I wonder if even that is true for California tech companies. California cities feature a diversity which is absent from their local tech companies.
California's tech companies appear to be here for the VC money, not the local labor pool. California's schools, by and large, do not output a globally competitive workforce. The tech workforce is mostly brought in from somewhere else.
And California's government doesn't seem to care about the demographic mismatch.
Eh, not where I work in CA (which is not Silicon Valley). Of course we aren't called a "tech" company since we do eCommerce and aren't a startup.
We pretty much reflect the local demographics.
I guess I was thinking mostly of the small, VC funded startups, and the big, name-brand tech companies mentioned the article.
The OP pretty much only lists "Tech companies from SV" so it seems to me at least its a cancer specific to that group.
In my article, I specifically talk about Atlanta which is a "black city" as you term it. Atlanta is home to Georgia Tech which is one of the best engineering schools in the country. So it is strange to imply you wouldn't be able to find CS graduates there.
Secondly, companies have no problem opening engineering offices in China or India to chase after demographics so I find it strange that opening an engineering office in Atlanta is such an absurd idea that one must trot out the must played out racist tropes about black people.
http://atlantatechvillage.com/membership/current-villagers/
Eh? There are plenty of tech companies in cities with large numbers of African Americans. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to imply that 100% of Tech Companies should move to Atlanta (for instance) solely because there are a large number of black people there. You should be in Atlanta because it makes financial sense for the business you are operating.
I said it shouldn't be a criteria used to determine location. For instance, if you are doing eCommerce with a large import/export component, you are probably going to want to be HQ'd near a major port and you probably won't want to relocate any further than you have to (if you have to relocate at all) as a founder.
There are plenty of places on the West Coast where the largest minorities are Hispanic or Asian, they have easy access to factories in China & Mexico, and have small Black populations.
That doesn't mean they should relocate to Atlanta where they don't have physical access to the locations their merchandise enters the US.
The Bay Area is another area where this is an issue but it doesn't make sense to move (i.e. If you want access to Silicon Valley):
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm
The area is less than 10% African American. You aren't going to have more than 5-10% African American employees unless you are biasing things intentionally. The largest minority? Latinos followed by Asians.
I agree this is a substantial part of the problem, particularly in larger corporations where they do target specific cities/schools.
However, I'm not sure I can agree with the implication you should locate engineering offices based on the demographics as its the only way to fix the "cities where they locate their engineering offices". Demographic/diversity shouldn't be a criteria for office location.
You shouldn't have to move your entire organization just because the city you happen to be in is ~5% Black and the largest minorities happen to be Asian or Hispanic.
For instance at $Day_Job, the floor I'm on is 25% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 5% Black, 65% White. That is pretty much +/- 5% of the actual demographics.
I wouldn't argue we lack diversity because we just follow the local demographics. I'd say the problem is when you are so out of whack with the local demographics it becomes absurd. For instance, an office in Atlanta that is 90% white.