, but you don't have presidential nominees from one of the two parties proving how much they deserve the candidacy by falling over themselves to say who thinks gays are worse. Secondly and generally speaking, "culture" is simply nowhere near as big an attraction for people from those countries as status and income. So while it may deter some people, it likely wouldn't be many. Now for advertisers: will anyone really drop Google for online advertising because of this? Somehow I doubt it. There may be some of the Walmarts and whatnot who drop them, but I find the prospect unlikely. To sum it up: advantages for Google include easier, more effective recruitment. Disadvantages include potential loss of customers. I think Google wins this solely on the bottom line, let alone the fact that it's just a good thing to do.

henrikschroder 14y ago
The single biggest improvement they could do to help recruiting is to lobby as hard as they can for repealing the &"#&&¤#"!! Defence of Marriage Act. If you get some sort of working visa in the US, you can in many cases also get a visa for your spouse so that both of you can live there and work there. However, the %#""&!! DOMA explicitly defines spouse as someone of the opposite gender that you are married to. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the country you're from. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the US state you're going to. If your husband or wife is of the same sex as you, you're just screwed by the visa process, you can't bring them.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I am pretty confident DOMA section 3 (the only part that actually does anything) will get struck down next year, and the definition will revert to the states. Before Scalia's off-the-wall dissent in Arizona v. United States I thought it would be unanimous on 10th Amendment grounds. Now I think maybe 7-1 or 8-1 depending on whether Kagan recuses. I think there is virtually no chance that Thomas will vote against a 10th Amendment argument. The only hope congress has on this (though kudos for them for defending the doomed law) is to hope the court follows Comstock and gives the federal government broad authority to tack on all kinds of things to federal powers. I think the chance of this though is very, very small. However, if they do strike it down on 10th Amendment grounds expect a lot of hand-wringing from liberal law school professors. When a district court found it violated the 10th Amendment, Jack Balkin (very much on the liberal side) said something to the effect that while he wanted to see DOMA struck down, the 10th Amendment was just too dangerous to the idea of centralized government to allow that to stand.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Just to clarify, there were other dissents in Arizona v. US, but the only one that was bonkers was Scalia's. The other dissents (Thomas, and Alito's partial dissent) thought the AZ immigration laws were similar enough to the federal law to survive pre-emption. Scalia thought the state had inherent rights as a separate sovereign to keep out non-citizens it didn't want there. It wasn't perfectly clear why Scalia didn't think Arizona could keep out foreign tourists if they wanted (though he did assert that the state would have to respect federal visas). I even knew people who usually agreed with Scalia who thought that opinion was "radical."
monkeypizza 14y ago
>Some 10-15% of people are LGBT. It stands to reason that the same holds true of engineers. Would love to see two citations for this! (post 1940s!)
- henrikschroder 14y ago
  The Swedish National Institute of Public Health did a large survey about sex in the late 90's and sexual orientation was one of the many issues. According to that survey: ~1% identified themselves as homosexual ~4% identified themselves as bisexual in varying degrees ~5% could be labeled as bi-curious (tried it/want to try it) A further ~5% of men and ~15% of women had "fantasized about having sex with someone of the same sex at least once". So by being extremely generous with definitions, you could claim that ~80% of the population is completely straight, and that ~20% is therefore "LGBT". But that's stretching it way too far. A reasonable interpretation is that ~1% is gay, and ~5% is LGBT.
- corin_ 14y ago
  I think 10-15% is probably too high, personally if I had written that comment I would have said 5-10%, but even then I wouldn't be able to prove it. A variety of references can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientat... and if I were to cherry pick a couple from there to try and prove my 5-10% I could go with "2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex" and in the UK in 2010 "5% of people do not identify as heterosexual". Off that same page you could pick out some other stats to suggest that my 5-10% is too high. Here's a couple of reasons it's complicated: 1.) There's a hell of a lot of gay people in the closet, ranging from people who have told close family and friends but won't tell a survey, to people who are in denial to themselves. 2.) Different countries have different general stances on homosexuality. Even if everyone in, for example, the UAE answered an anonymous survey completely truthfully, without fearing for the fact that if they answered anything other than heterosexual could land them in jail or worse, you've got to assume that in countries like that far less people actually realise they are gay given they are in a society that assumes nobody is, so they are never going to question themselves about it.
Tichy 14y ago
"So while it may deter some people, it likely wouldn't be many." Also, deterring people who are against gay marriage might be a good thing.

