[esja]

Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.

[LarvaFX]

"Impact a company negatively" is your opinion as much as the reversal seems to be the opinion of the parent commentor.

[esja]

It’s not an opinion, it’s basic logic and arithmetic. Shrinking the hiring pool by eliminating both Trump voters and also the non-Trump voters who don’t like the implications of the question. That’s a very large negative and is based on math, not opinion.

[_o0rc]

I'm not sure that I share the assumptions here about the distribution of talent throughout the American voting population, in particular given that the venn diagram of the tech hiring pool and the American voting population is not a circle.

[esja]

Make a list of the distinct demographic categories in your hiring pool, ordered by size. You may be surprised. Depending on location and role, “Trump Voter and offended non-Trump Voter” could easily be second only to “Male non-Trump voter”, i.e. ahead of “Female non-Trump voter”. In many places it would certainly be the largest distinct demographic. That should give you pause.

Unless you define “tech hiring pool” as “recent college grads living in the Bay Area”. But even there the numbers are material.

[_o0rc]

It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.

[esja]

If it’s not an emotional benefit, what are your rational grounds for this? You propose to exclude tens of millions of people because you believe their vote proves they have poor judgement. Yet you are displaying poor judgment by making this proposal.