People are leaving the typical job market because the typical job market abandoned them. I don't know if this is me just glorifying the past, but I've heard people say that the the company they used to work for would somewhat look out for them and that it was expected that you would stick around for a long time. Nowadays it's more expected to hop from one job to another.
It's sad because we've lost a lot of great developers to this notion that the only way to move up is to move on. It sucks, but it seems like companies these days think they're buying you in at a particular price and it's ok to drip feed you raises over the years, and then are surprised when you move on to another company willing to pay you what you're really worth at that point.
The way I think about current American corporate culture is that, yes, there are good _individuals_ at companies that legitimately want you to succeed and have you paid what you’re worth; but at the end of the day the needs of the company trumps all, and companies themselves are ruthless, inhuman, profit-seeking entities.
When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements.
That, and these kids (regardless of race or gender) are getting f-ed in general. I see so many places paying them less than what I was making in their position 20 years ago, and life didn't get any less expensive since then.
> When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements.
I, for one, am glad this isn't the 50s anymore. I have a feeling I wouldn't very much enjoy working with "young white dudes" who have contempt for diversity in the workplace.
Diversity is fine. What people are nervous about is if the meritocracy is destroyed to get it. Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way (we can have both diversity and a meritocracy), but bad apples could go about it the wrong way (sacrificing one or the other), and those orgs/companies/careers should probably be avoided as unsustainable.
I've worked at places with surprising (for the South-East amounts of diversity). I liked it, and I've seen some of the jackass discrimination that goes on, things like trying to run out one of best engineers because she had a complicated pregnancy. I'm hardly going around smacking my female colleagues on the ass and telling 'em I like my coffee black.
When I see a company that makes a point of flaunting how diverse they are, I assume that place is full of the social justice crowd and is probably being run on emotion instead of sound business practice. In my experience, those people and places suck to work with. At best I'm going to end up hearing a bunch of ideological bullshit on a day-to-day, which I don't at all care for at work, and now I have to worry that I'm going to experience discrimination because folks have come up with some weird notion that my pale skin and scrotum means my life is just all kinds of easy and that other folks should have access to programs or a "leg up" that I am not eligible for.
There is nothing noble in pushing for equality of outcome.
No problem of lack of diversity will be solved without dragging down or discriminating against some demographic of society without a full commitment to equality of opportunity.
The myopia involved with being suckered into accepting discrimination against one group to the benefit of another being an acceptable approach demonstrates a lack of commitment to understanding the forces actually at work in the world.
Diversity or lack thereof isn't the problem. Equivalent access to the foundational necessities that facilitate successful integration into, and the ability to further develop and meaningfully contribute to the ends of, society's perpetuation and advancement with minimal accidental systemic compulsion is the problem.
Diversity is just the "bread and circuses" perversion that slows down any meaningful attempt at the former due to some mistaken impression that undoing an injustice must involve a new injustice being committed.
Is it a means to an end though? I believe diversity should NOT be measured in the amount of a minority succeeding, but when the measure of the poor is equal across all groups. When Poor black population = poor white population. Diversity problem solved. Before then, work to change systemic problems that cause more poor blacks than whites.
I'm not that young of a brownish white male, but just got word through a side channel that I was rejected for a position because I'm a "white dude". Really fucking lame.
And for the downvoters: sorry, but discrimination is discrimination.
Avocado toast boy never kept a woman under his thumb or made people use a different water fountain. Why should he be penalized for what someone else's grandparents did?
Most state hiring boards (schools, colleges, administrators, etc) and federal contractors add points to minority, female, and veteran candidates--essentially a deduct from white male non-veterans.
That they are still winning with a handicap doesn't change the fact that they are being penalized.
It is not a claim. It is fact. I know guys at so many federal contractors (all very good at what they do).
Every last one reports to a woman who is still working on her degree and can't do the work. Middle management is the obvious place for diversity hires.
> Why should he be penalized for what someone else's grandparents did?
I'm not convinced that you're asking in good faith, but I'm going to try to be optimistic and answer anyway.
Most of us can agree that there are demographics who have been systematically disadvantaged and that we live in an economy where advantages are often passed from one generation to another. This cascading injustice is similar to a relay race, where cheating in the first leg of the race affects the outcome in the last leg of the race.
In a race you'd be able to disqualify the team that cheated regardless of whether all of the members were complicit, but we can't disqualify white people from the economy. It's also unacceptable to ignore the injustice, as it continues to perpetuate those disadvantages into the future.
Instead, the idea is to try to counter those disadvantages by focusing on inclusivity rather than optimizing for people who want to keep the advantages that they've inherited through injustice.
To answer your question: the things that you feel are being taken away from you were never yours to begin with.
