It is generalizing and I have no problems with that. This is how we create knowledge from observations. This is a complex, multi-faceted topic that can't be easily discussed in short replies.
Cultural differences and even geography play a role in answering your points. I'm a legal Latin American immigrant who came to the US for a high tech job and stayed. But most immigrants from my country come here illegally, so you don't observe the same selection bias of high achievers.
But I know many legal Latin American immigrants in high tech jobs. Most of their children are high achievers, and they are also often highly ranked in their companies (principal engineers, directors, VPs etc).
> But I know many legal Latin American immigrants in high tech jobs. Most of their children are high achievers, and they are also often highly ranked in their companies (principal engineers, directors, VPs etc).
So you agree that if a company has 0 latin people in tech with a sizable tech workforce and a lot if latin people in the area, something isn't right?
There could be something wrong, but not necessarily. Educational attainment is generally low in areas with "a lot of latin people" due to historical reasons, including prevalent illegal immigration.
Low is the keyword and representation of them should also be low then. Not zero, low. I can't believe how naive people are about this. Do you really think cast discrimination laws are needed but the same work environments don't discriminate against everyone else?
Cultural differences and even geography play a role in answering your points. I'm a legal Latin American immigrant who came to the US for a high tech job and stayed. But most immigrants from my country come here illegally, so you don't observe the same selection bias of high achievers.
But I know many legal Latin American immigrants in high tech jobs. Most of their children are high achievers, and they are also often highly ranked in their companies (principal engineers, directors, VPs etc).