One of the funniest board meetings I have ever sat in on was in a recruiting company based heavily in diversity and inclusion. The investor (non-Indian) was listening the Founders (Indian) talk about the advancements we made and showed the talent marketplace (scraped people data).
The investor stopped the CEO and was like, "Why are they all Indian?".
I've seen this at a large semiconductor company I used to work in. But to be fair, it was the same for many Chinese managers as well.
The weird thing is that nobody from HR seemed to find it strange, like maybe telling managers that they should not prefer hiring from their own ethnic group - nobody seemed to care.
I saw this behavior at a bank I used to work for. There was a Chinese team, an Indian team, a Korean team, a Russian team, etc.
Many western European ethnic groups are largely unwilling to act like this, i.e. to act on strong in-group preference when hiring. So the most interesting aspect of the status quo is about second-order effects. Will it be stopped somehow? Will it lead other groups to start behaving similarly? Will it lead to an Ottoman-style millet system but adapted to corporate culture and needs in the 21st century west?
I'm curious whether this will continue into the second generation (as people begin to naturalize), and especially how multi-ethnic people are treated by in-group preferences.
I doubt it. If they only hire themselves, eventually they will have to compete with each other. That’s when the gloves come off and they’ll hire whoever to beat the other Indian.
The Indian on Indian war is inevitable. How do you think they got hired in the first place? Some white executive beat another white executive by cutting costs by offshoring.
I think that's probably a natural tendency for any type of people, so I can't say I blame them.
It's just that, in the USA at least, white people have been guilted for years into specifically not doing that. I suspect the same would happen to any majority, with time, but we'll see.
> I think that's probably a natural tendency for any type of people...
I agree about the natural tendency, the call of the "tribe" (ethnic group, common language, etc.) is there for all kinds of people, more or less.
But there is a difference, and I'm talking about frequency distributions of behaviors, not naive black and white: some groups of people are aware of these tendencies, and they act purposefully and conscientiously to counteract them; other groups, well, it's hard to tell whether they are aware of these tendencies or not, but what is certain is that they don't practice any countermeasure to a natural bias.
Now, for some ethnic groups or nations, it is quite forbidden to talk about any kind of "tribal" behavior that they exhibit. But if within Facebook or Google or Netflix or whatever there was a team led by a Bulgarian citizen with all Bulgarian members, some complaints about the oddity of the situation, I am sure, would be heard.
> "We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders."
If not working in a mine, these children will be working subsistence agriculture, which is equally as back-braking.
The underlying problem is an excess of manual labor in Africa, caused by excessive birth rates. Take fertility rates down to sub-replacement like they are in the rest of the world, and mining will just be automated.
Did you ever consider that in "sub-replacement" populations they still send poor people down the mines, as that is way cheaper than robots?
Never mind the perpetual political destabilization of that region because our oligarch owned nations want the natural treasures buried beneath that African soil for cheap. It's their own fault for having babies. Djeez.
> Did you ever consider that in "sub-replacement" populations they still send poor people down the mines, as that is way cheaper than robots?
As long as the poor guy can choose to work something better wages and working conditions will reflect this (or the mine will shut down). See Europe after the black death.
No. It's not. It's basic supply and demand. You see this every time there's supply side constraints on labor. Usually they're geographic and short lived but big ones sometimes happen too.
> The underlying problem is an excess of manual labor in Africa,
In what fucking world holy shit. Good lord, seriously. Labor IS PEOPLE. There is no such thing as an excess person.
The underlying problem is an economic system that allows/depends on the exploitation of vulnerable and precarious labor. If you're going to justify this then grow a spine and do it, don't deflect it back on the people being hurt the most saying they should cull themselves for our moral convenience.
Excess labour supply doesn't necessarily mean excess people...
Just that there might not be enough resources to meet the needs of population. Such as food and water. Thus purchasers of labour will get away by providing minimum. If there weren't such big excess supply they would need to provide more or provide better conditions.
> Largely due to the expansion of the welfare state which encourages single motherhood.
That's a wild claim. I highly doubt many women choose to have a kid on their own (with all the physical and mental stress that brings, not to mention time and money spent) only or mainly because they won't starve to death with their kid thanks to some welfare.
