&gt; Now: Why do you think that is? And what can we do about it?<p>I think we should invest in areas with lower median incomes and promote education and technology. Which I stated.<p>I didn&#x27;t say explicitly, but do believe, that we provide staples like food and access to computers if necessary.<p>The point, which I stated in my original comment. Was that many act like there is some huge population of extremely talented engineers who, if not for societal bias, would be working at tech companies.<p>There is, in fact, a huge amount of raw talent not being leveraged because a large subset of the population can&#x27;t participate meaningfully in the economy.<p>I will continue to assert that hiring bias and &#x27;passive mechanisms&#x27; are so much less important than &#x27;opportunity, environment and peergroup&#x27; which we can retroactively correct.<p>I believe that this is regularly framed as some sort of zero-sum demographic war. Poor people, since fucking always, are probably not less intelligent than the general population. They are, at least in America, often not 100% white. This should be framed as disadvantaged not race.<p>to conclude, my anecdote was meant to highlight something similar to the analogy of sports.<p>If 2 teams play each other, the referees may make shitty calls. They usually make them fairly evenly against both teams but sometimes they swing a little bit to either side. Unless there is a particularly nefarious or well reasoned claim that the refs are interfereing, it is widely believed that the better team will win.<p>My point is not &quot;black people need to work harder than their peers&quot;, although to some extent they may, it is that you won&#x27;t have to convince the referee to make or change a call, if you have practiced well, prepared, and are a better team.<p>To clarify the framing, in this analogy the better team is meant to represent a single person, while the opposing team is just the general workforce.