Profits are at record highs. This does fuck-all for most people.
Even Adam Smith noted that profit tends to be low in what we consider to be wealthy countries, and high in places we consider poor.
Hiring less-qualified people in pursuit of diversity is great for the selected individuals - but it's not best for the company in the long run.
Re: Adam Smith's observation - his idea is that the healthier free markets in developed nations limit profit margins for each supplier through competition, while creating more wealth overall.
Diversity makes you great.
If you give everyone an equal chance and hire the best, you will end up with a diverse staff who will spot more potential problems due to diverse perceptions.
That's not what major companies and corporations do. They hire sycophants and grifters to **look** diverse.
Also, diversity is more than race, ethnicity, and gender. You could higher black women into a c suite position but if her political and social views are the same as her coworkers, you will not get the same benefit from diversity.
There are no benefits of having a group where nobody agrees about anything.
That is chaos and confusion and hostility. And the more diversity, the greater the chaos.
You’re assuming everyone has their own separate agenda while working on the same project or at the same company. If they’re all working towards the same goal, then typically the different perspectives help to find outlier cases that typically wouldn’t be caught or considered in an initial investigation, design, etc.
It’s why projects are spearheaded by more senior people. They’ve, on average, worked on more projects and have encountered more scenarios in their experience that they can pull on to make the best decisions with the information at hand. Diversity is essentially this, but at a wider breadth.
>to prevent too much concentration of money
"Guys, what if we diversify and let everyone clique up and compete with one another? Brilliant idea, double bonuses for the whole board!"
Correct. But that's not the kind of diversity that's in demand. Companies want diverse people who fall in line and not necessarily for their individual ideas.
Apple's diversity chief, a black woman, was run out of town tor saying a roomful of white engineers would also have diverse ideas based on their diverse backgrounds.
The goal is an open system where merit governs, but given the history of racism, when there is a population in an organization that doesn't match the larger population, people will allege racism.
Companies want to avoid getting sued in pattern and practice cases or getting bad press for perceived discrimination.
So they use systems that deliver ethnic diversity.
idiots like you always miss the point - look at the origins of diversity and why it was created - it was empire britain, and out of economic necessity - basically to keep the nationalistic plebs in line when they had to work with foreign workers that undercut their jobs.
this has actually little to do with social "goods" but is sold that way today - of course it is.
at least the suffrage movement started with moralizers who did it out of moral "goods" and not economics entirely
i already said, imperial britain - (pre ww1 britain) and it wasn't out of "diversity" as a moral good, but out of a necessity to get imperial workers and their own british workers to work together. nationalism was strong at the time, and they needed an ideology to cut through that.
modern globalization actually began in this period (ask any historian of this era and they will agree) then there was a pause around ww2 of course.
The British Empire exploited its non-white colonies for cheap goods and labor and for captive markets. That's not diversity. The U.K. is still 83% white and non-whites mostly came in with the Windrush immigrants after WWII when the UK was trying to rebuild.
DEI isn't about an equal chance. That's equality. The E in DEI is equity, which means there should be as much support as needed so that there are equal *outcomes*.
which is why anyone with half a brain is against DEI initiatives
we shouldn't be promising people equal outcomes, just equal opportunities
equal outcomes means that a person doing no work will get compensated the same as someone doing 100% of the work
Equal opportunities are impossible. Kids are raised in a family. Full family, engaged parents? Probably good outcome. Single mother? Probably bad outcome.
Isn't income a better predictor of how disadvantaged someone is though? There is a great TED talk about this topic.
https://youtu.be/QxB3b7fxMEA?si=pYfhsuAr5vjWkwVW
How do you determine income? Tax returns? It is not perfect either. But sure, we can and should use tax returns as well. As one of the indicators. Race could be another. Not only it has a high correlation with poverty, but it might also help account for the racism against them.
Tax returns yes. It's far from perfect but much better than race.
