Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

What is the solution to having more women in Tech (Silicon Valley)?



February 1, 2018

Silicon Valley's Women Problem: Is there a fair solution?

____________________________

This past January, the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, along with Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki, was interviewed by Kara Swisher of Recode (silicon Valley tech magazine) about the lack of women in the technology sector, specifically in the computer sciences.  This was a joint interview with MSNBC, who was represented by Ari Melber.  Other topics discussed included how Silicon Valley will adapt to new technologies in the 21st Century, gender equality and immigration and workplace diversity.

Ms. Swisher asked both Ms. Wojcicki and Mr. Pichai about the lack of women engineers and computer scientists in Silicon Valley.  Ms. Wojcicki stated that the computer sciences and other tech fields have a 'male-geek' reputation and that this does not encourage women to enroll in university programs that offer coursework in the computer sciences.  This did not sit well with Kara Swisher or the majority-female audience, who did not like the response from either of them.

I know that the tech industry is a coveted career, but in order for more women to be in its ranks, women need to pursue majors and coursework that will qualify them to work for admired companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Uber.  I believe that roughly 20% of computer sciences majors are women, which means men make up the vast majority of graduates that Silicon Valley recruits and retains for their workforce.  There is a United States law that states no company or organization can discriminate against anyone based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or political views, and this law has been in effect since the 1970s.

If Kara Swisher wants more women in tech, they need to pursue degrees in the fields of their choice and must be able to enroll in colleges in similar numbers to men, so those tech companies have an evenly split talent pool from which to offer positions.  Otherwise, critics like Ms. Swisher are openly advocating that tech companies discriminate against men so that the percentage of women within these companies are close to the mean for both sexes.  If these companies did this, they would be open to multiple lawsuits from men who are rejected simply because of their gender.  I doubt many of the senior executives of these companies would want that type of negative publicity or payouts that will affect their bottom line, not to mention anger from shareholders who would see their stock prices drop due to the negative attention.

Recently, a software engineer, Susan Fowler, wrote a blog post about how there was a toxic work environment at her previous employer, Uber. She stated she was propositioned for sex from a supervisor, ignored by Human Resources and that the company was more supportive of those senior executive managers she complained about.  As a result, she quit and pursued other offers other tech companies made.  It was widely read and made a huge impression on the Board of Uber, which removed founder and CEO Travis Kalanick, along with a few other Board members.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder became a consultant who reviewed the work environment and made recommendations to how it operates.  Democratic fundraiser and founder of the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, became an advisor to the company as well, and also made suggestions as to how it needs to function to support its female employees.  These were drastic measures to save the reputation of the company, and a new CEO was chosen as well.

The combination of these two large problems does play a part in the lack of women in tech.  Will the situation improve?  I cannot say for sure.  What can be done?  Well, part of the issue is the type of majors women choose.  Many enroll in the humanities, along with the social services, in addition to the legal and medical fields.  I think that women make up close to 50% of medical school students and that they are the majority of law school students.  Because of this, law firms and health insurance organizations hire a lot of women, and those fields are represented well.  Fields that women do not choose or lack a large representation include the computer sciences, engineering (all classifications) and business schools.

If critics of the lack of women in glamorous fields like tech want to see better representation, they need to put a plan in place for universities to recruit harder and intensively women so they can see what their careers will be like.  Schools cannot force women to pursue fields that they are not interested in.  What more can they do?  Perhaps go into high schools and introduce successful women who have thrived?  Sheryl Sandberg comes to mind, but the book she wrote ("Lean In") focused more on the selective type of partners women need to choose to succeed in those fields, which places an emphasis that a women's career should be first and foremost than the marriage she enters into.  I tend to not support her ideas.  She wants to place men as a second priority, and the women I know want a work-life balance that has rewards for both a woman and her family.  Tech companies do make an effort to support this idea, but everyone's life is different, and women have a choice as to what they value and prioritize.  Nothing can be forced, it needs to be what women want to do with their lives.

