Infosys accused of racism(qz.com)
qz.com
Infosys accused of racism
https://qz.com/1010965/a-former-executive-is-accusing-infosys-of-racism-that-favours-indians/
74 comments
I really don't like how racism comes up so often in these situations when I think the closer term is probably familiarity or customs. A lot of bosses like to work with people that have a similar mindset and work ethic that they do. It makes sense that if you've been born and raised in country X and worked there for 15 years and become a boss you will probably prefer people with work ethics similar to your own. In Japan, as a foreigner working for a Japanese company, I can see how Japanese would much prefer to hire a Japanese over me (they don't outwardly complain about long, unpaid overtime, they do mundane tasks that aren't productive, they don't talk back when erroneously attacked). And I can see an American boss much preferring an American who's more likely to bring up points that they think are wrong. I apologize for the stereotyping but meant it as an example.
Your definition of "familiarity" is what Americans would call racism. Obviously people are more familiar/prefer to work with other people like themselves. In America, you don't get to act on those preferences to the extent those preferences fall along race/gender/national origin lines. Socially, it's merely discouraged, but in the workplace it's illegal.
> I really don't like how racism comes up so often in these situations when I think the closer term is probably familiarity or customs
As a rule, 90% of what people call "racism" in the US today is closer to xenophobia.
Likewise, 75% of what they call "racist police" is fundamentally a failure of the justice system as a system to restrain, discipline, or be responsible for its own career employees (police, prosecutors, and even judges), let alone properly incentivise them.
As a rule, 90% of what people call "racism" in the US today is closer to xenophobia.
Likewise, 75% of what they call "racist police" is fundamentally a failure of the justice system as a system to restrain, discipline, or be responsible for its own career employees (police, prosecutors, and even judges), let alone properly incentivise them.
Xenophobia is a negative spin on an evolved response that is very basic to human nature: homophily [1]. You see it in all human societies.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
> Xenophobia is a negative spin on an evolved response that is very basic to human nature: homophily
As is murder.
The fact we may have evolved with something doest justify it.
As is murder.
The fact we may have evolved with something doest justify it.
Isn't that something of a double standard though?
You say "Huawei's US workforce is overwhelmingly Chinese" and shrug it off, and then I read an article about Facebook that says they don't hire enough black people.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/25/facebook-...
You say "Huawei's US workforce is overwhelmingly Chinese" and shrug it off, and then I read an article about Facebook that says they don't hire enough black people.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/25/facebook-...
> article about Facebook that says they don't hire enough black people.
This is such a silly thing. I mean this is what is racist actually, hiring people based on their race, having to balance races and genders, and race and gender and whatnot being variables in the job market.
This is such a silly thing. I mean this is what is racist actually, hiring people based on their race, having to balance races and genders, and race and gender and whatnot being variables in the job market.
You're not American, are you?
I understand your point - positive differentiation is differentiation after all.
Nevertheless, you can't deny that white people have advantage over blacks due to historical reasons. That's a simple fact. What we as a society are truing to do is to undo the harm, in a way - to make chances equal, because we feel it's the right thing to do.
> you can't deny that white people have advantage over blacks due to historical reasons
*White people in white-majority countries. Most countries aren't as opposed to favouring their own as Western countries are, so this advantage is geographically very limited.
*White people in white-majority countries. Most countries aren't as opposed to favouring their own as Western countries are, so this advantage is geographically very limited.
I think it's pretty clear they were talking about the U.S., which IS a white majority country where white people DO have an advantage
Yet even within the US there's an increasing number of (work)places where whites are no longer a majority or are at a disadvantage, as the article states.
This still has nothing to do with the point they were making, that black people in the U.S. are still disadvantaged due to historical reasons.
I'm not american, but like any non-american I do know a bit of american history. It's just that I believe positive differentiation/discrimination does not help anything, and also comes with negative consequences and other harms to undo in the future. Also it causes gender, race etc. to leak into everything. It's best to just remove the obstacles and let the water flow: water flows and finds its bed, goes a turkish popular saying.
> It's best to just remove the obstacles and let the water flow
Would most Armenians agree?
The problem is that after discrimination has been a part of a society for so long, the default state without intervention is continued discrimination.
That's the fundamental argument. People in the majority/power group across whatever grouping believe the default state is equality. While people who have been on the receiving end of discrimination across generations (who are forced to be more attuned to it) believe the default state is continued discrimination.
