It's naive to expect all strata of society to change with immigration without any lag. The US was 83% white as recently as 1980, which could be the population that has had time to climb up to leadership roles - something that can easily take a generation or two, especially when education is so expensive. In 2017, it was down to 73% white (61% if limited to non-Hispanic, but the older data doesn't make that distinction, making comparison difficult) [1].
83% / 73% = 1.14, while the "heavy" over-representation the article mentions is, estimating from the graph, about 1.17. I.e. if comparing to 1980 demographics, whites are over-represented in tech leadership by a whole 3%.
But more puzzling is this statement: Not only are employees of color under-represented in leadership positions in tech, they are also under-represented in tech in non-leadership positions.
The graph immediately following shows whites are under-represented in tech - "heavily" under-represented, if we were to use the author's own metric (the author chooses not to mention this). So both whites and people of color are under-represented?? Of course that same graph contains the answer - Asians are over-represented by 483%. 17% over-representation was "heavy", so the author was unable to find a sufficiently strong adjective for 483%, and wisely chose not to mention it at all.
Correction: Asians are over-represented by 383%, not the 483% I first claimed. Their numbers are 483% of what you'd expect if representation was proportional, and I forgot to subtract 100% from that.
Thus Asians are definitely underrepresented in leadership vs employee population, but still overrepresented vs general population.
I'd be interested to see how this chops up by immigration status, years in country, and English proficiency. I guess then we'd be in even less PC waters, but it's quite clear PhD -> h1b crowd is quite different from Asian Americans in a lot of ways, and I'd have to imagine this is one of them
> Thus Asians are definitely underrepresented in leadership vs employee population
Only slightly - the graph in the article shows Asians are ~87% represented in leadership roles, compared to their (over-represented) numbers in tech.
Meaning, using the article's own numbers, a random Asian is 5.3x as likely to be in tech as a random white, and 3.9x as likely to be in tech leadership.
Based on these findings it's reasonable to suppose that extensive reservoirs of talent are not being recognized, exploited (in the best sense of the word) and put to universally profitable use benefiting employers and employees alike. Why would companies (apparently) knowingly choose to ignore such a resource?
Why are Americans this obsessed about race?
If this isn't idée fixe I don't know what is.
Like in most other parts of the civilized word racial statistics should be outlawed because it's not a correct classification system.
Translated with google: "It is prohibited to process personal data which reveal alleged racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or the trade union membership of a natural person or to process genetic data, personal data biometric for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, health data or data concerning the sexual life or sexual orientation of a natural person."
> for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person
So making a poll in your company to identify how many are in a trade union is not illegal by that article while building a database that contains the fact that John Doe is in a trade union would violate that law.
I don’t understand what you are saying, how is simply gathering data of the state of the world a problem?
Science is based on assessing data and creating hypothesis based on that data. Racial statistics is just another vector to assess our society. You would expect that race would not be a factor and thus be evenly distributed across professions/positions of power in a country. When you look at the data and see that is not the case, why not try to look at the factors that account for that discrepancy? Just because the variable we looked at is race doesn’t mean racism is the cause but you can’t even assess whether it is without the data first.
Why should we allow statistics to be gathered on the basis of religion or gender?
Now I’m curious, in French law, are racial statistics banned for research in medical outcomes or disease?
12 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 65.2 ms ] thread83% / 73% = 1.14, while the "heavy" over-representation the article mentions is, estimating from the graph, about 1.17. I.e. if comparing to 1980 demographics, whites are over-represented in tech leadership by a whole 3%.
But more puzzling is this statement: Not only are employees of color under-represented in leadership positions in tech, they are also under-represented in tech in non-leadership positions.
The graph immediately following shows whites are under-represented in tech - "heavily" under-represented, if we were to use the author's own metric (the author chooses not to mention this). So both whites and people of color are under-represented?? Of course that same graph contains the answer - Asians are over-represented by 483%. 17% over-representation was "heavy", so the author was unable to find a sufficiently strong adjective for 483%, and wisely chose not to mention it at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
I'd be interested to see how this chops up by immigration status, years in country, and English proficiency. I guess then we'd be in even less PC waters, but it's quite clear PhD -> h1b crowd is quite different from Asian Americans in a lot of ways, and I'd have to imagine this is one of them
Only slightly - the graph in the article shows Asians are ~87% represented in leadership roles, compared to their (over-represented) numbers in tech.
Meaning, using the article's own numbers, a random Asian is 5.3x as likely to be in tech as a random white, and 3.9x as likely to be in tech leadership.
Translated with google: "It is prohibited to process personal data which reveal alleged racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or the trade union membership of a natural person or to process genetic data, personal data biometric for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, health data or data concerning the sexual life or sexual orientation of a natural person."
> for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person
So making a poll in your company to identify how many are in a trade union is not illegal by that article while building a database that contains the fact that John Doe is in a trade union would violate that law.
Science is based on assessing data and creating hypothesis based on that data. Racial statistics is just another vector to assess our society. You would expect that race would not be a factor and thus be evenly distributed across professions/positions of power in a country. When you look at the data and see that is not the case, why not try to look at the factors that account for that discrepancy? Just because the variable we looked at is race doesn’t mean racism is the cause but you can’t even assess whether it is without the data first.
Why should we allow statistics to be gathered on the basis of religion or gender?
Now I’m curious, in French law, are racial statistics banned for research in medical outcomes or disease?