God damn...You're killing me. I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out what Apple and other companies have to do these days for improving their diversity numbers.
You're exactly why it's hard to fight for minorities and underrepresented groups because you're so worried about being on their good side and being PC about everything that you're actually doing more harm than good.
If it were that simple, it clearly is not. Especially when companies with better products don't always make it to the top of the industry. Otherwise everyone would then have to admit that Windows is better than MacOS, Linux, OS/2, BeOS, AmigaOS - how long a list would people like in terms of comparing competition based solely on product quality and not on what's most sold? Or TV shows, just because it's actually good doesn't mean it's well liked...
Neither is hiring under-qualified whites. As I said, they do not have to resort to that. Not in this day and age where talent can be found the world over. Any employer that uses the excuse that finding talented minorities to fill positions is hard, is being extremely lazy in their hiring process. You might've gotten away with that excuse 30+ years ago. But not today.
Found? Or trained in? (And often by people who spent a hell of a lot more money...) And if the goal is to raise a standard of living worldwide, then how come so many more people have seen theirs decline, even those being trained in after a certain point? But, like details, facts are useless things - at least to Reagan's followers.
How "diverse" is the executive staff?... is diversity measured by the employment of underlings?
I'm sure one of the folk around here will finally answer that question. I've a few theories but choose not to bring any up. Assuming we're not on the same page, that is...
Ever notice how "diversity" pushers ignore facts, evidence and thousands of yeas of evolution?
Hire by relevant talent with honeable skill, not by skin color regardless of ability. Many fields require unique intelligence types or other innate traits that not everybody is born with. That much has been true since day 001. How we treat workers is no less important than putting their traits to profitable use. Our economy should make use of people, not make them disposable. Is that a bad thing?