When helping based on race you end up helping rich black or Latin American people for example, instead of the poor people that really need it (which may be from any race, the race with the most number of poor people in the US is white, they don't deserve help too?).
And racism cannot be measured, so how would we know if someone was a victim of racism? Many immigrants from Africa who are not poor arrive and benefit from DEI initiatives, were they suffering from racism in their own countries, where almost everyone is black?
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the TED talk.
Racism can absolutely be measured. And it was. For example, have identical applications apply for a job: one with a white sounding name and another with a black sounding name. And measure the difference in response rate.
I don't think DEI is perfect. Nothing is perfect in the real world. But to combat inequality you do need to help certain groups of people. Even if it is not "fair".
People imagine this ideal world where we can proactively make sure everyone has the same opportunities, which is already very clearly not happening and won’t happen without major changes. The only option left is to assist some people more than others to bring them up to speed, which just ends up being the only way to achieve the first outcome anyways.
Technically, you are right. But the way liberals approach “equal chance” moved from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome by employing affirmative action and diversity points.
Further, have you thought that maybe major companies find it more rare to find strongly qualified black/hispanic investment bankers/private equity that are better than whites/asians that they resorted to hiring them in more menial jobs to make the company to look more diverse?
It's Liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives run most of the non-entertainment businesses. Conservatives are BIG on tokens and sycophants. It's a right sided blind spot
And yes strongly qualified black/brown candidates are rarer. They are 12/13% of the nation AND had decades of government and social barriers put on them.
But they do exist. If you can't find **any**, that says something about you.
That's why DEI is full of scammers. They know the top people on both sides are looking for looks and obedience.
>But they do exist. If you can't find any, that says something about you.That's why DEI is full of scammers.
When demand outstrips supply, you're bound to struggle to find enough and wind up with less trained employees.
The real path is to start earlier and build up supply over time, but companies and society want instant gratification now.
Exactly. The best path is to invest early but the business world discourages investment that the people who approve of it won't see and get credit for.
It's harsh to say but.
Asian culture promotes education but also submission to bosses.
American companies LOVE that. Smart hard workers who they can abuse.
Yeah I see your point and I don’t disagree. But that mindset seems to produce a very modern society that’s very clean, safe, and has a lack of assholes - things we desperately need over here in the U.S.
It also produces a society where life is super stressful and a society where I would not want to live personally. Or raise my kids. There is more to life than work.
My dude - I don’t like the lack of work life balance in Asian societies but I do admire and I wish we can mimic here in regards to cleanliness and law abiding individuals. We can achieve both right?
Yes, asians push for a culture that makes them more employable.
It’s also true that the black culture pushes for more people in the entertainment industry so blacks tend to find more success in the entertainment industry than asians. The blacks are generally more athletic than other races so you find them more in sports. Meanwhile, the average asian spends significantly more hours into their studies than the blacks/hispanics so they secure more jobs in the lucrative fields.
Hard work pays. If you believe that the black culture suffers from their historical wrongful treatment, unfortunately, you gotta work twice as hard to overcome that. Italians have done it when they first came to the states. Asians have done it. Blacks also have to do it to become more employable instead of playing victim all the time.
Also, Indians and asians account for more than 20% of CEOs in the fortune 500s, so while it’s true they are taught to be submissive to bosses, there’s no inherent barrier to make them become too CEOs. Same goes for african americans. 12%-13% of CEOs in fortune 500s are african americans. Just work hard if not harder. Stop victimizing yourselves.
"the blacks" lol
No one is talking about victimization.
We are talking about employing for looks and being surprised they hire scammers and suck ups.
We are taking about employing workers who will work hard with no pushback and being surprised that those on the outside see all your depressed overworked beaten down employees.
Reap Sow
A lot of that is just the result of the US being so unwilling to make the necessary societal changes and admissions. We know that there's no inherent disadvantage to black people in intelligence so they should do just as well in higher ed as white people. Why aren't they? For the most part, that's down to the lingering effects of segregation. To fix that takes huge admissions on behalf of the US government and the willingness of the US People to take accountability for their nations past mistakes. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, the next best thing is to force schools to have a certain number of spots reserved for people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It's a band aid solution to a societal problem.
