I wonder what percent of the male employees have been with Apple for a significant amount of time. The amount of females in the tech world has dramatically increased over the past 10 years (which is great) but I wonder how many older male employees may sqew the data if at all. It would be great to track the timeline.
My question to you is how is it better for a company to hire based on sex or "race" over hiring the best individual for the position?
Obviously it isn't, on the assumption that your criteria for "best individual for the position" are broad and complete.
However, you're only viewing this from a single perspective. What if the hypothetical best person for the position doesn't apply for the position because Apple are a company full of old white men that have shown no interest in diversity and appealing across cultural boundaries?
Do you think a company made up of 100% white males would be successful selling women's clothes?
Having diversity leads to new ideas and viewpoints.
And in what world would you get 100% white male applicants for that company??? Or in what world would a person in charge of hiring think only white males are qualified for that kind of company (selling women's clothes)? You built a ridiculous straw man.
Another straw man is the idea that people of different races have fundamentally and inherently different worldviews. Two people of different races who grew up as neighbors are going to be far more similar than two people of the same race who grew up in different places/circumstances.
If an applicant thinks they have a unique perspective that could bring value to the company, they should be able to express that. But note that it's their brain that makes them valuable/diverse, not their race or sex.
Obviously it isn't, on the assumption that your criteria for "best individual for the position" are broad and complete.
However, you're only viewing this from a single perspective. What if the hypothetical best person for the position doesn't apply for the position because Apple are a company full of old white men that have shown no interest in diversity and appealing across cultural boundaries?
I've probably hired 100 people in my last 30 years of business. All types. What really counts is NOT political correctness of any kind. We've trained the untrained (lots of companies do not want to train anyone these days... they used that insipid phrase, "hit the ground running.")
What I have found is that attitude counts for a lot, as does work ethic. Entitlement doesn't count at all. If it's a technical position, aptitude is certainly important. Never had much of a problem with "getting along with others." The two biggest "bad" people were older white men who felt I wasn't paying enough attention to their belief systems (theft and entitlement). Yet one competent black woman was leaving work early at night when no one else was around. She was fired, the two men quit when they discovered I was on to them. One Hispanic man was fired for ripping off the company as well as one of the customers. One lady was originally hired as a proofer but became highly qualified as a keyboard operator! I'm telling you, there are plenty of bad eggs to go around but I never limited their "type" (race, etc.) when hiring them. Just looking for qualified people to make money for my company. The bad ones often weed themselves out. I think many on this post have not been in this situation and don't really know what they are "talking" about, just theory. I want results. I suspect, in the end, Apple does too and if you READ what was originally mentioned in THEIR (Apple's) charter, it said "qualified" not just anybody. We interviewed 54 people for our first proofreading test, created by a national company... two people passed it... lots of people who post on AI would have failed.
As a black male I have to say that I hate this kind of crap, I don't ever want to feel like somebody's charity case just because i'm black. I used to work at an Apple Store in Seattle (on the outskirts actually), and while I do agree that most of the workforce was white I don't believe it had anything whatsoever to do with some kind of effort to hire only whites. The store manager was black and hispanic, the Redzone manager was Asian, and so was another manager. If there was a real case of discrimination that could be proven that would be a different story, but I never felt discriminated against. AFTER 7 INTERVIEWS I feel that they knew I was the best person to get the job done and so I was hired. I was the best person by the way....I rocked the sh!t out of all my interviews.
Wait, so at Apple in the US, 55 percent of its workers are white, followed by 15 percent Asian, 11 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent black. That totals only 88% of the workforce. What are the remaining 12%??
And ONLY 55% of the workers are white? You're darned right Tim should be upset. The diversity of the population in the US is that 72% of the population is white. He better start hiring more white workers to fill those positions....
If the premise is that the demographic makeup of Apple or any other company should reflect society at large, then the NBA must be considered one of the most racist organizations in the country.
So seriously telling me there are 800% more qualified White men than Black men for ALL THOSE JOBS?????
Well, if you look at population numbers in California, roughly 80% of the population is white, and just under 8% is black. So, assuming that the pool of employees were equally qualified, there are 1000% more white people than blacks available for those jobs. The fact that whites are only 800% more means that blacks are represented in higher quantities than the population numbers.
Diversity for Diversity's sake is bad. Diversity as a result of "best available talent" is natural. Business decisions need to be made on logic, not emotion.
Absolutely agree. But if the reason why 70% are white male is because the hiring group were white males and didn't hire someone from another race and gender then that should be actively curtailed. Its kind of human nature to feel comfort for what's familiar but when you are in a position to hire, you have to actively keep in mind and be honest with yourself on why you are recommending one candidate over another. Is it really qualification or personal comfort.
