Asians have the highest representation among low level peons relative to the lowliest among leaders. Why aren’t Asians represented? TC: 600 Not asian.
Because unfortunately they aren't politically active so they don't affect elections and the discussions
Asians are no longer a minority in tech. Yes. From an HR perspective, Asians are not a minority.
OP Asians occupy so many senior roles (Senior Director and above) in so many tech companies. Not sure where u get the data from
Also OP stop saying low level peons. Software engineers get paid a lot.
Sir you work at Airbnb, Asians are in majority with more than 70% Asians employees , even I heard Asian managers at Airbnb dnt hire other races because they do not want to compete with them for senior roles.
Dat TC though! What's your level? How long you've been there?
No answer yet has cut to the chase. Leftists are the racists and communists, they judge people by race and penalize hard-working people, in this case, Asians, because asians can rise by themselves without the help from racial quota enforcement(which is extreme racism). Look, how many Asian CEOs & VP in tech, many of them are even first-gen immigrants. Did they leverage racism policy to get there? The left actually hates them so much, because the left only likes ‘victims’ that they can offer some help(at the expense of others) in exchange of votes.
These are usual left vs right generalizations. Where would OP fit in this, when he is advocating for asians. The advocating would be left? but you said "The left hates [asians] so much. I 100% agree that victimization is counter productive, quotas for hiring is not correct, but wouldn't you still want to make sure there is equality of opportunity, for those who work hard and are skilled, including asians and all?
Asians also have the advantage of being in an upbringing where hard work and studying is valued and pushed. That leads to success in adulthood. If we purely want to base employment on this type of merit, then Asians will dominate. We see this in race blind universities, like Berkeley, where whites are a a minority. If we go on this path of using an objective merit based measurement (like GPA and test scores), then Asians will displace other races, including white, more and more. If you’re fine with this, then okay! This is Darwinianism in action. Asians are apparently the most fit race in this regard. However many believe they having a diverse culture and many races represented in all classes will be better for society in the long run. To achieve this, one cannot just look at objective measures of merit, like test scores (which are biased towards Asians). Many underrepresented races are disadvantaged; kids don’t have the positive influence that Asian parents provide, and then they don’t give that to their kids, continuing the cycle. In order to break the cycle, a different measure of success is needed, which is a problem because it’s harder to objectively capture it.
@Amazon, I am all in for equal opportunity, but hell no for equal results (race quota enforcement) @Intel, you wrote such a long paragraph, but all built on denying merit-based system and claiming “many believe” race quota enforcement is good for the society (really?). You, like most left, set your agenda first, then argue whatever you want.
- I don't think hiring quotas are a good idea. - I don't support equal results, because some people are more effective than others and each in different competencies of work. Having said the above two points, I think it is still ok to examine significant statistical deviations. If they exist "after" controlling for variables, understand of there is an underlying problem or not.
Well, what I’m really getting at is quantifying merit is not as straightforward as just looking at some test scores. Contrived example: Asian with rich parents goes to a top school, no student loans, gets a 4.0 GPA, doesn’t have to work in school. Does that person have more merit than say, someone from a poor background with student loans, struggles their way through college and works multiple jobs with classes, but still manages a 3.7 GPA? It’s hard to capture all the background conditions to describe one’s merit.
1) Bias. Asians are seen as good workers but not necessarily good leaders. Therefore strong representation at the IC level and weak at the leaderships levels (particularly as you go higher). 2) We don’t have a hero. Sheryl is a hero for women at FB. Yes, she does say “under represented” and our diversity team gives token acknowledgement to the Asian leadership problem, but the priorities are clearly 1) women 2) (further down) blacks, Hispanics 3) (wayyyyyy further down) Asian leadership. Our leaders give token acknowledgement but we are pretty much on our own. Sheryl is a major advocate for women. The amount she is publicly visible when it comes to women, the organization and attention to women, and the amount of conversation for women far exceeds any other group at FB. 3) Asians and Asian Americans are mixed together. There are strong cultural and background differences between the two groups but they’re considered as one blob both statistically and mentally. So stereotype from immigrants impact those who were born and grew up in America. Relatedly, we have an American bias here. Not bad or good but it exists. Consider that a Chinese company has no problem finding Chinese leadership. Not that American companies should become foreign companies but that’s a counter argument to people that might claim some kind of deficiency due to race/culture.
+ on all Asians being viewed as homogenous. Happens a lot and terribly racist
I’m from Europe and wouldn’t be offended if someone said I’m from a different country in Europe. Brains are more able to distinguish faces that are similar to them to see certain features. I’m sure people here can’t see the differences between Dutch and Swedish people because they look the same to many people here. If you’re actually Dutch or Swedish, you can see the difference usually. Does that happen to me? Yes. Do I think it’s racist? Oh definitely not. Do I think it’s ignorant? A little bit but people can’t control what they grew up with.
My guess would be that diversity usually refers to underrepresented minorities. They should be discussed equally in companies where asians are underrepresented. In some tech companies there is a larger percentage of asians than in the general US population.
Don’t think you read my post. I said leadership representation not peon representation.
I read it. I thought the peon term was really insulting and chose to ignore it. In terms of leadership, I agree that there is a gap and would be considered less percentage. As someone with a 600k tc, you would be in a leadership position. Calling people low level peons verbally separates you from the class of other people, which is part of the problem.