Banks are another subject entirely:
www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/finalrestat.pdf
"We conduct an econometric analysis of loan outcomes by race and find that black- owned small businesses are about twice as likely to be denied credit even after controlling for differences in credit-worthiness and other factors."
The racism that I've come in contact with (in corporate settings at least) is towards people from India. Not people born here and of Indian descent, but people from India with Indian culture. It would probably be better to call it "culturism" or bias against a culture instead of racism. When you go on a contract and you see 20 employees 50-80% of them being from India and 0% of them in management or even team lead positions, that's an indicator. It's an even bigger indicator when all of said employees have been there for 5-10 years or longer and are willing to manage. The absolute smoking gun is when current the managers bring zero to the table (completely incompetent). These positions in large companies are often obviously filled with friends with no merit, technical know how, or leadership ability. As a side note I'm black as well, and I feel I know these biases when I see them.
I work at a large 20+K consulting firm and there is exactly one Indian on my current project, the female Indian project manager. None on the one before that, and before that one the project manager. It's a diverse world out there and while people blame persistent racism my first boss was a black man with a degree from standard and there is simple not a lot of people in that category. Not just for economic reasons but also because your talking about a smaller overall population.
There are many funnels in immigration and education but talking about them like they shape people is missing the point. It's a selection process and the kind of people that can jump though the right hoops are the people that make it to the other side. In 20 years you will see plenty of Indian middle management but you can expect to see yet another round of 'glass sealing' debate not because people can't get their but because so few parents knew how to set that trajectory in motion.
I guess it depends on the company. I'm doing a co-op at Ericsson right now and my manager's Arab, my team lead is Indian, and my supervisor's a Chinese woman. The male/female ratio is probably 80:20 and the racial breakdown is something like 50% ethnic Chinese (1st/2nd gen), 30% Indian, and 20% white. All of these numbers are fairly representative of the makeup of the tech industry in Vancouver, so I can't say I've seen any prejudice or favoritism here.
In a large corporate setting with lots of dumb management, a majority of those Indians are going to be contractors, and a majority of them will be on work visas.
Why is that relevant? They are hired guns, who are supposed to go when the project ends. And they are exploited to the hilt by their staffing agencies.
Racist? I don't think so. Exploitive and amoral? Absolutely.
There are many examples of Indians leading technology businesses and managing technology departments in the US. In many ways, the Indian immigrants who get green-cards or citizenship are probably the best example of the mythical "melting pot" in today's society.
The probable reason why you see 50-80% Indians in the in the team, but few in management or team lead positions is that, they somehow put up with this bias, that they somehow are happy with what they get. Aren't there a majority of agricultural workers of Latino descent, often working at below minimum wage? Why? They put up with it, and are mostly happy to have the job. The fact is, many Indians, especially those who are "new" in the country, are happy to do what it takes, at the salary and position that they get, even if it is below market rate. Both sides are at fault, no doubt.
Then, of course, there are those who go out and take risk to do extraordinary things, like starting companies. There is no dearth of famous companies founded by Indians, is there?
Well I think you're right...but this "culturism" that you talk about has something to do with the fact that Indians from India are not inherently very good at managing people or software projects.In fact I would say that statistically Indians who have been educated in India are not good managers period.
I am myself an Indian and I have a bachelors degree from an Indian University.
In my experience working for corporate america,one of the things that irritates me most about Indian managers is that they will talk completely from their asses.They wont write a line of code and yet will make very heavy technical decisions and then when I disagree they will resort to micro-managing me instead of making an effort to understand my arguments.
I have repeatedly asked them to actually read the source and understand what I am talking about but they will relegate it back to me and ask me to send an email with a lengthy explanation later(They know I am not going to do that).
I have repeatedly pushed for DVCS adoption but apparently IBM Clearcase is a much better solution than github firewall.None of them (my Indian manager and his Indian manager and his Indian manager) have actually made an effort to understand DVCS till date.
Sometimes my manager has actually tried to argue that just because he has 13 years of experience in software he obviously knows more than me about iOS development and therefore his decision is obviously the right one.(The fact that he has never really written a line of Objective C is completely irrelevant.)
In fact when I apply for new jobs I try to make sure that I am not assigned to an Indian manager.
There's a term for these tendencies: the Power Distance Index. (http://www.lessonsoffailure.com/developers/real-reason-outso...) The idea behind PDI is that leaders in some cultures expect, and even to an extent welcome, subordinates who question them. And there are other cultures where leaders expect obedience above all, regardless of any objective measure of correctness.
India is a high-PDI country. If you're taking orders from an Indian manager, for the most part they will expect you to keep your head down, shut up, tow the line, and do what you're told. This also partially explains Westerners' complaints about Indian subordinates: that they don't speak up, don't take responsibility, don't innovate. They have been very thoroughly taught not to. On the other hand, this also explains the at times amazing attention to detail -- if details are all you are allowed to control, you will control the living crap out of them.
It's not entirely true in Indian tech industry. Every year most companies lose up to 20 percent of their workforce because they move to higher paying jobs and better companies. This is a serious issue that managers are usually at the mercy of their talented engineers.
Well remember I said the managers in these cases are incompetent (pointy haired, Dilbert types). A random person off the street would be better. The tech guy that knows the business and the software and has been working with said software for 10 years would certainly be better.
I've been working around people from India for 17 years now. I've known guys/girls from India that came here in the US in the early 80s. I've been in tech lead positions and have given evaluations for people from India on my team that should have been moved into leadership positions and they've been overlooked. This is how I know first hand that there is some kind of bias in many work settings.
I've seen this in the medical, defense, education, financial, and utility fields on the east coast, mid west, and in the southwest. FWIW I've not seen this at software companies.
Well I think you're right...but this "culturism" that you talk about has something to do with the fact that Indians from India are not inherently very good at managing people or software projects.
My lawyer (a tax attorney) said this is rarely prosecuted on independent contractors who are themselves incorporated (along with things like actually have a contract etc). From my own experience this is true as well. Think about it, the IRS would have to give back all of the matching that the contractor (agent) did when they collect from the employer (principal).
"People still need what they need and want what they want and are going to buy those things regardless of what relative prices will be in the future."
What about "investors" instead of "consumers"? Right now an investor simply makes a choice between losing money by sitting on it (through increased supply ... printing money leads to inflation) or investing. If the money supply were fixed would that not make it more attractive to investors to sit on assets?
Prices decrease under a stable money supply because the economy grows. Goods and services are being produced more efficiently and are therefore more plentiful relative to the same quantity of money and therefore cheaper. Growth in the value of money will simply reflect baseline growth in the value of the economy as a whole. There are still much higher returns available to investors who are willing to take greater risks--no external motivation is necessary. Monetary expansion doesn't alter this basic relationship, it just ruins the currency as a reliable store of value.
>>Comparing the two over all domains is ridiculous as this includes mass domains such as parked domains which can easily give Apache 10s of millions of useless stat points as one registrar switches a couple of servers.
If we are counting web server use, and mass domains are an example of web server use, you would need to say more than just 'mass domains are useless'. Otherwise that is just special pleading.
On the other hand, if we are counting 'useful domains', you would need to say why you think mass domains don't count as 'useful'. You only said that they could switch often.
I would say mass domains count as a 'useful' because they still have some kind of exposure security wise. They also demonstrate provisioning costs (or lack thereof) and provisioning speed.
