Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the revenge-of-the-nerds? dept.

President-elect Donald Trump realized early in his campaign that U.S. IT workers were angry over training foreign visa-holding replacements. He knew this anger was volcanic.

Trump is the first major U.S. presidential candidate in this race -- or any previous presidential race -- to focus on the use of the H-1B visa to displace IT workers. He asked former Disney IT employees, upset over having to train foreign replacements, to speak at his rallies.

"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," said Dena Moore, a former Disney IT worker at a Trump rally in Alabama in February. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."

Yes, US nerds were angry about training H-1B replacements, but how much could they have helped put him over the top?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @12:39AM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 11 2016, @12:39AM (#425480) Journal

    And this is all you assholes ever do

    Deny reality. That's all you goddamn idiots ever do.

    It doesn't matter if hard research shows that women are 1000% more likely to get a callback on a tech resume if the gender identifying information is anonymized [cnet.com], because goddamn morons like you can just pretend sexism doesn't exist anymore. And call your deluded reality "facts" and people who are right "emotional".

    Does your little sexist brain understand what 1000% means? That means bafflingly high numbers of women aren't invited in for tech interviews because their name looks female on their resume. Sexism is over you say.

    Do you know why you say that? Because you're a sexist fuckwit and we'd all be so much better off if you had taken five seconds to understand and interpret the world around you.

    But no. You fucking goddamn sanctimonious morons get on your fucking high horse and whine like god has never seen about the tiny inconvenience of maybe considering you're wrong.

    You're incapable of learning. You're a systemically broken person The Mighty Buzzard, and you can enjoy bieng upomodded "informative" for a full-of-shit denying-reality post. And that's fine, that's exactly what this election was, a bunch of blowhards jacking each other off about non-existant problems and delusional solutions to them.

    You are a terrible person. Do you get that? No? You're in denial about that too?

    I don't think white men are responsible for this, YOU ARE. Go. Fuck. Yourself.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=2, Insightful=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @01:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @01:26AM (#425508)

    Ahem

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426162606.htm [sciencedaily.com]

    Bit more compelling.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @02:58AM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 11 2016, @02:58AM (#425543) Journal

      Not if you read the actual editorial letter submitted to the journal [sci-hub.cc] (Sorry for the piracy, please buy an overpriced subscription to Applied Economics Letters)

      Their names for signaling "blackness" were Chloe and Ryan, which in the realm of stereotypes, are "white-sounding" as all hell. The article they're "responding to" here is titled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." Which I'm going to say was better structured and got better data, and the reasons for the differences are pretty clear from a more in-depth reading of both studies. (This one is designed to draw out a mean, especially on African American names)

      Now, as the authors note, they are indeed common names for actual, real-life African-Americans. And also note that they disguise their effect sizes(not purposefully, mind you, just by virtue of how they structured their experiment) by comparing a mean of a dataset that's primarily composed of minority applicants, with only a fractional cross-section being white and male. Which also explains why in their table 2, they have p>0.10 for most of their crosstabs. Also note, they don't offer any sort of white-male controls we don't even get an N for that. All their exposed data is the 4 experimental groups, kinda restating the earlier point, but kinda not, since they took the data but don't expose it. Odd that it's left out of their models.

      It's... not useless to surmise anything from this study, but it doesn't say what you're thinking it says. I appreciate your stepping into the realm of data-driven analysis, but please understand what you're actually submitting as evidence rather than just citing the first headline that sounds like it agrees with you.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:14AM (#425591)

        From the fucking article you didn't bother to read.

        Researchers sent 9,000 fictitious resumes to employers, using last names that were likely to be interpreted as coming from black, Hispanic or white applicants. For African-American applicants the researchers used the surnames Washington and Jefferson. According to data from the U.S. Census, 90 and 75 percent of individuals with these surnames are African-American, respectively. Similarly, the researchers used the surnames Hernandez and Garcia, and Anderson and Thompson, for Hispanic and white applicants, respectively. These surnames also are strong indicators of race/ethnicity. The researchers used first names to convey gender in the study.

        Not Chloe and Ryan.

        Why misrepresent the study with something unrelated behind a paywall?

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 11 2016, @05:05PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday November 11 2016, @05:05PM (#425729)

          Washington and Jefferson seem like... extremely bad choices considering that we don't care about what the *actual* statistical reality of name distribution is, but what the *perceived* reality is in the minds of the HR department employees screening the resumes. Employees who as a rule probably aren't intentionally setting out to implement racist hiring policies.

          And I would guess that most people seeing those names think "Early White Presidents", not "Black People".

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @01:54AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 11 2016, @01:54AM (#425520) Homepage Journal

    Yes, you're in no way emotional. Obviously. Follow ye ole AC's link and spout your regressive rag propaganda again, why don't you? Oh, I'm sorry, that hit you right in the narrative. That's got to hurt.

    Here's a clue for you to take back to your friends: we don't hate blacks, hispanics, arabs, or women. We hate you. Far above and beyond anything else in the world, we hate you.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:06PM (#425771)

      Ah yes, the "well I'm not the one upset and getting all worked up here". Reminds me of the Big Lebowski when Walter gets worked up then drops it and says "calmer than you are" like that somehow makes him suddenly in the right.

      YAY! I found the perfect example! TMB and other such douches on this site are just Walters! And not the crafty Breaking Bad Walters, the child-level emotions, gun-loving violent Walters who should probably be in weekly therapy at the least, and possibly a psych ward to make sure they don't have any nasty dreams about shooting people from a tower...

      You conservative greedy fucktards (sorry I'm a bit upset by this stupid thread so a little ad hominem of my own) are on the way out, the world doesn't like your shit anymore and fighting the winds of change will only plunge us into the dark ages. Take your heads out of the sand and start looking for a therapist that can actually help you work through your emotional issues.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:47PM (#425790)

        Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but it is President Trump.

        If there was ever a group with a shelf life, well, I've got some bad news.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @09:08PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 11 2016, @09:08PM (#425822) Homepage Journal

        Interesting comment. I shall reply at the same level of discourse. I'm rubber, you're glue...

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:42PM (#425789)

    Yes and women are 200% more preferred in STEM and god knows how many times more preferred in non-STEM academia.

    Guess what, you are not as good as you think and you are not entitled to freebies because you happen to associate yourself with some group identity.

    Tell me, would you rather hire someone who spoke English or Martian?

    Apparently businesses are not supposed to be run on profits they ought to run on some liberal-gifted metric that just happens to help people like you.

    You know some thing? 99.9999% of all businesses which are run by men, end up providing for women who don't work.