SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @01:26AM
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
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
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
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".