Maloderous, chances are you aren't saying that white males are better programmers than non-white males and females
Wait, so at Apple in the US, 55 percent of its workers are white, followed by 15 percent Asian, 11 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent black. That totals only 88% of the workforce. What are the remaining 12%??
And ONLY 55% of the workers are white? You're darned right Tim should be upset. The diversity of the population in the US is that 72% of the population is white. He better start hiring more white workers to fill those positions....
I think that, if there's any 'over'representation, it's among Asians, who constitute just a little over 5% of the population (there's a similar issue in many university populations). Hispanics are about 17% of the country, and blacks 13%.
That said, Asians in the US also tend to be disproportionately more educated than the rest, making them a more natural fit for tech businesses. Even though Apple could -- and probably will -- be more proactive under Cook, you do have to go where the talent pool is.
It is true. Not only that, but at the retail stores the majority of those who get hired are 20 somethings who don't stay. They whine about how working is a problem with their free time and "creativity". The variety of individuals who are hired has definitley changed for the worse in the last few years. We no longer celebrate individuality.
This works both ways of course... yes, there are "minorities" who are fully qualified who are overlooked by SOME because they are different. But we have to remember, caucasians make up about 73% of the USA population. At Apple HQ in Cupertino, many hires by statistical odds are going to be citizens of the country that the business is headquartered in. For whatever reason, men seem to be the gender that is predominantly attracted to jobs in tech, though I know quite a few women who also like to work in tech. But they are a small minority. So it is what it is.
I agree with many other posters, the most qualified candidate should get the job, regardless of any "fixed characteristic" of a person's identity from birth that they can't change. I used to work for a local computer manufacturer that got a lot of it's revenue from government clients and contractors because it was technically owned by an Asian female (but run by her husband, also Asian). State legislation required that a certain percentage of purchases had to be from "minority-owned" businesses, and so we had people knocking on our door solely because they HAD to. I think it is a significant reason for that business surviving when many other viable (non-minority-owned) competitors tanked in the 15 years since that legislation passed. To me, that was grossly unfair. When MOST (i.e. nearly all) people come into any tech store, they aren't thinking about what the race or gender or sexual orientation of the owner is. They just want a product or competent service at a reasonable price.
Let's just call it how it is: the past happened. Discrimination of all kinds was pervasive in our country not just 30-40 years ago. But it's effectively done now. And we don't need to punish one group of people who had nothing to do with it so we can accommodate another.
Political correctness represents the end of honesty and pandering to anyone using race-based metrics is codified racism.
This garbage burns me up. Tim is insulting his existing workforce by saying he's unhappy with the people he currently has working at Apple. Goddammit, Tim. You're sucking up to politicians and corporate meddlers.
How is Tim Insulting his workforce? He's unhappy with the pct, not the people.
If Apple hired employees site unseen, based on their resume/qualifications would the numbers turn out the same? It is illegal to ask someone's age or race or gender among other things during a typical hiring process. - Just a thought.
Comments
FYI: It's "skew".
I think his point is clear.
My question to you is how is it better for a company to hire based on sex or "race" over hiring the best individual for the position?
Obviously it isn't, on the assumption that your criteria for "best individual for the position" are broad and complete.
However, you're only viewing this from a single perspective. What if the hypothetical best person for the position doesn't apply for the position because Apple are a company full of old white men that have shown no interest in diversity and appealing across cultural boundaries?
Another straw man is the idea that people of different races have fundamentally and inherently different worldviews. Two people of different races who grew up as neighbors are going to be far more similar than two people of the same race who grew up in different places/circumstances.
If an applicant thinks they have a unique perspective that could bring value to the company, they should be able to express that. But note that it's their brain that makes them valuable/diverse, not their race or sex.
Thank you for continuing to prove you do not read posts before replying to them.
Wow, you gave in to your last resort I-have-no-argument defence very quickly that time. I guess it's pointless to continue then? Right-o.
I've probably hired 100 people in my last 30 years of business. All types. What really counts is NOT political correctness of any kind. We've trained the untrained (lots of companies do not want to train anyone these days... they used that insipid phrase, "hit the ground running.")