There's a much more rational way to try and account for that though- your parents income/wealth. That's what actually determines whether you are a leg up or a leg down, so if you're committed to this type of equality Index on that. Skin colour is a pretty insane proxy! There are poor white people too, and you can't assume they "deserve it because their family failed" it's insane. And your metaphor that it would somehow be justified to "disqualify" white people is bonkers. It's about as logically valid as an argument that we should "disqualify" black people- without slavery they wouldn't exist (butterfly effect), but assuming they did their median income would be that of eg. DRC. Slavery is a bad thing so we should "reverse" the effects right? We're NOT teams. I'm not on "team white" and anyone, regarding of race who thinks I'm on it is on the opposite team, because my actual team is my beliefs.
Almost perfect post but your beliefs don't matter. They may help you maintain sanity in a chaotic world. Otherwise, your beliefs only matter if you have enough money to bribe a senator.
Your actual team, at least the one that matters, is your class. If you have to punch a clock to survive, you're working class. If your money works for you, you're investment class.
I don't think that's a bad idea, but it would be difficult to capture a wealth index as well. Do you measure their current income? Total lifetime income? How do you measure social wealth, education, or even capital? None of this is simple.
I'm not claiming that all implementations of affirmative action are perfect, but I think progress is being made in the right direction. I think that moving to a system that took income or class into account could be an improvement, but I haven't seen enough research to have a strong opinion here. Maybe you could point me to a few resources?
> And your metaphor that it would somehow be justified to "disqualify" white people is bonkers.
I think you're confused. I said "we can't", not "we should" or "it would be justified".
> We're NOT teams. I'm not on "team white" and anyone, regarding of race who thinks I'm on it is on the opposite team, because my actual team is my beliefs.
You're responding to words I haven't said. Of course we're not teams, I didn't suggest anything of the sort.
Most people (self included) can barely figure out what "justice" is going back 10 minutes. That is why we have judges and juries--not as a solution, but as a mitigation.
And here you have it sorted out for generations! Ponder that very carefully.
Fact-light, moral panicky, vaguely anti-white / anti-male filler. That's 30 seconds of my life I won't get back. Hope to save a few readers the effort.
It starts out by painting a picture of a modern small business owner with an entrepreneurial spirit...It's definitely a blatantly biased political piece
> In 2018, Bloomberg reported something similar. “Though employment rates have been climbing back from the abyss, young men never caught up again,” writes Jeanna Smialek. “Millennial males remain less likely to hold down a job than the generation before them, even as women their age work at higher rates.”
> Admittedly, the focus of Smialek’s article and the data she cites is mainly around men without a college degree. But the explanation that Nathan Butcher, then a 25-year-old high school graduate, gave her — “I’m very quick to get frustrated when people refuse to pay me what I’m worth” — is strikingly similar to the one Carlin gives me.
Am I wrong in reading this as "An article on Bloomberg talked about young men mostly without college degrees, and I found a college graduate who sounds like someone from that article, so I can extrapolate this for all young men"? It's not even a handful of anecdotes; it's just the one, and is presented without additional content to help describe why this one case is representative, which is fairly disappointing.
And while the beginning is at least pretty fair in how it represents its hyperlinks, which do lead to real data that is definitely useful and interesting, I started to notice that they got less frequent towards the end. There were things said by a Michael Madowitz but:
The Michael Madowitz cited throughout the article is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress, which Wikipedia describes as a "public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues". Not that there's anything explicitly and directly wrong with that, but I'm certain the author could've found a source without an explicit political lean, or have compensated for it somehow by bringing in other viewpoints.
On the whole, I would say that while some of the content this article is made of/links to is useful, the composition itself is not.
Which part? I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it certainly seem to describe the situation of myself once upon a time, many of my friends and many who I have met.
"He (Madowitz, economist/researcher) believes that men taking on more flexible jobs may help a new generation of fathers become much more capable of taking on domestic responsibilities."
I read this in the article, and I made a link to the recently-HN-front-paged article from NPR about suburban moms entering the gig economy.
> [T]he most pervasive cohort (white men) are retreating from the labor force... could potentially bring about a positive sea change in the way families approach employment
How can the author accept the premise that young white dudes are opting out of the whole "job" thing and not at least entertain the possibility that they'll be opting out of the whole "family" thing too?
The story reminded me of myself. Made good money programming for 15 years, invested early in crypto, semi-retired for the last 5 years. Spend days learning technologies, working on my own projects. Nothing took off yet. Thinking of getting a remote job, but they seem to pay little - $70/hr is the best I encountered so far. 5 years ago I was making $90-150/hr.
A lot of companies that I've worked for have been completely dominated by internal politics and rivalries, at the expense of delivering a good product to the end-customer. Lately though those 'natural' politics have shifted to virtue signalling at the expense of junior and new employees. The end-product and vision of the customer is even further away.
