AirBNB and Uber are the least racist companies on the face of the earth. No other companies on earth have opened up the avenues for direct social interactions across race and class lines the way these two companies have.
Before Uber and AirBNB, how many opportuinities could you name for white Americans to do the following:
1. Get in a car with a black person for an hour and have a conversation about the election
2. Go into a racially diverse neighborhood and have a black family open their home to you and spend the weekend together
3. Have a black person come and rent a room in your own home and stay with your family for a weekend
4. Allow people of color who own property in predominantly black communities to profit from their own home
The only ones who benefit from these hit pieces on AirBNB are hotel groups who want to regulate these arrangements out of existence and drive up costs for hotels.
Who do you think is harmed the most when hotel prices rise? It is the same people of color (and everyone else), who have to pay more to stay downtown in major metropolitan cities.
Any study of AirBNB that does not take into consideration social mobility and prices of affordable overnight rentals is a BS study, they are comparing bananas to coconuts.
Yet we only see half of the story told in the media. Why is that? It’s almkst as though the authors of these studies have a distinct agenda.
How are the effects any less racist than the rising home prices, which could easily be explained by...uh...the massive stock market rally we just had?
Where are the studies about how people of color who own the buildings and units being rented out in ethnically black neighborhoods can now afford to send their children to college?
Reading the comments here: Too many people ask too few questions and have too little understanding about the free market. Freedom of personal property is GOOD for Black People. It is the ONLY way black people improve their situation.
This article is vague because something is being papered over.
My interpretation: “We focused our culture on creating a corporate safe space and hired a bunch of people more interested in safe spaces than actually growing the organization and competing, then we began to lose ground and had to reverse course and became so scared of our own employees we had to enact measures to prevent them from revolting on us when we asked them to work harder.”
I think the entire social justice tidal wave that hit tech is going to destroy many companies, these attitudes and building corporate cultures focused on entertaining then lead to profoundly uncompetitive behaviors. Imagine how hyper alert these people are to even the lightest pressure.
It works great when finance is plenty and times are good. Once the market turns, every company that chose diversity and inclusion for their culture is going to implode violently and face employee revolts.
Google is especially prone to this. Of the major tech companies, google have gone out of their way to hire as many blue haired safe spacers as humanly possible. These efforts are going to backfire when they need to get mean and lean.
This explanation in the NPR piece is so thin, so poorly researched and so speculative I simply am not able to accept it.
The entire narrative stinks, we need a better one backed by actual data.
Look at the graph, women in STEM falls closer to 1986, when Reagan passed the immigration reform act.
Doesn’t it seem suspicious that Reagan immigration reform landed right on top of this decline?
I do agree that the standard explanation of “men are mean and took women’s jobs” is correct, but I don’t think people are willing to take it one step further and say: “Why did men suddenly become mean when they were egalitarian before?”
With Reagan immigration reform: Chinese, South American and Indian immigrants, especially eldest sons who are expected to support their entire extended families back home, were more free to enter the county and picked high paying engineering fields and pushed out competition (Americans) not willing to spend 18 hours per day studying math and science. This remains true to this day where 80% of masters degrees go to immigrants.
These immigrants would mostly be men because these cultures are male dominated, at least at the time.
The explanation that men suddenly became “mean” in the 1980s and drove women out fails for the same reason that your argument about women’s biology couldn’t have changed either. An influx of meaner men would explain what happened perfectly.
If you open the flood gates to people with different cultural values (especially male dominance), women are going to get pushed out.
My frustration is Liberals in general will refuse to see this part of the argument and instead go with: “white men became mean in the 80’s.”
welcome to the late stages of a giant tech bubble. Startup investment has fallen except in areas where very high amounts of academic background are useful such as AI, autonomous vehicles, biotech and so on.
Startups are the default training tool for software engineers. High risk, low pay yet most startups use the latest and greatest tools so juniors at least get highly marketable experience that is more modern.
When the startup ecosystem begins to fail, fewer developers can acquire these skills. The early stages of the hiring feeder system are broken.
No one wants to train junior developers when there are thousands of startups doing it for them.
I have worked at large companies, we get massive reams of potential interns and graduate hires. They all come from the very top schools only. They don’t even look past the top 20. Why? Because they are assholes and they can.
My recommendation: Start your own startup doing something in a valuable skill area. Identify what is trending.
People waiting in line to get chosen because they are great are going to be disappointed.
My Twitter feed (former software engineer) has become an endless, open harangue targeting white men. My industry collegues don’t even think twice about openly saying white men are at the root of all problems in tech.
Everyone knows, the definition of “making something diverse” is “removing white men from a group and replacing them with anyone not white and male.”
If I were to post anything remotely resembling disagreement , it would end my professional career. I would be called racist, sexist, transphobic, you name it. So I keep my mouth shut. I’m not the only one.
If I were to reveal that these statements make me deeply uncomfortable, I would be accused of “white fragility.”
Trump isn’t the problem. Any sort is disagreement has been effectively banned and silenced by use of the exact same coercive tactics that are now being turned back on these far Left Google employees.
Liz Fong Jones for example, who would openly disparage white men on Twitter on a regular basis - Still has a job!
Despite all of the harassment, administratively, if you disparate white people due to their race, age and gender (old white men), you are still employed. Maybe you get a mean tweet now and then but your job is intact.
Think about that. If I were to post any of the following:
Women don’t work as hard as men and have different priorities due to their biology, All gender bathrooms are stupid and don’t make sense etc - I would get fired.
If me saying those things is wrong and fireable, so is their left wing equivalent.
It’s time for these large corporations to realize that allowing the minorities to disparage the majority isn’t the solution or acceptable either.
Before Uber and AirBNB, how many opportuinities could you name for white Americans to do the following:
1. Get in a car with a black person for an hour and have a conversation about the election
2. Go into a racially diverse neighborhood and have a black family open their home to you and spend the weekend together
3. Have a black person come and rent a room in your own home and stay with your family for a weekend
4. Allow people of color who own property in predominantly black communities to profit from their own home
The only ones who benefit from these hit pieces on AirBNB are hotel groups who want to regulate these arrangements out of existence and drive up costs for hotels.
Who do you think is harmed the most when hotel prices rise? It is the same people of color (and everyone else), who have to pay more to stay downtown in major metropolitan cities.
Any study of AirBNB that does not take into consideration social mobility and prices of affordable overnight rentals is a BS study, they are comparing bananas to coconuts.
Yet we only see half of the story told in the media. Why is that? It’s almkst as though the authors of these studies have a distinct agenda.
How are the effects any less racist than the rising home prices, which could easily be explained by...uh...the massive stock market rally we just had?
Where are the studies about how people of color who own the buildings and units being rented out in ethnically black neighborhoods can now afford to send their children to college?
Reading the comments here: Too many people ask too few questions and have too little understanding about the free market. Freedom of personal property is GOOD for Black People. It is the ONLY way black people improve their situation.