henrikschroder 14y ago

The single biggest improvement they could do to help recruiting is to lobby as hard as they can for repealing the &"#&&¤#"!! Defence of Marriage Act. If you get some sort of working visa in the US, you can in many cases also get a visa for your spouse so that both of you can live there and work there. However, the %#""&!! DOMA explicitly defines spouse as someone of the opposite gender that you are married to. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the country you're from. It doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is legal or not in the US state you're going to. If your husband or wife is of the same sex as you, you're just screwed by the visa process, you can't bring them.

einhverfr 14y ago
I am pretty confident DOMA section 3 (the only part that actually does anything) will get struck down next year, and the definition will revert to the states. Before Scalia's off-the-wall dissent in Arizona v. United States I thought it would be unanimous on 10th Amendment grounds. Now I think maybe 7-1 or 8-1 depending on whether Kagan recuses. I think there is virtually no chance that Thomas will vote against a 10th Amendment argument. The only hope congress has on this (though kudos for them for defending the doomed law) is to hope the court follows Comstock and gives the federal government broad authority to tack on all kinds of things to federal powers. I think the chance of this though is very, very small. However, if they do strike it down on 10th Amendment grounds expect a lot of hand-wringing from liberal law school professors. When a district court found it violated the 10th Amendment, Jack Balkin (very much on the liberal side) said something to the effect that while he wanted to see DOMA struck down, the 10th Amendment was just too dangerous to the idea of centralized government to allow that to stand.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Just to clarify, there were other dissents in Arizona v. US, but the only one that was bonkers was Scalia's. The other dissents (Thomas, and Alito's partial dissent) thought the AZ immigration laws were similar enough to the federal law to survive pre-emption. Scalia thought the state had inherent rights as a separate sovereign to keep out non-citizens it didn't want there. It wasn't perfectly clear why Scalia didn't think Arizona could keep out foreign tourists if they wanted (though he did assert that the state would have to respect federal visas). I even knew people who usually agreed with Scalia who thought that opinion was "radical."

monkeypizza 14y ago

>Some 10-15% of people are LGBT. It stands to reason that the same holds true of engineers. Would love to see two citations for this! (post 1940s!)

henrikschroder 14y ago
The Swedish National Institute of Public Health did a large survey about sex in the late 90's and sexual orientation was one of the many issues. According to that survey: ~1% identified themselves as homosexual ~4% identified themselves as bisexual in varying degrees ~5% could be labeled as bi-curious (tried it/want to try it) A further ~5% of men and ~15% of women had "fantasized about having sex with someone of the same sex at least once". So by being extremely generous with definitions, you could claim that ~80% of the population is completely straight, and that ~20% is therefore "LGBT". But that's stretching it way too far. A reasonable interpretation is that ~1% is gay, and ~5% is LGBT.
corin_ 14y ago
I think 10-15% is probably too high, personally if I had written that comment I would have said 5-10%, but even then I wouldn't be able to prove it. A variety of references can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientat... and if I were to cherry pick a couple from there to try and prove my 5-10% I could go with "2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex" and in the UK in 2010 "5% of people do not identify as heterosexual". Off that same page you could pick out some other stats to suggest that my 5-10% is too high. Here's a couple of reasons it's complicated: 1.) There's a hell of a lot of gay people in the closet, ranging from people who have told close family and friends but won't tell a survey, to people who are in denial to themselves. 2.) Different countries have different general stances on homosexuality. Even if everyone in, for example, the UAE answered an anonymous survey completely truthfully, without fearing for the fact that if they answered anything other than heterosexual could land them in jail or worse, you've got to assume that in countries like that far less people actually realise they are gay given they are in a society that assumes nobody is, so they are never going to question themselves about it.

Tichy 14y ago

"So while it may deter some people, it likely wouldn't be many." Also, deterring people who are against gay marriage might be a good thing.