Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

Superb_Firefighter20 t1_j5i3wak wrote

Thank you for clarifying. It is impossible to parse the top and second section as it is now. Maybe break up the companies by headquarter state. It will still be weird for companies like Amazon that probably have a lot employees outside of their headquartered state.

I really like setting up the demographic break down if each company compared to the deviation from population demographic.

1

swimnemofish t1_j5i1bdv wrote

It’s only “off the wall” to people that accept the system instead of questioning it. People like OP’s preoccupation with allocating people by identity within an unequal system is not the primary problem. The inequality of the system by class is the primary problem. Fix that and then identity politics can be addressed meaningfully.

Nothing changes with more women or POC as CEO. They do the same shit.

Again, this is probably going right over your head 🙄

−1

drquaithe t1_j5i0z5r wrote

Because the USA was built by genocide and slavery and what it is now is their direct descendant. You can't understand much about it in any kind of precise way without factoring in race.

It's like measuring something about the British Isles and lumping together the statistics for England and Ireland. Or talking about austerity in the EU without factoring in the difference in its effects on the southern Europe vs central and northern. It will miss the picture.

10

teamongered OP t1_j5i0xmm wrote

All the companies shown in the figure are headquartered in one of those states (or outside the USA), so that I why I showed those ones in particular. As far as I know, Datadog is headquartered in New York, so I used that state for it's state-level reference. But I see what you're saying, since they are visually close together people may inadvertently compare them. Maybe I could have added some text to indicate which state each company's HQ is in.

​

Also possible I was a bit overly ambitious in this figure by providing both USA and state-level comparisons, but I felt it was worth while since the demographics of some states looks quite difference to the USA overall.

2

teamongered OP t1_j5hzn59 wrote

Thanks for the feedback.

​

- Good idea. I'll do that next time.

- Hm, I disagree with you here. I added the line smoothing for the purpose of readability, otherwise the bottom left two figures would be a cloud of points. Having colored lines connecting the points makes it easier to locate each data point for a specific company/race. Besides, there was no real interpolation done here, just smooth lines connecting the categories (i.e. companies).

- I agree. I made a similar figure in the past and that is what I did, but I forgot to this time. The race percentages provided by a few companies does add up to > 100%. I presumed this is due to double counting some people who are multi-racial.

- Yeah I am not 100% sure what is the best approach. Would be incredibly hard for me to get data on how many employees are in each state for each company. On the other hand, companies having people in other countries is not a concern here because EEO-1 data is strictly USA employees. There are of course other approaches I could take for comparison, like comparing to the industry trends or demographics of people applying/interviewing, etc... but each approach has their pros/cons.

1