History has shown the latter group to be correct, but the argument still happens every decade or so.
Would most Armenians agree?
The problem is that after discrimination has been a part of a society for so long, the default state without intervention is continued discrimination.
That's the fundamental argument. People in the majority/power group across whatever grouping believe the default state is equality. While people who have been on the receiving end of discrimination across generations (who are forced to be more attuned to it) believe the default state is continued discrimination.
History has shown the latter group to be correct, but the argument still happens every decade or so.
The genocide is a different thing, a very different story product of a clashing national interests and temper that grew in the 19th century. A war that went berserk and turned onto civilians.
People think many things but at the end facts count, and positive discrimination may render the formerly opressed temporarily content, but it leads to tension among the involved groups.
People think many things but at the end facts count, and positive discrimination may render the formerly opressed temporarily content, but it leads to tension among the involved groups.
>Nevertheless, you can't deny that white people have advantage over blacks due to historical reasons.
Sure, but you can't contain a flood by swimming hard-enough against it on a personal basis. You need to build a dam. There needs to be a measurable deliverable for antiracism, and it can't be defined only over variables like "proportionate representation at Facebook". Not only is that a noisy, overdetermined variable, but most black people simply are not going to work at Facebook. Most people of any demographic don't work at Facebook.
Sure, but you can't contain a flood by swimming hard-enough against it on a personal basis. You need to build a dam. There needs to be a measurable deliverable for antiracism, and it can't be defined only over variables like "proportionate representation at Facebook". Not only is that a noisy, overdetermined variable, but most black people simply are not going to work at Facebook. Most people of any demographic don't work at Facebook.
> Nevertheless, you can't deny that white people have advantage over blacks due to historical reasons.
If everyone strongly believes that black people are still feeling the effect of slavery(despite not being alive when that was a thing), give them reparations and conclude that the playing field is level.
> What we as a society are truing to do is to undo the harm, in a way - to make chances equal, because we feel it's the right thing to do.
You don't undo harm by harming others, you don't fix racism by introducing racism against others.
The main flaw I see in your thought process is you are trying to fix a perceived inequality of opportunity by introducing equality of outcome.
If you really want to fix the lives are black people, fix the root cause, not the end result, it's too late at that point. I personally would start by fixing education.
If everyone strongly believes that black people are still feeling the effect of slavery(despite not being alive when that was a thing), give them reparations and conclude that the playing field is level.
> What we as a society are truing to do is to undo the harm, in a way - to make chances equal, because we feel it's the right thing to do.
You don't undo harm by harming others, you don't fix racism by introducing racism against others.
The main flaw I see in your thought process is you are trying to fix a perceived inequality of opportunity by introducing equality of outcome.
If you really want to fix the lives are black people, fix the root cause, not the end result, it's too late at that point. I personally would start by fixing education.
> If everyone strongly believes that black people are still feeling the effect of slavery(despite not being alive when that was a thing)
That's a historically ignorant characterization. De jure discrimination existed long after slavery ended. Had Bill Gates been born a black kid in the south, he likely would've gone to a segregated school. De facto discrimination continues to present day. When Bill Gates got on stage to announce Windows 95, more than half of Americans didn't think that black people shouldn't marry white people. Do you think all those people admitted that view to pollsters, then went around in their schools, governments, and work places treating black people exactly the same as their white counterparts? Believing in Santa Claus would be less naive.
> give them reparations and conclude that the playing field is level.
People tend to think of that as a bizarre idea, but in reality that's the default way to remedy harms in the American legal system: awarding money damages. Here, the legal entities primarily responsible for the harm (the state and federal governments) are still around and can be held liable. Damages are often estimated by looking at the difference in income resulting from the harm. Here, that's likely north of $300 billion per year (assuming all of the black-white wage gap is explained by discrimination).
> You don't undo harm by harming others, you don't fix racism by introducing racism against others.
That's like saying you don't fix an infection by cutting out the infected tissue, which necessarily involves cutting out healthy tissue around it. Or that you don't fix cancer by collaterally poisoning a bunch of perfectly healthy non-cancerous cells. That's exactly how you fix disease!
The idea that the harms caused by federal and state governments' laws protecting slavery and segregation will go away simply because you get rid of those laws is like believing that a paperclip will unbend itself, or that an overturned boat will right itself. Fantastically naive.