What I have found is that attitude counts for a lot, as does work ethic. Entitlement doesn't count at all. If it's a technical position, aptitude is certainly important. Never had much of a problem with "getting along with others." The two biggest "bad" people were older white men who felt I wasn't paying enough attention to their belief systems (theft and entitlement). Yet one competent black woman was leaving work early at night when no one else was around. She was fired, the two men quit when they discovered I was on to them. One Hispanic man was fired for ripping off the company as well as one of the customers. One lady was originally hired as a proofer but became highly qualified as a keyboard operator! I'm telling you, there are plenty of bad eggs to go around but I never limited their "type" (race, etc.) when hiring them. Just looking for qualified people to make money for my company. The bad ones often weed themselves out. I think many on this post have not been in this situation and don't really know what they are "talking" about, just theory. I want results. I suspect, in the end, Apple does too and if you READ what was originally mentioned in THEIR (Apple's) charter, it said "qualified" not just anybody. We interviewed 54 people for our first proofreading test, created by a national company... two people passed it... lots of people who post on AI would have failed.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Of course it doesn't. But I didn't quote any correlation?
And ONLY 55% of the workers are white? You're darned right Tim should be upset. The diversity of the population in the US is that 72% of the population is white. He better start hiring more white workers to fill those positions....
But the numbers include ALL APPLE employees -
Accountants
Marketing
Retail Staff
HR
Legal
So seriously telling me there are 800% more qualified White men than Black men for ALL THOSE JOBS?????
Well, if you look at population numbers in California, roughly 80% of the population is white, and just under 8% is black. So, assuming that the pool of employees were equally qualified, there are 1000% more white people than blacks available for those jobs. The fact that whites are only 800% more means that blacks are represented in higher quantities than the population numbers.
Diversity for Diversity's sake is bad. Diversity as a result of "best available talent" is natural. Business decisions need to be made on logic, not emotion.
Absolutely agree. But if the reason why 70% are white male is because the hiring group were white males and didn't hire someone from another race and gender then that should be actively curtailed. Its kind of human nature to feel comfort for what's familiar but when you are in a position to hire, you have to actively keep in mind and be honest with yourself on why you are recommending one candidate over another. Is it really qualification or personal comfort.
Maloderous, chances are you aren't saying that white males are better programmers than non-white males and females
Wait, so at Apple in the US, 55 percent of its workers are white, followed by 15 percent Asian, 11 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent black. That totals only 88% of the workforce. What are the remaining 12%??
And ONLY 55% of the workers are white? You're darned right Tim should be upset. The diversity of the population in the US is that 72% of the population is white. He better start hiring more white workers to fill those positions....
I think that, if there's any 'over'representation, it's among Asians, who constitute just a little over 5% of the population (there's a similar issue in many university populations). Hispanics are about 17% of the country, and blacks 13%.
That said, Asians in the US also tend to be disproportionately more educated than the rest, making them a more natural fit for tech businesses. Even though Apple could -- and probably will -- be more proactive under Cook, you do have to go where the talent pool is.
It is true. Not only that, but at the retail stores the majority of those who get hired are 20 somethings who don't stay. They whine about how working is a problem with their free time and "creativity". The variety of individuals who are hired has definitley changed for the worse in the last few years. We no longer celebrate individuality.
This works both ways of course... yes, there are "minorities" who are fully qualified who are overlooked by SOME because they are different. But we have to remember, caucasians make up about 73% of the USA population. At Apple HQ in Cupertino, many hires by statistical odds are going to be citizens of the country that the business is headquartered in. For whatever reason, men seem to be the gender that is predominantly attracted to jobs in tech, though I know quite a few women who also like to work in tech. But they are a small minority. So it is what it is.
I agree with many other posters, the most qualified candidate should get the job, regardless of any "fixed characteristic" of a person's identity from birth that they can't change. I used to work for a local computer manufacturer that got a lot of it's revenue from government clients and contractors because it was technically owned by an Asian female (but run by her husband, also Asian). State legislation required that a certain percentage of purchases had to be from "minority-owned" businesses, and so we had people knocking on our door solely because they HAD to. I think it is a significant reason for that business surviving when many other viable (non-minority-owned) competitors tanked in the 15 years since that legislation passed. To me, that was grossly unfair. When MOST (i.e. nearly all) people come into any tech store, they aren't thinking about what the race or gender or sexual orientation of the owner is. They just want a product or competent service at a reasonable price.
Let's just call it how it is: the past happened. Discrimination of all kinds was pervasive in our country not just 30-40 years ago. But it's effectively done now. And we don't need to punish one group of people who had nothing to do with it so we can accommodate another.
May the best qualified PERSON always get the job.
I am 100% ok with white men making up the majority of Apple employees.
I am not ok with hiring darker people for the sake of hiring darker people.
Just say no to liberal racism and liberal discrimination. Those sorts of ideas belong in the gutter along with the KKK.
How is Tim Insulting his workforce? He's unhappy with the pct, not the people.