[stromgo]

Your easy proof is completely wrong. There's discrimination against white men if the hiring bar is higher for them. To check this using workforce statistics you'd need to compare the fraction of white men in the workforce to what it would be with the same hiring bar for everyone. Comparing the fraction to the magic number 50% is irrelevant.

[mcphage]

> To check this using workforce statistics you'd need to compare the fraction of white men in the workforce to what it would be with the same hiring bar for everyone.

If there was the same hiring bar for everyone, then wouldn't the a company (such as Google) who has the ability to hire only the best, end up with a distribution which matches the population as a whole?

[IanDrake]

No. You’re not dealing with reality.

Reality is that African Americans are not doing well as a segment of the population, for whatever reason.

Reality is that compared to men, women aren’t as interested in STEM, for whatever reason.

Reality is that Asian Americans are doing very well in STEM and other fields, for whatever reason.

Removing reasons from the equation, you have to realize that reality will dictate the distribution of the best candidates for these jobs.

these are all generalizations. A woman can be more interested and better in STEM than a man, but the left forces us to generalize by gender and race, which ultimately lead to statistics that make people uncomfortable.

* I provided no citations for these generalizations for the sake of time, but if anyone disagrees I can provide them.

[mcphage]

> you have to realize that reality will dictate the distribution of the best candidates for these jobs

That seems backwards—a company would be better off hiring from demographics that are underperforming versus expected, and then finding a way to get them to perform as well as their innate talent would allow.

[IanDrake]

Why would a company be better off? You never explained that.

A company hires individuals.

If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?

If a black, transgender (was a man, now a post-op woman), lesbian (she likes women), who is a cross dresser (she likes to dress like a man) applies for a job, do you just hire her on the spot because she ticks so many boxes of supposedly marginalized people?

That seems like a bad way to run a business and I would suggest you hire based on qualifications.

[mcphage]

> If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?

Because you found a way to identify groups of people who are probably a lot more skilled than your ability to measure qualifications indicates. So you can trust in your measurements, or you can accept that our ability to measure nebulous concepts is weak. Think of it like arbitrage.