471–480 of 675 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just assume you're right, and this experiment is true a majority of the time... wouldn't another possible explanation be that that's a perfectly fair representation of things? Both sides aren't always equal. Weighing the coverage of both sides to be equal would be misleading.
If the unbiased view is leftist then an unbiased newspaper would be left leaning.
Let’s all remember that the vast majority of programmers are not mathematicians, nor logicians, nor authors, we are tradespeople. And you’ll notice that tradespeople in almost every other industry unionize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This presupposes a lot of pretty nasty things. It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case. That lack of equity (which is equality of outcome, not opportunity) is itself a problem and not simply a byproduct of different people being different. That when your entire sample size is 622, you can make broad generalizations based on the pay…
> It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case. Obviously? A newspaper is exactly the kind of business to hire based on your personal narrative (including 100% of protected class intersections). That's the entire point of the opinion column. Granted, I don't think that the folks being discussed here are publishing any personal opinions,…
If you look at a very small sample of people and one racial minority or gender has all the "lower" jobs, that doesn't tell you what jobs they were "offered" it just tells you what jobs they applied for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Feels like [feelings about dei] It's an issue of competence. Having cleared the lowest bar, society is demonstrably less racist than a century ago. The next bar is much more difficult; we may be less equipped than we were for the last one. We can measure some more nuanced outcomes of racism. Past that we are struggling to even qualify successes and failures. Instances & causes remain tied to systems & psychology th…
[flagged]
Can you possibly think of a reason why black people might be highly over-represented in the "have nots" group in America?
Go out on a limb, what could it possibly be.
Awesome news. In my experience, Mismanagement, both in personnel and compensation, seems to be commonplace, as corporations seek to lower costs in response to our changing economy. Corporations looking to find an advantage may shortchange employees, overwork them, and not train managers but rather expect everybody to "just work well together", deflecting responsibility. Unionizing provides a relief valve where unions…
It's a fine balance though. Unions are organizations very similar to companies and can fall victim to the same sins as exploitative companies (or worse, like in the 60s when the Teamsters Union became controlled by the mafia and was used to further organized crime goals)
Let’s all remember that the vast majority of programmers are not mathematicians, nor logicians, nor authors, we are tradespeople. And you’ll notice that tradespeople in almost every other industry unionize.
programmers are close to doctors than plumbers: high comp, high knowledge industry, constant learning Doctors have cartel though, instead of union that protects their jobs by limiting number of residency slots that limits number of new licensed doctors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> The present day issues aren't caused by skin color or race, it's just haves vs have nots, elite vs plebs Can you possibly think of a reason why black people might be highly over-represented in the "have nots" group in America? Go out on a limb, what could it possibly be.
You're only proving my point that I made above, that people care more about punching up against a skin color they consider have an unfair advantage due to past history, but which won't improve their situation anyway, instead of focusing on the economic and political issues made by the ruling elite of today that impact those of all skin colors who are on the wrong side of the financial fence.
Our modern economic system is based on "time in the market beats timing the market", that's all. So of course those who come from a well off background of several generations will be even more well off today, while those who come from an impoverished background will have a hard time building any wealth and most likely stay impoverished, but that's nothing to do with skin color since money doesn't get transferred genetically though osmosis where one skin color somehow is born with more money in their account and the other not otherwise there would be no broke white people. If your parents were broke AF, most likely you'll also be broke AF no matter your skin color, unless you bust your ass in school to escape poverty.
But if you have an alternative answer please go ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we look at past times these things are brought up; almost certainly not. Often things like part-time vs. full time aren't considered or amount of overtime hours worked (for hourly jobs).
The reasoning I heard is that it's explained by differences in personality across the two populations. One group is, on average, more assertive, and as a result more likely to negotiate higher salary.
I don't know if that's the case here. But it would be good to investigate all the possible factors before coming to any conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
programmers are close to doctors than plumbers: high comp, high knowledge industry, constant learning Doctors have cartel though, instead of union that protects their jobs by limiting number of residency slots that limits number of new licensed doctors
Not all programmers have high comp, and high comp are extremely dependent on market conditions and skills. And a programmer career can be rather short too due to ageism. Doctors have a much more stable and predictable compensation.
lower tier productivity engineers are being filtered out continuously, and being replaced by higher productivity new grads with chatGPT types.
same as professional atheletes (like olympic athletes) retire rather quickly and do something else (coaching, brand advertising, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If not, then that's also an equity problem. If the "dog jobs" are mostly offered to women and minorities, that should also be called out as a problem for employers to solve.
I think it's more like: - african americans are statistically more likely to originate from lower on socio economic ladder than, say, asian americans Thus when you get a bunch of job applicants, you might get an asian american with a Yale degree (James) and an african american with a community college degree (John). Affirmative action or other DEI pressures might force you to hire both James and John, but James will…
But Yale basically applies a filter function and attracts the top 0.01% of high school graduates every year (plus some less elite legacy students and DEI admits). When you hire a Yale graduate, that's what you are paying for. Not the Yale education. If you could find a similar filter function some other way, you'd hire that 0.01% of high school graduates via that filter function.
And in fact companies are always trying to get ahead of their competitors and find other, less well-known, filter functions to get high performers who others don't know about. In the 1980s and 1990s Microsoft was among the first to discover that Indian IIT graduates were products of an extreme filter function applied to Indian high school students (IIT grads are like top 0.0001% of Indian high school grads). For a long time Microsoft hired those engineers for cents on the dollar. By the 2000s though, the word was out ... hiring IIT grads is as difficult as getting any other high performing grads.
There was also a brief period of time when Google had an edge in recruiting by identifying high school kids who were good at programming competitions online and via contributors to projects in Google's open source projects. But now, that signal is well-known too.
So John's community college degree doesn't matter if John is an elite performer.