“Those who traditionally face diminished labor market opportunities are more entrepreneurial and start their own business, or work alternative arrangements at significantly higher rates. The median small business owner is an immigrant who opened a nail salon because they couldn’t seem to get employed with anyone and start with their level of skill.”
Which is exactly what is happening to young white men now - discrimination due to affirmative action and diversity quotas. Which is senseless, because white (and Asian) men have achieved their greater representation in professional roles due to hard work and intelligence (partly hereditary). SAT scores bear that out:
Professional employment often doesn't make sense because you cannot optimise your taxes. If I run my own business I can charge my home/office expenses, phone, overseas business travel, car, computer, broadband, etc. to the company.
"“The scourge of having men with flexible jobs may turn into a real opportunity of fathers with flexible jobs,” he adds."
A father cannot get pregnant, give birth, or breastfeed. Women are naturally more nurturing and fundamentally better suited to taking care of infants. If we want more women in the workforce, we need free childcare, including childcare very close to workplaces.
There are also many studies showing that women find men who are less successful than them less attractive. So I think instead of seeing more woman-dominated families, we will simply see fewer families, and more resentful old men and lonely old women.
The workplace and families have worked successfully for thousands of years and this social experiment, which seems to be enforced by the radical left without public input or widespread agreement, is undertaken at our peril.
This reminds me of an interesting personal anecdote about demographic realities vs perceptions.
It's 1996 and I'm attending an information session for University of Pennsylvania in my hometown.
The presented asks at the start of the session: "Do we have any UPenn alums in the room?" Several folks get up and say "I was class of '67", "I was class of '68" etc.
My first reaction was: "Wow, admissions rates at UPenn are something like 5%. These must have been some smart parents to get in back then."
Little did I know (and which I found out later), admissions rates at UPenn in the 60's was around 50%. Why? Because Johnson cut all of the Eisenhower funding from the 50's so universities had to admit a ton more students to help cover the drop in funding.
I bring up this story because it makes me stop and think about how young people today may be going through a totally different experience than I went through based on some factors totally outside of their control.
I genuinely confused by people who can't find work when they're actively looking for it. Normalizing for all of the usual discriminators, such as race, gender, body weight, where you went to school, attractiveness, etc. I still don't understand how it's possible to not get a job in the field you desire, if you have the education and will to do it. I think the new generation of college graduates are lazy, and expect everything to be handed to them, and they give up when it gets tough.
51 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadThat, and these kids (regardless of race or gender) are getting f-ed in general. I see so many places paying them less than what I was making in their position 20 years ago, and life didn't get any less expensive since then.
I, for one, am glad this isn't the 50s anymore. I have a feeling I wouldn't very much enjoy working with "young white dudes" who have contempt for diversity in the workplace.
When I see a company that makes a point of flaunting how diverse they are, I assume that place is full of the social justice crowd and is probably being run on emotion instead of sound business practice. In my experience, those people and places suck to work with. At best I'm going to end up hearing a bunch of ideological bullshit on a day-to-day, which I don't at all care for at work, and now I have to worry that I'm going to experience discrimination because folks have come up with some weird notion that my pale skin and scrotum means my life is just all kinds of easy and that other folks should have access to programs or a "leg up" that I am not eligible for.
There is nothing noble in pushing for equality of outcome.
No problem of lack of diversity will be solved without dragging down or discriminating against some demographic of society without a full commitment to equality of opportunity.
The myopia involved with being suckered into accepting discrimination against one group to the benefit of another being an acceptable approach demonstrates a lack of commitment to understanding the forces actually at work in the world.
Diversity or lack thereof isn't the problem. Equivalent access to the foundational necessities that facilitate successful integration into, and the ability to further develop and meaningfully contribute to the ends of, society's perpetuation and advancement with minimal accidental systemic compulsion is the problem.
Diversity is just the "bread and circuses" perversion that slows down any meaningful attempt at the former due to some mistaken impression that undoing an injustice must involve a new injustice being committed.
Two wrongs a right does not make.
Avocado toast boy never kept a woman under his thumb or made people use a different water fountain. Why should he be penalized for what someone else's grandparents did?
That they are still winning with a handicap doesn't change the fact that they are being penalized.
Fighting bias with bias is not as good as fixing root causes, but it works in more places.
Far less subjective compared to adding points when you have no idea what a person's back-story is.
Lots of subjective hiring practices are terrible.
In situations where this is the case, these guys are more or less slaves, I would expect to see this exact same dynamic in ancient Rome
I'm not convinced that you're asking in good faith, but I'm going to try to be optimistic and answer anyway.
Most of us can agree that there are demographics who have been systematically disadvantaged and that we live in an economy where advantages are often passed from one generation to another. This cascading injustice is similar to a relay race, where cheating in the first leg of the race affects the outcome in the last leg of the race.
In a race you'd be able to disqualify the team that cheated regardless of whether all of the members were complicit, but we can't disqualify white people from the economy. It's also unacceptable to ignore the injustice, as it continues to perpetuate those disadvantages into the future.
