General Gaming Activision discrimination against old white guys?

[Paperclyp]

I would love to see a breakdown of data, which I'm sure does not exist, of the nearly 7,000 gaming industry layoffs this year. That's a lot of out of work executives. 

[TUFKAK]

7 hours ago, stepee said:

 

Actually I have antidotal evidence on many things you wouldn’t believe and all of them have hidden data you’ll never find so keep burying your head in the sand if you want but let’s just say there is a reason why water is cheaper than soda even though soda has less water.

Source 

 

trust me bro

[Dexterryu]

13 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

The bud light "campaign" was a single tik tok or something that was targeted by grifters acting in bad faith to run a nonsense hate campaign at trans people and the stupid beer company, which, you're right, sure did work real well. Which is something. But it has little or nothing to do with what we're talking about. 

 

Let's not stray too far from the point I'm pushing against. I mean wtf are we even talking about at this point. Here's what I took issue with: 

 

 

This is baseless nonsense - the evidence being that you guys "are in meetings" and the real data is being hidden. Essentially every metric says you're wrong. White men in that age group have some of the lowest unemployment in the history of the tracking of that statistic. Activision's demographics are easily surfaced. In 2022 (the next report will come out in March) their workforce was 73 percent male. 68 percentage of their hires were male. 56 percent of their hires were white. 

 

Now, if you want to sell me the idea that a white male making a lot of money is more likely to be laid off than a black woman making a fraction of that, I would totally believe that! But it is not a challenge for white males 40-55 to find a job by any metric, and they in fact have the LOWEST unemployment rate of any demographic except for white women 55-64. 

 

You're operating on "I'm right because I can feel it." 

 

And so are you. You are cherry picking data points to articulate your beliefs. There is a certain amount of "duh" here when we're talking about a company like Activision, which is a male dominated field (IT & Developers) making a product who's target audience is also male by a high percentage.

 

You're also inferring a lot of meaning out of my earlier post about job security and marketability of males 40-55 and refusing to see the meaning behind it... which is that from a demographic perspective, have little protection from a policy/public perception perspective. I have experienced this protection first hand on several occasions (I once had an employee of a protected class routinely ignore their responsibilities, leave work for hours to do errands (their laundry), and had general poor performance, year over year. HR would do nothing specifically because of their "class". Had that person been a white male, they'd have been gone very quickly.

 

This is not to say that companies are targeting white males. They are not. White males are the "safest" to lay off when they need to cut costs or cycle their workforce with lower cost new grads.

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

 

And so are you. You are cherry picking data points to articulate your beliefs. There is a certain amount of "duh" here when we're talking about a company like Activision, which is a male dominated field (IT & Developers) making a product who's target audience is also male by a high percentage.

 

You're also inferring a lot of meaning out of my earlier post about job security and marketability of males 40-55 and refusing to see the meaning behind it... which is that from a demographic perspective, have little protection from a policy/public perception perspective. I have experienced this protection first hand on several occasions (I once had an employee of a protected class routinely ignore their responsibilities, leave work for hours to do errands (their laundry), and had general poor performance, year over year. HR would do nothing specifically because of their "class". Had that person been a white male, they'd have been gone very quickly.

 

This is not to say that companies are targeting white males. They are not. White males are the "safest" to lay off when they need to cut costs or cycle their workforce with lower cost new grads.

You are cherry picking anecdotes while I am using actual data that directly contradicts claims you are making. Also your claims are pretty vague in general and based solely on your personal experience at a company or two that you have personally worked at. 
 

I’ve already acknowledged that it would not shock me if a company chose to eliminate a higher paying position held by a white male (who, you know, holds that position disproportionally in every industry, not just the “male dominated fields.”) If we can agree on that then maybe we’re done here. 
 

[Paperclyp]

Apologies if I’m a little prickly but inciting the bud light controversy while saying generally that it’s a tough time to be a white man did set me off a bit.

[Dexterryu]

22 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Apologies if I’m a little prickly but inciting the bud light controversy while saying generally that it’s a tough time to be a white man did set me off a bit.

 

I think it was just a matter of focusing on the controversy vs how I was using it to articulate my sentiment that companies pander. Where I attempted to tie it to the conversation was to say that in many businesses ID&E is part of how they brand themselves as "good" to customers/advertisers/media. In my first hand experience often ID&E has been prioritized over actual measurable performance.