I suggest the root of the "Group X/Y/Z is underrepresented in Tech" is the aforementioned people who couldn't find cheap labor who will work 80 hours a week
Nobody is concerned that the top level baseball players are all men of similar characteristics because the teams themselves aren't making it an issue. The leagues realize that it is those men of similar characteristics that they are selling. Fans latch onto the players, even to the point of buying merchandize with the player's own brand. There is absolutely no worry about paying such a person millions of dollars, because the crowd is there to see David Ortiz, not a random woman who was born in India. There is no drop-in replacement for the brand of (insert your favorite player), and there never will be.
Tech is different. The product is the tech, not the people. In this case, it may have been Linus Torvalds or that random woman born in India who built your product. Assuming they are able to deliver equally, it makes absolutely no difference to the customer. Theoretically, everyone could be a drop-in replacement. As such, driving down wages is a top business priority, and the way to drive down wages is to increase the supply of the product you are buying (i.e. labour).
The stats show that men with certain characteristics are also most likely to be building the tech. "Group X/Y/Z" is the most logical untapped market to go after. If we assume women make up half the population, but make up almost no portion of the tech labour force, that is half the population that has not previously been within your hiring pool and are ripe for the picking. It is in your best business interest to encourage them to join the ranks.
This is also why those who couldn't find cheap labour are pushing learn to code initiative so hard. We don't see the baseball industry pushing for "learn to baseball" initiatives because, again, they are selling specific people and adding more random people nobody cares about does not help them lower labour costs.
Nobody is concerned that the top level baseball players are all men of similar characteristics because the teams themselves aren't making it an issue. The leagues realize that it is those men of similar characteristics that they are selling. Fans latch onto the players, even to the point of buying merchandize with the player's own brand. There is absolutely no worry about paying such a person millions of dollars, because the crowd is there to see David Ortiz, not a random woman who was born in India. There is no drop-in replacement for the brand of (insert your favorite player), and there never will be.
Tech is different. The product is the tech, not the people. In this case, it may have been Linus Torvalds or that random woman born in India who built your product. Assuming they are able to deliver equally, it makes absolutely no difference to the customer. Theoretically, everyone could be a drop-in replacement. As such, driving down wages is a top business priority, and the way to drive down wages is to increase the supply of the product you are buying (i.e. labour).
The stats show that men with certain characteristics are also most likely to be building the tech. "Group X/Y/Z" is the most logical untapped market to go after. If we assume women make up half the population, but make up almost no portion of the tech labour force, that is half the population that has not previously been within your hiring pool and are ripe for the picking. It is in your best business interest to encourage them to join the ranks.
This is also why those who couldn't find cheap labour are pushing learn to code initiative so hard. We don't see the baseball industry pushing for "learn to baseball" initiatives because, again, they are selling specific people and adding more random people nobody cares about does not help them lower labour costs.