Instead, the idea is to try to counter those disadvantages by focusing on inclusivity rather than optimizing for people who want to keep the advantages that they've inherited through injustice.
To answer your question: the things that you feel are being taken away from you were never yours to begin with.
Your actual team, at least the one that matters, is your class. If you have to punch a clock to survive, you're working class. If your money works for you, you're investment class.
I'm not claiming that all implementations of affirmative action are perfect, but I think progress is being made in the right direction. I think that moving to a system that took income or class into account could be an improvement, but I haven't seen enough research to have a strong opinion here. Maybe you could point me to a few resources?
> And your metaphor that it would somehow be justified to "disqualify" white people is bonkers.
I think you're confused. I said "we can't", not "we should" or "it would be justified".
> We're NOT teams. I'm not on "team white" and anyone, regarding of race who thinks I'm on it is on the opposite team, because my actual team is my beliefs.
You're responding to words I haven't said. Of course we're not teams, I didn't suggest anything of the sort.
And here you have it sorted out for generations! Ponder that very carefully.
> In 2018, Bloomberg reported something similar. “Though employment rates have been climbing back from the abyss, young men never caught up again,” writes Jeanna Smialek. “Millennial males remain less likely to hold down a job than the generation before them, even as women their age work at higher rates.”
> Admittedly, the focus of Smialek’s article and the data she cites is mainly around men without a college degree. But the explanation that Nathan Butcher, then a 25-year-old high school graduate, gave her — “I’m very quick to get frustrated when people refuse to pay me what I’m worth” — is strikingly similar to the one Carlin gives me.
Am I wrong in reading this as "An article on Bloomberg talked about young men mostly without college degrees, and I found a college graduate who sounds like someone from that article, so I can extrapolate this for all young men"? It's not even a handful of anecdotes; it's just the one, and is presented without additional content to help describe why this one case is representative, which is fairly disappointing.
And while the beginning is at least pretty fair in how it represents its hyperlinks, which do lead to real data that is definitely useful and interesting, I started to notice that they got less frequent towards the end. There were things said by a Michael Madowitz but:
The Michael Madowitz cited throughout the article is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress, which Wikipedia describes as a "public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues". Not that there's anything explicitly and directly wrong with that, but I'm certain the author could've found a source without an explicit political lean, or have compensated for it somehow by bringing in other viewpoints.
On the whole, I would say that while some of the content this article is made of/links to is useful, the composition itself is not.
I read this in the article, and I made a link to the recently-HN-front-paged article from NPR about suburban moms entering the gig economy.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20015638
How can the author accept the premise that young white dudes are opting out of the whole "job" thing and not at least entertain the possibility that they'll be opting out of the whole "family" thing too?
Maybe that possibility has been entertained and is seen as positive
“Those who traditionally face diminished labor market opportunities are more entrepreneurial and start their own business, or work alternative arrangements at significantly higher rates. The median small business owner is an immigrant who opened a nail salon because they couldn’t seem to get employed with anyone and start with their level of skill.”
Which is exactly what is happening to young white men now - discrimination due to affirmative action and diversity quotas. Which is senseless, because white (and Asian) men have achieved their greater representation in professional roles due to hard work and intelligence (partly hereditary). SAT scores bear that out:
https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
Professional employment often doesn't make sense because you cannot optimise your taxes. If I run my own business I can charge my home/office expenses, phone, overseas business travel, car, computer, broadband, etc. to the company.
"“The scourge of having men with flexible jobs may turn into a real opportunity of fathers with flexible jobs,” he adds."
A father cannot get pregnant, give birth, or breastfeed. Women are naturally more nurturing and fundamentally better suited to taking care of infants. If we want more women in the workforce, we need free childcare, including childcare very close to workplaces.
There are also many studies showing that women find men who are less successful than them less attractive. So I think instead of seeing more woman-dominated families, we will simply see fewer families, and more resentful old men and lonely old women.
The workplace and families have worked successfully for thousands of years and this social experiment, which seems to be enforced by the radical left without public input or widespread agreement, is undertaken at our peril.
It's 1996 and I'm attending an information session for University of Pennsylvania in my hometown.
The presented asks at the start of the session: "Do we have any UPenn alums in the room?" Several folks get up and say "I was class of '67", "I was class of '68" etc.
My first reaction was: "Wow, admissions rates at UPenn are something like 5%. These must have been some smart parents to get in back then."
Little did I know (and which I found out later), admissions rates at UPenn in the 60's was around 50%. Why? Because Johnson cut all of the Eisenhower funding from the 50's so universities had to admit a ton more students to help cover the drop in funding.
I bring up this story because it makes me stop and think about how young people today may be going through a totally different experience than I went through based on some factors totally outside of their control.