Apple's Workforce is Slightly More Diverse This Year

[sudo1996]

That's just sexism but nobody has the balls to call it out because they fear the wrath of the likes Anita Sarkeesian and other new age social justice warriors that favour women but not actual equality.

I've seen a few of them. Call them out, and they'll admit it but offer some BS justification for it, usually about how women have historically been mistreated and need payback.

"Sarkeesian?" Wow, that's how she actually spells it. Not to make fun of her, but that's a really convoluted version of "Sarkissian."
[doublepost=1470260012][/doublepost]

I'm with Morgan Freeman on this:

Mike Wallace: How are we going to get rid of racism until....?

Morgan Freeman: Stop talking about it.

Mike Wallace: ......

Morgan Freeman: I'm going to stop calling you a white man.

Mike Wallace: Yeah.

Morgan Freeman: and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman.

Every single ethnic studies major here who pays attention in class would strongly (and possibly violently) disagree with this. We're told this is wrong.

 

[Altis]

What would be nice is some diversity in product releases.

Just hire whoever will update the bloody Mac lineup.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I feel like we have this conversation every year.

Lots of people say the best person for the job should be hired, regardless of non-work related characteristics like race and gender.

The issue is that even if a company is hiring without considering those factors, disparaging results occur. The issue starts from the bottom, but it should be addressed from both the bottom and the top.

For example
- The % of women engineers at Apple should be approximately the % of women graduating with engineering degrees (it's actually less).
- The % of women graduating from engineering school should be about the % of women engineering engineering school (it's also less).
- The % of women entering engineering school should be close to the % of women earning high-school diplomas (it's a lot less).

Why is that, at each of these above stages, the % drops off for women?

It shows that college recruiters aren't doing a good job recruiting women into this important education, that college administrators aren't doing a good job supporting women students, and that hiring managers at huge companies aren't doing a good job recruiting women. Changes must be made at each stage, from college admissions to hiring practices in the private sector.

There is so much more to ensuring proper diversity than just "not considering race, gender, or religion" during the hiring process.

The reason the percentage of women drops off has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with women's choices.

If you have children, you want to have a healthy work/life balance. Most women choose, therefore, quite reasonably, to work part-time or not at all. Inevitably, this means that men, on average, end up earning more overall. It's nothing to do with pay inequality. Pay inequality doesn't exist in the West.

I also take issue with those who say that we should balance the numbers of different kinds of people in the population with the numbers admitted. If 70% of white men, for example, apply to Apple, that doesn't mean that Apple should try and take on 70% of white men. There should simply be no quotas whatsoever. One year, you may get an unusually talented group of black Ethiopians; another year, you may get a group of talented Japanese women. You may get ten years in a row of talented white students from Yale, simply because a combination of innate talent and good education led to that.

Whoever is most talented should get hired, and that's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if you have freckles or hairy toes; you just need to be the best man for the job.

 

[oneMadRssn]

It is just ignorance to suppose that hiring ratios should have the same racial, sexual, etc. percentage as anything. What if women in general do not want to be engineers? Hiring practices have favored certain people over others for 100s of years without it being racism, sexism, etc. If someone wants to hire someone less qualified because they are more similar to themselves, then they will. It is up the company or organization to make sure the people they put in charge of hiring are hiring the best candidates. That check happens with hiring reviews, not meeting percentages. Hiring practices 100 years ago even excluded qualified whites, unless they attended the correct school, knew the right person, etc. Diversity is a made up term used to separate people and set preferences that force the hiring of those less qualified. Any time you say, "We have to hire that person in order to increase the number of minorities, females, etc., we have on staff", you have just exhibited racism, sexism, etc. These terms define selecting someone based on their physical characteristics, rather than the best match to the job requirements.

The question you ask, "What if women in general do not want to be engineers?" is interesting. Indeed, why don't they? Perhaps it is because of sexist practices rooted in long tradition?

Also, you say that hiring practices have favored certain people over others for 100s of years, and that is true. But favoritism for an inane characteristic is pretty much the definition of discrimination. Just because it is tradition doesn't make it right. Moreover, probably the worst reason anyone can give for continuing to do something is because it's been done that way for a long time. If that's the best reason anyone can come up with, then I know whatever it is is wrong.

I agree that requirements to hire a percentages are silly. But there is a difference between requirements and goals. It should be every companies goal that their employees represent a proportional slice of the population from which they draw. That goal can be achieved in many ways that aren't setting a requirement.

Like I said before, this issue is a lot deeper than the employee to employer relationship, a lot deeper than the job interview.

 

[JamesPDX]

What would be nice is some diversity in product releases.