In regards to the toxic environment that Susan Fowler described, perhaps now is the time for tech companies to be aggressive in how they treat their employees.  With the recent allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and other prominent men in the entertainment, media, and political fields, now is time to make serious changes to the workplace.  I would recommend that companies force their HR departments to have a written record of complaints and that those women who file grievances can be interviewed and find positive solutions to make the workplace better. Companies must also show those who complained that people who made them uncomfortable were dealt with. New male and female employees must attend sexual harassment workshops and prove written documentation that men (especially) understand what is acceptable behavior and what type of negative behavior will be held against them, and that all who file complaints will be heard and taken seriously.

Hopefully, these measures will be looked into, and whatever percentage of women seek success in these fields, they can be assured that they will be valued and every opportunity for upward mobility will be afforded to them.






Thursday, January 25, 2018

The dangerous cartel that is the US Soccer Federation & Major League Soccer



The US Soccer Federation (USSF) is an unhealthy cartel that works in collaboration with Major League Soccer (MLS) to stunt the growth of the men's game in the United States.

January 25, 2018

_________________________________

Soccer over the past twenty-five years has made tremendous gains in terms of viability, partial financial success, and popularity.  Certain players have become household names (Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey) from their play on the world stage (FIFA Confederations Cup, FIFA World Cup), but all of that came to a crashing halt (at least temporarily) with the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) missing the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia this summer. This epic disaster has caused a lot of soul-searching in the United States, on the men's side, and forced current USSF President Sunil Gulati to not seek another unpaid term as its president. The election for a new president is one that for the first time has national interest from the American media.  Former women's national team goalkeeper Hope Solo is a candidate, as is former men's national team players Eric Wynalda and Paul Caligiuri.  There are a few other unknown candidates but they do have work experience involving soccer as a whole, including Kathy Carter, the current head of Soccer United Marketing (SUM) which is a promotional and business endeavor amongst the owners of MLS teams.  SUM owns the television rights to all US national teams, plus the lucrative rights to the Mexican national team telecasts in North America.  It allows MLS owners to collect necessary revenue for a sport that does not have the financial heft of other men's leagues in the United States have (NFL, NBA, NHL, and motor sports-NASCAR, Indy Racing League).

The sudden soul-searching by the soccer community as a whole has forced me to look into the sport I am so passionate about.  [Full disclosure: I am a die-hard supporter of MLS as a whole, along with my favorite professional sports team, the Los Angeles Galaxy].  I attend games regularly, and hope to see the league ascend the lofty heights I dream about before I die.  The bedrock of the league's business model is something called "single entity," which is that the league is a single monolith that owns all player contracts and teams and generally controls where certain national team players can ply their trade, and attempts to improve the fortunes of smaller clubs. "Owners" are considered investor/operators and get to control the team they pay a fee for. It is designed to protect less wealthy owners by having all owners share losses and split profits according to whatever monies they collect from gate receipts, television contracts, and merchandise sales.

The goal is to make sure that no one team has a monopoly on talent and big names from the USMNT and focus more on slow and steady growth. At times this works, and other times, it causes fans to question the league's motives.  For instance, Jermaine Jones, who starred in the 2014 FIFA World Cup by scoring a goal against Portugal for the United States, wanted to come stateside and play for the LA Galaxy, since he has a home in Los Angeles (the San Fernando Valley, to be precise).  However, with a rule that most fans did not know of, he was assigned to the New England Revolution, the MLS team based in Boston, and plays in the home of the NFL's New England Patriots.  That was not even his second choice, but he nonetheless played there for two seasons before finally playing the last few years of his career in Los Angeles.  In most other leagues, this would never have happened.  Jermaine Jones would get to play wherever he chose.  MLS does this to protect teams that generally are not a draw for elite players, since New York, Toronto, and Los Angeles are the preferred destinations, in most cases.

I believe this was a good strategy in the beginning years when MLS was struggling to gain a foothold in the American sports landscape.  The last 20 years have proven that was acceptable, since the league allegedly was losing money, and needed a format that would share those losses with owners who did not have the finances to make their teams better.  Most of these teams are in small markets, such as Colorado, San Jose, Columbus and Salt Lake City.  I understand this was needed because most teams are dependent still on gate receipts, and the teams mentioned above really need those to have that necessary revenue streams.  