Yep, perfect example of [Goodhart’s law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law):
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".
Essentially when diversity metrics were developed it signified that an organization was meritorious and forward thinking thus leading to profits. Companies then began to implement diversity quotas to beat the metrics and use as evidence that they were meritorious and forward thinking. Diversity quotas destroyed the correlation between diversity and profitability as companies tried to game the figures.
> Diversity makes you great.
Becoming diverse has really helped us advance our standing in the world. And increased stability in America. And helped more fairly distribute the wealth.
And it has certainly made us powerful enough to finally kick homogeneous China's ass.
With all the positives of diversity for the people of the host nation (ethnic food), it is shocking, absolutely shocking, that some are opposed to it.
> If you give everyone an equal chance and hire the best, you will end up with a diverse staff who will spot more potential problems due to diverse perceptions.
This is nonsense. There is rarely a "best" candidate.
There isn't even clear best in pool for most positions. I hire engineers and operators, it's a toss up at best where we can narrow down our selection to the 10-20% of people we think will be a good fit.
And we end up selecting shit people semi often because hiring good people is hard.
The best engineer I've ever hired was almost certainly the least qualified lol. They just got through because we needed someone quickly and didn't get a ton of applicants.
>If you give everyone an equal chance and hire the best, you will end up with a diverse staff who will spot more potential problems due to diverse perceptions.
This is a very simplistic and idealist view. You can give everyone an equal chance but many times you will not end up with diversity.
Problem is this is ideologically unacceptable to many people so equal has been replace with "equity", and that's how you end up with DEI.
the beginnings of diversity actually begin in pre-ww1 england: (during the height of their empire) they massively started importing workers / borderline ethnic slaves and needed a new ideology: diversity.
not diversity in how we see it today, but the antecedants of it: to begin a color blind revolution out of economic necessity. they needed an ideology to keep people of different ethnic backgrounds to work together: diversity 1.0 (we're at 3.0 or so now)
IE - it was cheaper to import cheaper labor that kept labor in check, and had a variety of economic benefits. the social consequences they really didn't care about.
and this is really the motivation here people: people ignore how much "diversity" is an economic motivation of capital / those with money, just like a lot of women's right have been bastardized to the point of economic incentives.
in only started learning of this stuff in my phd track, btw. it's not talked about but well known in upper level academic circles.
TLDR: "diversity" is as much a value created out of economics rather than an existentially "good" social good. those promulgating it really dont' care about the social "good" part much.
I'm sure this will be downvoted a lot but it's super true
Got it. I'm always suspicious of studies that have an agenda to push. That being said, I think the history of America shows that meritocracy with diversity has shown to be a winning combination.
liberals these days seem so incredibly ideological to the point that they're blind to the most basic of thoughts/questions.
like "immigration and diversity = good" is such an overly simplistic framing. like so many variables would impact the equation, like:
-does limitless amounts of a "good" thing mean it will always be good compared to a controlled, planned-for amount?
-does the type of immigration matter, e.g. low-skilled vs. high-skilled, or those from a compatible culture vs. those from an incompatible one?
-do foreign criminals contribute to the society in a positive way? if not, why should they be able to stay in the host country?
-why is it just/ethical for massive amounts of immigrants to flood urban areas (where they predominately go to) with already limited housing, competing with natives often with low incomes for increasingly difficult-to-secure housing?
like how stupid do globalist neolibs have to be to not meaningfully think about these questions? and if they do they have terrible, simplistic, naive, overly optimistic answers generally completely detached from realities on the ground.
i'm not a marxist myself, but one point marxism has correct is how societies like ours do become increasingly fascist as time goes one, when capital gets increasingly concentrated and the ownership "class" becomes more powerful with less spread in the middle.
it's what's happening in america today.
that and the imperialist thesis (by lenin) are two things happening in the world today that even most economists don't dispute - it's really crazy when you think about it. (all except austrians, of course - but they are insane)
When it comes to immigration at least that's a false framing.