Just hire whoever will update the bloody Mac lineup.

QOTD!

 

[Nicksd84]

At what point will there no longer be "real racism" at Apple?

At what point will there no longer be "oppression based on a physical trait" at Apple?

I'll wait for an answer on both. Thanks.

Who said there was real racism at Apple? I was referring to the Morgan freeman quote that was cited.
[doublepost=1470260976][/doublepost]

As Ben Shapiro said:

"The idea that you can craft a narrative based on no racism because it just must be somewhere out there in the ether, that doesn't solve problems for anybody," said Shapiro. "It creates more problems for people, because now they grow up in a milieu and an environment where they are told that every obstacle they face is from some shadowy, nameless, faceless group who is out to get them simply because of the color of their skin."
​

Your narrative necessitates that you see and perceive racism even with no empirical evidence of it.

Missing the point of systemic racism as a group of people out to get anyone.

 

[Tech198]

I wonder what % percentage of the population will cringe over those figures ..

I'm glad Apple feels this way, because that's not how it works in the real world..

 

[oneMadRssn]

The reason the percentage of women drops off has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with women's choices.

If you have children, you want to have a healthy work/life balance. Most women choose, therefore, quite reasonably, to work part-time or not at all. Inevitably, this means that men, on average, end up earning more overall. It's nothing to do with pay inequality. Pay inequality doesn't exist in the West.

I also take issue with those who say that we should balance the numbers of different kinds of people in the population with the numbers admitted. If 70% of white men, for example, apply to Apple, that doesn't mean that Apple should try and take on 70% of white men. There should simply be no quotas whatsoever. One year, you may get an unusually talented group of black Ethiopians; another year, you may get a group of talented Japanese women. You may get ten years in a row of talented white students from Yale, simply because a combination of innate talent and good education led to that.

Whoever is most talented should get hired, and that's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if you have freckles or hairy toes; you just need to be the best man for the job.

Those things you listed are a product of sexism though. Most women chose to bear the child-caring responsibility because that is where society unfairly pushes them. There is no reason the number of men with child-caring responsibility shouldn't equal that of women.

Moreover, the fact that current employers organize in such a way that a women can't have a good work-life-family balance and have the job is part of the discrimination. It's exactly what I meant when I said that employers have to do more to appeal to women workers.

As I said above, I am against quotas. I am for goals. Quotes imply an active discrimination. Goals do not imply the need for a solution. I also agree that the best should be hired. None of what I said contradicts this.

It's not about hiring practices. It's about culture, both at university and in private practice. There is obviously a reason women aren't engineers as much as men, if you break if down, none of those reasons are good.

In the end, we as a society loose out if nearly half our population is pushed out of the work force for one reason or another. We could be so so so so much more productive if employers didn't push out people that prioritize family, and if colleges didn't discourage girls from studying engineering or hard sciences.

 

[2010mini]

So what happens when whites are a minority? Will our rights be protected? Doubt it

You know you are admitting in this post that minorities' right are currently NOT protected?

 

[MH01]

Okay Tim, what percentage are working on computers ???

 

[2010mini]

It's amazing every time this subject comes up people post about "most qualified getting _____. Why is the assumption that when companies seek to become more diversified, they are overlooking qualifications? What..... Only white males have qualifications?

 

[SBlue1]

That's just sexism but nobody has the balls to call it out because they fear the wrath of the likes Anita Sarkeesian and other new age social justice warriors that favour women but not actual equality.

No idea who this is since I am from Europe, but i know when Americans write socialists they mean communists or at least nothing good and stuff like let the government out if this.

I think laws like this are still needed. In a perfect world there would be no racism, sexism or what so ever and the best person would get the job. The reality is that we are still not there. Still lots of old men sitting in the top German CEO positions.

Our society is changing for better though. We had or have an openly gay Secretary of State, a women Chancellor, a vietnamese born Business Secretary, a Minister of Finance in a wheelchair and so on. It really encourages the majority to open their minds and helps the minorities to break free and feel more accepted.

 

[MH01]

I'd like to point out the elephant in the room, apple is blatantly discrimination against the minority that is the Mac Pro line. How about some product line diversity!!!!! Shame apple, shame!!!

If you want to work for apple, don't study IT, go into watch band design , they will hire you straight away

 

[SBlue1]

The reason the percentage of women drops off has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with women's choices ... Pay inequality doesn't exist in the West.

Wow, this is so wrong, at least in Germany. There still is a huge pay inequality. First person witness, got told by a professional recruiter that he offers women 10 to 20% less then men. No kidding. So much about womens choices. Actually they have a choice like the recruiter said, take it or leave it. But most old or small business recruiters use to think like that so good luck lady.