The USSF comes into play in helping the league by assigning MLS "First Division" status, which gets an advantage for talent coming into the league, as opposed to lower division soccer.  Part of the reason that the Federation and MLS work together is that lower division soccer, like the National American Soccer League (NASL), does not have a salary cap.  This could threaten MLS if someone with deep pockets provides a massive infusion of new revenue.  This would put MLS in a precarious position of being the first division for soccer, but trail a lower division in terms of financial power to attract top male talent.  It is a problem because MLS gets to control competition, and ensures that the business model it uses, single entity, does not lose any competitive advantage against another league.  MLS does this to protect the parity it promotes to potential owners and current ownership, in that they can move as slowly as possible on their own terms, to the detriment of the sport, in my opinion.

This cartel hurts soccer in the long term.  For US Soccer and the national team to be able to compete on the world stage, it needs to work to cultivate talent.  Part of this responsibility falls on MLS teams, but since they have no motivation or urgency to develop young talent, takes its sweet time in seeking out top soccer players throughout the country.  Critics say that this includes not searching for talent in minority communities and especially in the urban centers and inner cities. Additionally, a critical element of how soccer provides talent is that is it a sport for primarily white families since they are the ones who have money to send their kids on travel teams and receive good coaching.  Most minorities do not have the time or money to provide their kids the access to succeed. It is why I feel that soccer will plod along at its own convenient pace, and that does not bode well for international success.

How does one change this?  Well, since there is a new election for the President of the USSF, I hope that the new person in charge will force MLS to modify its ways.  This would include promoting and supporting lower division soccer, and allow those who want those leagues to succeed can do so.  Lower division soccer needs to have more financial support, and the Federation needs to seek wealthy individuals to provide a necessary cash flow that will allow it to compete on some level to MLS.  This can motivate MLS to either buy those players, and give much-needed financial help to those leagues, or provide MLS with another pipeline of talent with which to cultivate.  The Federation should also on its own develop talent that MLS does not find, and either send them to MLS clubs or allow them to ply their trade in Europe or South America.

These are some steps that soccer can do to promote the sport as a whole and provide a new foundation to succeed on the international level.  I sincerely hope that this happens for the sport I love to move in a more positive direction.








Sunday, January 7, 2018

Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea


January 5, 2017


President Trump's idea to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a bad idea.

________________________


There was a shock, surprise, and anger that the United States, at the urging of Israel and its allies in Congress, moved the official US embassy to Jerusalem.  President Trump signed the documents on his desk and then released that order throughout the world.  Since then, there have been small riots in Arab cities, and diplomatic anger as well.  The United Nations and many members of the European Union are against it since many leaders within the U.N. feel that accepted reconciliation by both parties for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Jerusalem shall be part divided into two capitals for two states.

I don't believe President Trump really took the time to figure this out and made this decision based solely on his gut and the "help" of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Sheldon Adelson, and certain Republicans in Congress, all of whom are against a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

There are many Jews throughout the world who want a peaceful end to the Palestinean conflict and want a two-state solution. Not because they see the Palestineans as their true friends, but that in order for Israel to have a safe and secure future, the Palestinean issue must be addressed.  In fact, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is in agreement with this argument (disclosure: I heard Mr. Barak echo these sentiments in a speech I heard in Redondo Beach in 2016).  However, Israeli society has changed over the years, from the group of early founding Zionists who had a shared sense of destiny with each other, and saw the solution to end Palestinean suffering as part of that shared destiny.  The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing extremist, and settler who believed Israel was given to the Jews by God, changed all that.  Over time, those Israelis were replaced with new immigrants to the country by Aliyah (right of emigration to Israel) and the population that had some sympathy toward Palestinians was eroded.  Losing those older Israelis has hurt the peace process considerably.

I cannot believe President Trump did not consider all this before making his order official to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  While rioting in Arab capitals may soon start up again, there is a pause now because Islam's Shia and Sunni communities are beginning a global war against each other.  Saudi Arabia (supported by Israel and the United States) is on one side, and Iran, Yemen, and other affiliated countries on the other side. That may save the Trump Administration some fallout for now over his embassy decision, but over the long haul, this decision will hurt American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.  It will go down as one of the dumbest decisions by an American president and affect the Middle East in a negative direction (that might be irreversible) for last peace.




The State of the GOP Primary So Far

  January 10, 2024 After four debates between the Grand Old Party (GOP) aspirants for the party's nomination, it is still former Preside...