It isn't that liberals want unrestricted immigration and conservatives want no immigration. It's that conservatives want to deport all immigrants which will ruin the economy and liberals want to reform immigration laws so that they can actually work but aren't allowed to because the conservatives like running on saying tgat anything less than a total deportation policy amounts to open borders.
That the economy can't keep functioning without immigrant labor is a fact, not an opinion. That ertainly doesn't mean unrestricted immigration would make things better but absolutely no one is arguing for that.
Really? Conservatives I talked to are pretty understanding and reasonable about giving pathways to citizenship for illegals that are already here. They just want to enforce border laws to keep things fair for people that are waiting to come in legally. From what I heard, conservatives want legal immigration than illegal.
> Conservatives I talked to are pretty understanding and reasonable about giving pathways to citizenship for illegals that are already here.
There's tons of polling on this. Only about 30-35% (depending on which poll you want to look at) of republicans support any path to legal status for people already here. So no, this is not the position of the conservative party in the US. It was considered a deal breaker in the bipartisan border bill which is why it got left out.
> They just want to enforce border laws to keep things fair for people that are waiting to come in legally.
They claim this, but then at the same time complain about the the democrats and the asylum system. The asylum system is the current law of the land. If they actually just wanted to enforce border laws, they'd either be for helping to adjust the budget shortfalls that have broken this system or would change the system. They've repeatedly decided to do neither. As they say, actions speak louder than words. . Not to mention abbott who has done multiple things that the courts had to put a stop to because they were illegal. I get that he's not the entire conservative party, but he had a ton of support for those actions. They clearly have no intent of actually enforcing the law
> From what I heard, conservatives want legal immigration than illegal.
That's the position of both parties so it's kind of a pointless discussion point. The point of contention is
1) how important doing something about illegal immigration actually is. Neither party disagrees on whether it's a problem. For a long time it was just considered a relatively unimportant problem by many democrats. Now it's moved higher on the priority list as the problem has gotten worse over the last few years.
2) What should we do with people that are here illegally
3) how much immigration should we allow legally and from where and under what circumstances
> From what I heard, conservatives want legal immigration than illegal.
Which begs the question why conservatives keep making it harder and harder to immigrate legally.
Among other things, less money to immigration judges which makes it harder to process the backlog of cases that already exists:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11979131/you-cant-have-it-both-ways-sen-padilla-slams-budget-cuts-to-immigration-courts
No, they don't. Every poll shows that to be false.
If they did have that exceedingly moderate viewpoint, they wouldn't reject every attempt at legal immigration reform to streamline the process.
Neat, if that's true they should be lining up behind Biden then because a lot of that was in the bipartisan border reform proposal that the republicans tanked under trump's instructions.
Are your conservative friends backing Biden or are they backing the guy who has made rounding up every illegal in the country with the military and expelling them to central issue of his campaign?
>Conservatives I talked to
And the liberals I know understand that the borders cannot remain this porous and that the asylum claim system is abused and needs to be reformed and made stricter. But our friends are not the ones calling the shots in DC or the state capitals and are not representative of public opinion.
Then the conservatives you talk to are extremely not representative of the conservative voting population
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/democrats-and-republicans-starkly-divided-immigration-policy
Conservatives in general do NOT support pathways for citizenship. They do NOT want to make legal immigration easier or more viable.
Edit: the fact that an anonymous anecdote is upvoted while data is downvoted shows how full of shit this thread is
liberals aren't offering any reforms that would make it "actually work", they just want to continue to let in limitless numbers of immigrants from everywhere without caring about the negative consequences to this to the native population. they care more about lining the pockets of companies than they do helping the average citizen. no liberal has ever offered strict visa limits, kicking out all illegal migrants, etc.
can you name me 1 "liberal" politician that has offered strict visa limits and kicking out all illegals? i can't, because it would contradict "liberalism" in 2024.