If you have children, you want to have a healthy work/life balance. Most women choose, therefore, quite reasonably, to work part-time or not at all. Inevitably, this means that men, on average, end up earning more overall. It's nothing to do with pay inequality.

You sound like someone from the 60ies tbh. My parents think like you. Funny. Luckily times and laws are changing so men can also choose to stay at home or work part time. Or in our personal case we can both stay at home for a certain amount of months and get paid. Whatever suits the parents best is now possible in Germany. It may still get better like in northern Europe, buy hey we will take any support we get.

 

[Zirel]

I'm so sick of all this diversity crap.

LISTEN UP, APPLE: the only thing that matters is merit. If 100% of your workers are white, male and middle-aged, I couldn't be more delighted, as long as they are hired on merit and merit alone.

To be pro-diversity is to be anti-merit. It's no wonder Apple is going to hell in a handcart with Tim Cook at the helm and his insufferable prejudice against hiring the best man for the job.

So "sick and tired" of these Trump types with their "I hate PC".

The "anti-PC" is the new "PC".

LISTEN UP, TRUMPERS: Apple could care less about a vocal minority in the US like you.

 

[unobtainium]

I'm with Morgan Freeman on this:

Mike Wallace: How are we going to get rid of racism until....?

Morgan Freeman: Stop talking about it.

Mike Wallace: ......

Morgan Freeman: I'm going to stop calling you a white man.

Mike Wallace: Yeah.

Morgan Freeman: and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman.

That would only work if you could ignore recent history.
[doublepost=1470264382][/doublepost]

Yet somehow throughout history the opposite has happened. The top positions in companies are mostly white males who aren't the majority in America. If you really want to reflect the US, then most positions should be held by white women.

People don't think about history at all. It's ridiculous how blind the "anti-PC" people are. They think it's totally normal that white men have controlled the world for the past few centuries while enslaving others. Now that we're all technically equal, we should just relax and be happy with a few token minorities in politics, the entertainment industry and business. After all, it's all about "merit".... lol
[doublepost=1470264671][/doublepost]

It's amazing every time this subject comes up people post about "most qualified getting _____. Why is the assumption that when companies seek to become more diversified, they are overlooking qualifications? What..... Only white males have qualifications?

Yeah, and how did it just so happen that every president in US history, almost every CEO etc., have all been white men? They've all just been more "qualified"? Why did they get to own slaves? Why were women unable to vote?

In generational terms, greater equality is so recent that your great-great grandpa would be shocked out of his socks by it.

 

[sudo1996]

Those things you listed are a product of sexism though. Most women chose to bear the child-caring responsibility because that is where society unfairly pushes them. There is no reason the number of men with child-caring responsibility shouldn't equal that of women.

It's probably natural for the woman to take care of the children more. Look at all the different societies in the world, and it's like that. Same with animals. If that's the case, that would explain why they usually do. Sure, it's also fine in the United States if the man does it instead.

 

[Edsel]

We are here on earth for such a short time, that it is a total waste to obsess about people's differences.

We should be celebrating & sharing different cultures today because in 1000 years we'll have evolved into a boring, one culture, one language, one cuisine, one skin color culture watching the same boring TV shows.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

We should be celebrating & sharing different cultures today because in 1000 years we'll have evolved into a boring, one culture, one language, one cuisine, one skin color culture watching the same boring TV shows.

Nothing wrong with a monoculture, especially one that doesn't involve television.

Much better for each country to have a dominant culture and to guard that culture fiercely.

 

[bwillwall]

A lot of companies are being more diverse it seems. Every Starbucks I go to in NYC has 95% non-white staff. Among other retailers.

Kudos.

Kudos is not no white workers... Kudos to people that give no consideration to race or gender when hiring somebody because judging somebody based on that is wrong.

 

[oneMadRssn]

It's probably natural for the woman to take care of the children more. Look at all the different societies in the world, and it's like that. Same with animals. If that's the case, that would explain why they usually do. Sure, it's also fine in the United States if the man does it instead.

Respectfully, none of that is true.

Lots of studies show there is no natural tendency for male dominance in humans. It is a product of western society. Some "untouched" African and Rain Forrest tribes are indeed female dominant.

As for animals, this is totally wrong, there are countless examples of female dominant animals, and plenty of examples where it is the male that cares for the children. (fox, some frogs, sea horse, catfish, marmosets, penguin, and tons of birds).

Think of it in terms of logic over long term. If men were indeed better workers, and women better child-carers, then over time you would expect efficiency to prevail, and you would see close to 100% of men work and close to 100% of women care for children. But it isn't like this, and since the turn of the century it has been trending towards 50/50 (not there yet, but slowly headed in that direction). If it isn't inane, then it must be societal.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Respectfully, none of that is true.

