[rectang]

First, "generic corporate employees" seems like a pretty disrespectful way to describe the Coca-Cola employees classified as "professionals".

Second, it's not like non-FAANG tech companies, despite lower standards for engineering positions, have higher numbers in the Black, Hispanic, or female demographics.

Third, if you look at the data for Coca Cola's "Exec/Sr Officials & Managers" where the "standards" without question are comparable to those at tech companies, the percentages aren't as high but they're still way better than you see in tech leadership:

> 3.37% - Black or African American Male

> 4.31% - Black or African American Female

[ryan93]

Not comparable to engineering at faang. Coca Cola sells itself. Still Coca Cola is way racist. America is 13% black.

[runako]

> Coca Cola sells itself

This is an interesting way to contrast Coca-Cola with FAANG, of which the majority are routinely under antitrust scrutiny. Put another way: does Coca-Cola (market share: 43%) sell itself any more than Google (market share: 92%)?

[ryan93]

what does that have to do with the intellectual ability requited to get a google engineering jobs vs a marketing gig at coca cola?

[runako]

You were implying that Coca-Cola sells itself and therefore doesn't require singularly talented employees. It's a reasonable question to ask why a monopoly needs to hire unicorns to keep its business functioning.

(Aside from which: most tech companies are probably on the order of 60% non-engineers. The "engineer" part is a common bit of misdirection to elide the presence of the majority of FAANG employees, who are not engineers. People who can successfully sell plain water can probably sell other things too.)