Monday, June 23, 2014

Diversity in the Valley. Not.

Undoubtedly, it is to the credit of the Democratic Party that it can ride the diversity train to power while allowing its main contributors to ignore it completely in the way they run their businesses.

Silicon Valley is markedly liberal. Its oligarchs contribute greatly to the Democratic Party. And yet, when it comes to business, it is not very diverse.

The Wall Street Journal explains:

The figures show the five companies employ relatively few blacks and Hispanics, and even fewer in managerial or engineering jobs. At both Google and LinkedIn, whites and people of Asian descent make up 91% of the workforce, while Hispanics, blacks and people of other races fill the other 9%.

The reports also reveal disparities based on the types of work employees do. Yahoo says people of Asian descent make up 57% of its U.S. “tech” workers, but only 24% of “non-tech” workers and 17% in “leadership.”

As for the participation rate of women, there is more diversity. And yet, most of the women who have important jobs are white or Asian.

In fact, these companies have a goodly number of female employees. From Intel that has a low of 24% to LinkedIn that has 39%, women are well represented.

And yet, women who are neither white nor Asian more often hold administrative jobs.

When women who aren’t white or Asian do show up in the workforce reports, the roles they fill are often subordinate. At Intel, Google and LinkedIn, women who aren’t white or Asian make up 2% of middle managers, but 16% of administrative support workers.


Anonymous said...

I have a feeling that most Hispanics in high-tech are white.
So, why aren't they included in the 'white' category?

In America, Jews and Arabs are counted as 'white', but even blonde-and-blue-eyed Hispanics are counted as 'non-white'.

Most successful Hispanics look more like Andy Garcia than Benito Juarez.

And does it make sense for the indigenous peoples of Latin America to be called 'Latinos' or 'Hispanics'?
They were conquered by Europeans, but they were not and are not European.
If indigenous Central Americans are 'Hispanic', why don't we call American Indians 'Anglo' since they were conquered by Anglos?

If Chinese or Turks had invaded the Americas, should we call the indigenous peoples 'Chinese' or 'Turks'?

Filipinos were conquered by and ruled under the Spanish for centuries, so why aren't they called 'Hispanic'?
Hong Kongese were conquered and ruled by the British, so why aren't they called 'Anglo'?
Palestinian were conquered and ruled by Jews, so why aren't they called 'Jews'?

And yet, we refer to the indigenous non-European peoples of Latin America as 'Hispanic'?

And why are white Hispanics counted as non-white but white Jews are just counted as 'whites'?

The system of ethnic terminology makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

This demonstrates identity politics and shameless demagoguery at its worst. But it makes sense.
Democrats get to solidify their base at both ends.

The Silicon Valley types get to cleanse their avarice in the voting booth, and the urban poor get more free stuff. The efficacy of American "diversity" laws, regulation and posturing has nothing to do with it. It's a smokescreen -- a rationalization.

Silicon Valley gets to wipe their hands and feel good about themselves, get government contracts and build massive wealth.

Meanwhile, the race bandits gets to solidify urban hegemony for the Democratic Party in exchange for billions in infrastructure projects, social programs and direct subsidies to the citizenry.

It's a great gig. Everyone wins... on their side. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it actually works. Look at the Obama White House 5 years into the "War on Women." Other than Valerie Jarrett, how have women fared?