That's a historically ignorant characterization. De jure discrimination existed long after slavery ended. Had Bill Gates been born a black kid in the south, he likely would've gone to a segregated school. De facto discrimination continues to present day. When Bill Gates got on stage to announce Windows 95, more than half of Americans didn't think that black people shouldn't marry white people. Do you think all those people admitted that view to pollsters, then went around in their schools, governments, and work places treating black people exactly the same as their white counterparts? Believing in Santa Claus would be less naive.
> give them reparations and conclude that the playing field is level.
People tend to think of that as a bizarre idea, but in reality that's the default way to remedy harms in the American legal system: awarding money damages. Here, the legal entities primarily responsible for the harm (the state and federal governments) are still around and can be held liable. Damages are often estimated by looking at the difference in income resulting from the harm. Here, that's likely north of $300 billion per year (assuming all of the black-white wage gap is explained by discrimination).
> You don't undo harm by harming others, you don't fix racism by introducing racism against others.
That's like saying you don't fix an infection by cutting out the infected tissue, which necessarily involves cutting out healthy tissue around it. Or that you don't fix cancer by collaterally poisoning a bunch of perfectly healthy non-cancerous cells. That's exactly how you fix disease!
The idea that the harms caused by federal and state governments' laws protecting slavery and segregation will go away simply because you get rid of those laws is like believing that a paperclip will unbend itself, or that an overturned boat will right itself. Fantastically naive.
> That's a historically ignorant characterization. De jure discrimination existed long after slavery ended. Had Bill Gates been born a black kid in the south, he likely would've gone to a segregated school.
This is an ignorant reply that overlooks what I have said in my full comment. I was referring to slavery explicitly and I did say at the end of my comment that education is still the biggest problem.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
> Here, that's likely north of $300 billion per year (assuming all of the black-white wage gap is explained by discrimination).
You only have to pay it out once and then everyone could move on with their lives.
> That's like saying you don't fix an infection by cutting out the infected tissue
No, it's like saying, you don't fix an infection by infecting something else.
> Or that you don't fix cancer by collaterally poisoning a bunch of perfectly healthy non-cancerous cells. That's exactly how you fix disease!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
> The idea that the harms caused by federal and state governments' laws protecting slavery and segregation will go away simply because you get rid of those laws is like believing that a paperclip will unbend itself. Fantastically naive.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
I suggest actually reading and understanding my points. You are not going to convince anyone with verbal gymnastics.
This is an ignorant reply that overlooks what I have said in my full comment. I was referring to slavery explicitly and I did say at the end of my comment that education is still the biggest problem.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
> Here, that's likely north of $300 billion per year (assuming all of the black-white wage gap is explained by discrimination).
You only have to pay it out once and then everyone could move on with their lives.
> That's like saying you don't fix an infection by cutting out the infected tissue
No, it's like saying, you don't fix an infection by infecting something else.
> Or that you don't fix cancer by collaterally poisoning a bunch of perfectly healthy non-cancerous cells. That's exactly how you fix disease!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
> The idea that the harms caused by federal and state governments' laws protecting slavery and segregation will go away simply because you get rid of those laws is like believing that a paperclip will unbend itself. Fantastically naive.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
I suggest actually reading and understanding my points. You are not going to convince anyone with verbal gymnastics.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Doing that is destructive of the purpose of HN—intellectual curiosity—so it's an abuse of the site.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...
[deleted]
People like people who are like them [1]. The word for this is homophily. It's very basic to psychology and it is easy to see how we evolved this way. It's a survival mechanism: 'This like me, this good.' Advertisers use this aspect of human nature extensively.
We unconsciously seek the familiar and feel more comfortable with it. It doesn't matter whether it is shared interests in knitting, hobbies, common values or background, or even something superficial like skin or hair color.
We can fight against homophily, but I don't think we can ever get rid of it. It's part of our apparatus. What we are doing now in the West is unprecedented in humanity. The world wars of the 20th century were so horrific that we decided that the only way forward is to stamp out homophily, most recently by labeling a lot of it as racism or xenophobia. I want to be optimistic that we will end up in a good place but I have my doubts.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
We unconsciously seek the familiar and feel more comfortable with it. It doesn't matter whether it is shared interests in knitting, hobbies, common values or background, or even something superficial like skin or hair color.
