[yobbo]

> The idea that literally massive amounts of this workforce couldn't possibly be filled by domestic grads

One theory is that the benefit they might be providing over domestic "grads" is lack of prerequisites for promotion above certain levels (language, cultural fit, and so on). For managers, this means the prestige of increased headcount without the various "burdens" of managing "careerists". For example, less plausible competition for career-ladder jobs which can then be reserved for favoured individuals. Just a theory.

[boredatoms]

I think that would backfire as the intrinsic culture of the company changes as it absorbs more people. Verticals would form from new hires who did manage to get promoted

[catigula]

It's also not correct to view people as atomized individuals. People band together on shared culture and oftentimes ethnicity.

[bradlys]

Which is exactly what has happened. Anyone in the industry for 15 years can easily see this.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I will admit that this is the most plausible explanation of this phenomenon that explains the benefit to managers I have read on this issue so far.

[catigula]

Putting aside economic incentives, which the wealthy were eager to reap, the vast majority of the technical labor force in this country came and still comes from (outside of SF) a specific race and we have huge incentives that literally everyone reading this has brushed up against, whether in support or against, to alter that racial makeup.

Obviously the only real solution to creating an artificial labor shortage is looking externally from the existing labor force. Simply randomly hiring underserved groups didn't really make sense because they weren't participants.

Where I work, we have two main goals when I'm involved in the technical hiring process: hire the cheapest labor and try to increase diversity. I'm not necessarily against either, but those are our goals.

[throwaway2037]

Careerists: What does this term mean?

[TexanFeller]

People more concerned about getting a promotion than they are taking pride in doing quality work that makes a difference. Corporate rubrics for promotion have little to do with doing great work and careerists focus heavily on playing these stupid games set up by HR execs.

[throwaway2037]

Former President Obama (of the US) calls this a "false choice". Can you be both focused on the next promotion and providing lots of value in your current role? I think the answer is yes. Of course, there are people whom seem to produce nothing, but get promoted... in the case of software engineers, they are mostly promoted on the principle of "competance" -- You are a good software dev... so now your run this team (regardless if they are a good manager!).