61–70 of 656 posts
> It may seem bizarre that the caste system, a centuries-old system that organises and stratifies human society, continues to play a heavy role in deciding which Indians prosper and which don't within a space many consider to be an uber-meritocracy -- the US tech landscape. Well for I'm not surprised, and further I doubt anybody in it considers it an "uber-meritocracy", it really is much more perverse.
The core issue in market heavy economies is that people with money make money and everyone else doesn't. Being smart and hard working and having poor parents means you will be poor. Being dumb and lazy with rich parents means you will be rich. Maybe with 3 or 4 full generations of nothing but hard work and luck you might make it up from working to middle class. Maybe. This is never really discussed directly. Only usi…
I see it discussed constantly all over the internet. Also it's not entirely true; there's a bunch of examples where people did make it big.
All too often this position boils down to "Capitalism bad" which then just attracts the "Communism bad" opposition and ends in a pointless shitshow buzzword exchange.
The core issue in market heavy economies is that people with money make money and everyone else doesn't. Being smart and hard working and having poor parents means you will be poor. Being dumb and lazy with rich parents means you will be rich. Maybe with 3 or 4 full generations of nothing but hard work and luck you might make it up from working to middle class. Maybe. This is never really discussed directly. Only usi…
Inheritance is just like caste, you are born with an advantage over others.
The core issue in market heavy economies is that people with money make money and everyone else doesn't. Being smart and hard working and having poor parents means you will be poor. Being dumb and lazy with rich parents means you will be rich. Maybe with 3 or 4 full generations of nothing but hard work and luck you might make it up from working to middle class. Maybe. This is never really discussed directly. Only usi…
This. "Oh look at those poor backward indians!!" Well, most of the rich people I know had rich parents. If you can live with your parents while building your company or they gift you a few thousand dollars, that's often the make or break factor that saves your ass when pivoting a few times.
Yes. But those indians in favor of the caste system remain "backward" - it's not just something like poverty keeping the lower castes back and the rich getting an extra advantage over others to have their kids be rich.
It adds a further layer of pure discrimination akin to very heavy racism.
Imagine the poor considered not only poor, but inferior human beings -- and not allowed (or accepted by "civilized" upper caste people, when legal) to do many things even if they have the money to do them.
If this is real, it's purely brown-on-brown crime because non-indians have no idea wtf a caste system is. You all look the same to me. Which leads me to believe that this can't be happening on any systemic level (I did read the article, so yea it does happen but I can't believe that it happens a lot). "Caste-ist" indians simply don't hold enough sway in hiring decisions in the US to make any significant dent. If lowe…
I think the last years should have taught us that just because we do not see it, does not mean we are not responsible for changing it. And recruiting is something where engineers are also involved a lot. They recommend, they rate, they have networks, they may even be part of HR. Just to name some ways. If you get fired (e.g. of your visa protecting job) a well networked person has a lot more chances than someone not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being dumb and lazy with rich parents means you will be rich. What I've noticed from observing people in all classes is that money is an amplifier. Lazy rich people who are dumb are more likely to lose their wealth than smart rich people that are hardworking. I do agree that the game is still heavily skewed in their favor, but that doesn't mean they can get away as easily as their more virtuous counterparts.
Trump went bankrupt, but still managed to be ok due to a huge inheritance. The same happened to George Bush.
The core issue in market heavy economies is that people with money make money and everyone else doesn't. Being smart and hard working and having poor parents means you will be poor. Being dumb and lazy with rich parents means you will be rich. Maybe with 3 or 4 full generations of nothing but hard work and luck you might make it up from working to middle class. Maybe. This is never really discussed directly. Only usi…
Many people studying today had poor parents that never had any form of higher education. I don't think the US systems is good at this. It concentrates on excellence or at least the appearance of it, although there are probably exceptions if you parents are rich or influential. Bad thing is that it works to a degree because the smartest heads get concentrated while others need to be content with lower quality education. A system that should be obsolete with modern logistics of information. Tech is currently leveraging that weakness by building an even worse alternative with their own campuses. While integrating the industry in universities can be quite the advantage, I doubt this will be a helpful basis. There will be people that like to live in infrastructure belonging to their employer, it is just the modern version of a cult.
I don't know about the issues in India, but perhaps lower caste members just don't have access to education. Financing education in the US is difficult because economic imbalance and ridiculous prices on education. Of course that works as a selector if you don't get a scholarship.
I think it is fairly possible to have a broad education system that doesn't determine your future if you fuck up elementary school. Instead there need to transient systems that allow to build upon your educational career, because pupils learn at different speed and had different advantages like private tutors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 month window As a former H1-B myself, I thought the "2 month window" was a very unofficial grace-period and actually, de-jure, you're ostensibly meant to leave the US immediately (literally, the same day) and only return when a new sponsor agrees to take you on.
President Obama formalized the 2 month window.