We can fight against homophily, but I don't think we can ever get rid of it. It's part of our apparatus. What we are doing now in the West is unprecedented in humanity. The world wars of the 20th century were so horrific that we decided that the only way forward is to stamp out homophily, most recently by labeling a lot of it as racism or xenophobia. I want to be optimistic that we will end up in a good place but I have my doubts.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
> that's probably not a result of racism
Not directly related to the article, but racism is not the same thing as xenophobia and it is not a cause but rather the effect of different races having different amounts of power. If a practice causes or strengthens some power disparity between races then it is racist, regardless of motivation (same goes for sexism vs. misogyny).
Not directly related to the article, but racism is not the same thing as xenophobia and it is not a cause but rather the effect of different races having different amounts of power. If a practice causes or strengthens some power disparity between races then it is racist, regardless of motivation (same goes for sexism vs. misogyny).
It's nice to speak authoritatively but that's only one definition of racism and it isn't even common in dictionaries [1][2]. It might be better to have a different word for that concept, or at the very least to acknowledge that there are many definitions of the word.
[1] - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism
[2] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
[1] - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism
[2] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
There are many definitions, but when experts (and journalists etc.) speak about racism (rather than laymen), this is the definition they mean. Instead of arguing over which definition is more correct or more common, it's best to understand what definition the speaker has in mind.
I'm glad you understand now.
I assume you read the recent slatestarcodex on this:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
"So Definition By Consequences implies that racism can never be pointed to as a cause of anything, that racist policies can often be good, that nobody “is a racist” or “isn’t a racist”, and that sometimes the KKK trying to terrorize black people is less racist than them not trying to do this."
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
"So Definition By Consequences implies that racism can never be pointed to as a cause of anything, that racist policies can often be good, that nobody “is a racist” or “isn’t a racist”, and that sometimes the KKK trying to terrorize black people is less racist than them not trying to do this."
I had not, but I have skimmed it now.
TBH, whenever someone sends me a link to this blog, I find it a little puzzling. To me, it seems like an attempt to describe color to people who are colorblind, and I guess I'm not in the blog's intended demographic. It seems like the author assumes some premise in the readers' minds that I simply don't share. I like the intention behind it, though (I think?), and I hope that the blog's audience find it helpful and/or interesting.
TBH, whenever someone sends me a link to this blog, I find it a little puzzling. To me, it seems like an attempt to describe color to people who are colorblind, and I guess I'm not in the blog's intended demographic. It seems like the author assumes some premise in the readers' minds that I simply don't share. I like the intention behind it, though (I think?), and I hope that the blog's audience find it helpful and/or interesting.
[deleted]
or the same reason why hipster startup in SF hires hipsters - culture fit.
[deleted]
> In 2013, India’s second-largest IT firm took a $34 million hit—the largest ever payment in a visa case—after a Texas court found the behemoth guilty of “systemic visa fraud and abuse.”
> Green, the former global head of immigration who has previously spoken out about the detrimental effect of curbing H-1B visas on the US tech sector, is accusing Infosys of using the very same work visas to replace or supplant non-south Asians at the company.
This is probably one of the reasons why there's a lot of people in tech industry (other than CEOs) who want stricter immigration rules in the US.
> Green, the former global head of immigration who has previously spoken out about the detrimental effect of curbing H-1B visas on the US tech sector, is accusing Infosys of using the very same work visas to replace or supplant non-south Asians at the company.
This is probably one of the reasons why there's a lot of people in tech industry (other than CEOs) who want stricter immigration rules in the US.
As a person of South Asian origin, I am glad this is out. My friends, Indians and non-Indians applied to these firms after college. Only Indians were called in for interviews. And only international students took the job offers as they promised H1B after their work permit expires.
We thought it was raciest that none of non-Indian friends even get a chance to do interview but they all end up with offers at better companies, so no one looked deep into this.
We thought it was raciest that none of non-Indian friends even get a chance to do interview but they all end up with offers at better companies, so no one looked deep into this.
Wow, some of the rationalizing here is priceless. I hope the folks dismissing this apply their logic evenly.
Here's some of what I've read so far:
Economic - There's no discrimination because they only want the cheapest labor possible.