Lots of studies show there is no natural tendency for male dominance in humans. It is a product of western society. Some "untouched" African and Rain Forrest tribes are indeed female dominant.

As for animals, this is totally wrong, there are countless examples of female dominant animals, and plenty of examples where it is the male that cares for the children.

Think of it in terms of logic over long term. If men were indeed better workers, and women better child-carers, then over time you would expect efficiency to prevail, and you would see close to 100% of men work and close to 100% of women care for children. But it isn't like this, and since the turn of the century it has been trending towards 50/50 (not there yet, but slowly headed in that direction). If it isn't inane, then it must be societal.

Yet you do see close to 100%, if not 100% of women caring for children. That figure has not changed ever.

What has changed is the breakdown of the family, the desertion of fathers, the rise in single mothers and living in sin, and the rise in abortion; in short, the rise of evil.

 

[5105973]

The reason the percentage of women drops off has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with women's choices.

If you have children, you want to have a healthy work/life balance. Most women choose, therefore, quite reasonably, to work part-time or not at all. Inevitably, this means that men, on average, end up earning more overall. It's nothing to do with pay inequality. Pay inequality doesn't exist in the West.

I also take issue with those who say that we should balance the numbers of different kinds of people in the population with the numbers admitted. If 70% of white men, for example, apply to Apple, that doesn't mean that Apple should try and take on 70% of white men. There should simply be no quotas whatsoever. One year, you may get an unusually talented group of black Ethiopians; another year, you may get a group of talented Japanese women. You may get ten years in a row of talented white students from Yale, simply because a combination of innate talent and good education led to that.

Whoever is most talented should get hired, and that's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if you have freckles or hairy toes; you just need to be the best man for the job.

You bring up some interesting points. Where I live, in Maryland, I have noticed that approximately 90% of all medical office staff, nurses, and eldercare workers I see are black, and many of those are black first generation immigrants from various countries in Africa. About 70% are women. I have also been to a fair share of black doctors and seen an increasing number of black medical technicians and paramedics. My ob/gyn who delivered my daughter is a black woman. We also have a lot of black clergy divided almost equally between men and women (from what I have seen): my minister who performed my marriage ceremony is a black woman.

Yet as far as I know, nobody has raised a fuss about that. There have been no articles that I have run across (not saying none exist, I just don't see it making the headlines) and no studies done to explain why there are not more non-blacks in these very lucrative medical professional jobs that pay well, offer stability and good benefits and decent hours.

As a minority woman I'm really not going to freak out that there aren't as many minority women or women in general working as programmers and developers or tech entrepreneurs, where the hours can indeed be brutal and take you away from your family, when clearly there are opportunities in these other lucrative fields that are more family friendly for women (and men who wish to be heavily involved in day-to-day child rearing) and clearly welcoming to minorities. These are good paying solid jobs requiring intelligence and proficiency and do not consign anyone who works at them to a permanent underclass. Indeed, the healthcare sector is growing and workers in this sector can keep networking, upgrading their skills and education and look forward to a bright future. If black people are embracing opportunities here, they are smart to do so.

As long as the women and minorities who do have an interest in technology jobs have fair access to the education that would prepare them for tech careers and have fair access to the jobs, I have no objections to the current demographic breakdown among tech industry workers.

It is up to parents and educators to ensure, however, that math and science and tech jobs are not seen as purely the domain of whites or men. As a mom and aunt, I have had to overcome subtle biases introduced via the marketing of children's books, toys and science kits. This post is already long so I won't elaborate on that for now.

At any rate, we should break down artificial barriers to career choices like that, and in the process, make sure we don't erect any barriers in the future that might be detrimental to white men and women seeking opportunities wherever their talents lead them. I hope in the future people don't look at certain careers and think "Oh that's men's work. Or women's work. Or a black job, or a white job or a Hispanic job." It should be an opportunity, period.

 

[0098386]

This is good to hear!

 

[Porco]

On a positive note, (and this is on-topic, even if it doesn't seem like it(!)) one of the things I love about relatively anonymous internet forums is the fact that people's words are what they are judged on - nothing else (unless further information is volunteered by the individual). We hear about internet trolls and bullies on social media all the time, but I don't think we hear enough about the great levelling factor of being able to express your opinions where people are literally unable to apply many of their immediate prejudices to others.

Am I an Italian pig drawn by a Japanese, flying in a bright red plane (as per my avatar)? Am I black woman living in Canada? Well no, I'm a white male in the UK. If you want to believe that, if it matters to anyone at all.