Culture - They want a consistent culture so, of course, they mostly hire Indians "because they work harder"- paraphrasing from another comment.
Language - It's easier to have everyone speak the predominant language of the company. Never mind that it's not the same language as the country its operating in.
Now, if a predominately white company used these same reasons to explain their lack of minorities there would be an uproar. And rightfully so.
Here's some of what I've read so far:
Economic - There's no discrimination because they only want the cheapest labor possible.
Culture - They want a consistent culture so, of course, they mostly hire Indians "because they work harder"- paraphrasing from another comment.
Language - It's easier to have everyone speak the predominant language of the company. Never mind that it's not the same language as the country its operating in.
Now, if a predominately white company used these same reasons to explain their lack of minorities there would be an uproar. And rightfully so.
>Now, if a predominately white company used these same reasons to explain their lack of minorities there would be an uproar.
Well, yes, because American minorities are part of the same culture/language/economy as other Americans.
Well, yes, because American minorities are part of the same culture/language/economy as other Americans.
"While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian). This disproportionately South Asian and Indian workforce, by race and national origin, is a result of Infosys’s intentional employment discrimination against individuals who are not South Asian, including discrimination in the hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination of individuals."
What kind of argument is this? When the time to elect the 100th president comes, should all non-South Asian candidates be excluded from the start? (Assuming no South Asian is elected until then. And by then the 1% might have changed, of course).
What kind of argument is this? When the time to elect the 100th president comes, should all non-South Asian candidates be excluded from the start? (Assuming no South Asian is elected until then. And by then the 1% might have changed, of course).
It's an argument that's a lot easier to follow than whatever it is you are trying to say about a hypothetical future presidential candidates and how might be related to their point.
It is an argument in the sense that it is a chain of facts and a conclusion is implied.
"x% of all A have property X. We have been taking A's for the purpose of Y. The record shows the y% of our A's have property X".
A = population X = being South Asian x = 1 y = 93-94 Y = working at infosys
And the conclusion seems to be that when making a selection, the selection should be 'fair' for all properties of A, and not 'fair' for the purpose Y.
And I am not even mentioning the fact that the selection is made by infosys, whereas if fairness was that important no selection should be made at all. Maybe we could just ask the government (with their census data) to send the 'fair' distribution of people to work at infosys.
"x% of all A have property X. We have been taking A's for the purpose of Y. The record shows the y% of our A's have property X".
A = population X = being South Asian x = 1 y = 93-94 Y = working at infosys
And the conclusion seems to be that when making a selection, the selection should be 'fair' for all properties of A, and not 'fair' for the purpose Y.
And I am not even mentioning the fact that the selection is made by infosys, whereas if fairness was that important no selection should be made at all. Maybe we could just ask the government (with their census data) to send the 'fair' distribution of people to work at infosys.
That's how legal complaints work. You set forth a chain of facts that plausibly imply a conclusion. Proving the conclusion is what you do at trial, after having the benefit of discovery.
Agreed, the legal system is in place to decide who wins, not what makes sense.
At least this part of the system makes sense. There is a two-step process: pleading and merits. The first stage is a filter for the second. At the pleading stage, there is a trade-off between getting the right answer and the expense to businesses of defending litigation. The pleading standard (the level of facts you have to allege to get to the merits) is a knob you can turn to trade-off between those two things. If you make the pleading standard liberal, as it is in the U.S., you'll get the right answer more often because you'll actually delve into the emails, witnesses interviews, etc. to see if the defendant actually did do what the plaintiff says he did. If you make the pleading standard more stringent, you reduce the expense of litigation for companies, but you also deny more meritorious claims. E.g. companies that discriminate don't exactly advertise that fact. If you require a high standard of proof to simply bring the claim (as distinguished from proving liability), then most people who have actually been discriminated against will not be able to recover.
>While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian)
the argument is screwed in more ways than one. In particular the whole population makeup isn't relevant here. The US IT industry makeup is, and South Asian is [from my casual view] more like 30-40% of it, and while not 93%-94%, it is still much less dramatic of a difference (i.e. 2 out of 3 applicants have to be eliminated using the "culture fit" criteria instead of 19 out of 20).
the argument is screwed in more ways than one. In particular the whole population makeup isn't relevant here. The US IT industry makeup is, and South Asian is [from my casual view] more like 30-40% of it, and while not 93%-94%, it is still much less dramatic of a difference (i.e. 2 out of 3 applicants have to be eliminated using the "culture fit" criteria instead of 19 out of 20).
The only people Infosys discriminates against is people who don't like to be underpaid.
Yes this is the thing, they just want to pay less and make sure the onsite guys work overtime for free with the fear of getting offshored/fired. This wont work well with the Americans. This has nothing to do with racism.
There's many other countries they could have hired from, and the article states discrimination occurred at all levels of hierarchy in the company, which strongly implies it was not limited to H1B employees.
As an Indian working in one of these companies, they treat employees different depending on where they come from. You get better treatment if you are an American. The next level is those who were hired from USA. At the bottom is the h1b folks who come from India. Managers and HE will treat them as disposables and will have no problem showing them that. You have a problem, go back to India. I have seen first hand this difference in treatment multiple times.
From the article:
"While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian)."
"While roughly 1% of the US population is of the South Asian race and national origin, roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin (primarily Indian)."
Not just Infosys https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indi...
I'm not surprised http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-wo...
This is completely off topic, but did anyone else think that the guy in the headline picture totally looked like an indian version of Mr. Bean?
The facial expression, the eyebrows, the haircut, everything!
The facial expression, the eyebrows, the haircut, everything!
The term 'racism' should be socially banned, because of it's misuse and because it can mean so many things. Basicly racism only exists as an combat term.
So you're saying Trump campaigning for years about Obama not being born in the United States was not racist, and it's just combative to say that? So using the term 'racism' should be socially banned to protect Trump's feelings, but him acting that way to increase his power over others shouldn't be?
Why not just let them hire whoever they want? I'm seriously tired of people sticking their noses into everything.
> Why not just let them hire whoever they want?
Consider a sole proprietor. It's detrimental to society if she refuses to hire black people. It causes social tension, an underutilisation of labour and is just plain racist.
Now consider an investor-owned company. We don't want managers hiring their friends and family over qualified candidates. It wastes capital, promotes inequality and impairs labour utilisation. (It also messes with education incentives). All that makes raising money harder for everyone which, in turn, makes the economy less effective.
TL; DR Employers being racist hurts other people. Hence, we regulate it.
Consider a sole proprietor. It's detrimental to society if she refuses to hire black people. It causes social tension, an underutilisation of labour and is just plain racist.
Now consider an investor-owned company. We don't want managers hiring their friends and family over qualified candidates. It wastes capital, promotes inequality and impairs labour utilisation. (It also messes with education incentives). All that makes raising money harder for everyone which, in turn, makes the economy less effective.
TL; DR Employers being racist hurts other people. Hence, we regulate it.
Because racism is a real problem that has a significant impact on it's victims for no good reason.
The fact that it is a problem doesn't mean that this is the solution for it. I think quotas are just symptomatic treatment instead of treating the cause.
Couldn't the market take care of racism? Nowadays if a company is dumb enough to make blatantly racist things, the social media makes sure that people know this, and not racist people will think twice when dealing with that particular company. However, if racism is hidden behind internal processes, e.g. they don't openly reject minorities, just set the bar higher for them when hiring, it can be really hard to unveil the misconduct.
Couldn't the market take care of racism? Nowadays if a company is dumb enough to make blatantly racist things, the social media makes sure that people know this, and not racist people will think twice when dealing with that particular company. However, if racism is hidden behind internal processes, e.g. they don't openly reject minorities, just set the bar higher for them when hiring, it can be really hard to unveil the misconduct.
Market-based solutions? Nonsense! Let's all just accuse and shun and sue each other into oblivion, because that's a healthy way for a society to function.
No because comments like "I'm seriously tired of people sticking their noses into everything" are really about letting the current situation become the status quo. It's really an underhand way of saying "If I want to have a racist employment policy that's none of your business".
Expecting the market to solve these problems is naive, it just won't happen except in a few high profile cases.
Expecting the market to solve these problems is naive, it just won't happen except in a few high profile cases.
david38(4)
Likewise, Huawei's US workforce is overwhelmingly Chinese, but that's probably not a result of racism. Samsung's US R&D is almost fully Korean at the top - not because of racism
In India, as a counter example, Philips, the Dutch company, has most of the upper brass as Dutch. Again, not because of racism, but because of the go-between nature of the job