> strict visa limits
This isn't a reform because it already exists. There area already limits on visas. So I guess all of them? As they could have changed it and they haven't.
> kicking out all illegals
No one has actually offered *any* plan to kick out "all illegals" because it's impossible. The language in HR2 about it was just braindead stupidity that would have never worked but was meant to grab headlines for people who don't think too hard about the logistics of things the idiots in power on their team vomit out their mouths.
Pretty much most of them support deportations though. Obama deported more people than any president before him. Biden is on pace to deport about as many as trump despite the law changing ot make it harder. The "bipartisan" (I know lol it wasn't really bipartisan, but you know the one I'm talking about) border bill had language in it to expedite this process and it was supported by both biden and the majority of democrats in the senate/house.
Strict visa limits and mass deportations are not the reforms, but stupid and dangerous for the economy and the nation measures. Majority, if not all, of the previous Republican presidents rejected them.
The reforms should address Current needs of our nation: lack of unskilled labor in agriculture and food processing industries, as well as deep shortages of skilled labor in engineering and science fields. Reducing visas and deportations would make the situation only worse.
The US has plenty of domestic people that shouldn't be borrowing money for college, as they go for "the college experience", so they can go work in agriculture and food processing.
Yes, they shouldn't. They have zero plan. They go because they've been told they have to go, no matter what kind of student they are. They don't think about it, which kind of tells you what kind of student they are. We can see how that's been terrible. Too many cry about loans they willingly took out.
You'd rather import poor people from other places to do this dirty work? You think that's a better idea? That's a more moral idea? You sound like one of those billionaires you probably despise. Well, who else is going to pick our tomatoes but the poor people crossing the border coming from God knows where?
Allowing willing and free people come and earn money doing the job Americans don’t want to do is indeed better than removing democracy, establishing a police state and forcing youth to work in the fields instead of getting education.
Khmer Rouge commies did what you suggest in Cambogia. No, thank you.
There is already a hard limit of people who are willing to uproot their lives in search of better opportunity.
Every single immigrant has self selected for risk taking and hard work, regardless of their social status.
The fact that you haven't meaningfully thought about these questions doesn't mean others haven't.
This guy said in another thread that he think nonwhite immigrants should be targeted more than white ones. It's pretty clear what his actual gripe is behind all that faux economic anxiety.
They just need to dress it up in more formal language since it's (for now) still not acceptable to go full mask off. If he were so concerned about housing, he'd be talking about zoning laws, land-use restrictions, expanding growth boundaries etc.
It’s silly. There’s tons of research to show homogenous societies like Japan have good outcomes. This was the case in the Nordic countries too and guess what they imported a bunch of people from the third world and now have more crime and more welfare spending.
Yes, confused, anomic societies make people miserable. Like what happened to the USA.
But they grow the GDP and the tax base.
Won't you consider the interests of Jeff Bezos and Raytheon? They need diversity to grow. /s
I live in California and don't see anything much that's "confused" about this place. If anything, the rest of the world is speaking our slang or listening to music from this state.
Be a bit more specific, what're you talking about here?
If you live in California and do not find anything confused and anomic about it, you are either unaware of what a normal society is like, or you are not telling the truth, or it is less confused than whatever place you are familiar with.
> Listening to our music
That used to happen. Over the last 30 years, our music has turned to corporate pablum for the lowest common denominator -- the UniCulture. You could just as easily get shitty music from Norway or Spain as you can from California.
Slang? Maybe. The only new CA slang I know is "fam" and "bro" and "trans". I doubt the rest of the world uses any of these, but I have no evidence.
Go ahead, tell us which parts of the US aren't confused and anomic and the reasons for that. Or better yet, start off by defining what makes a place confused and anomic to begin with.
And no one who doesn't speak the language is listening to shitty music from Norway or Spain.
> Go ahead, tell us which parts of the US aren't confused and anomic and the reasons for that.
California is anomic and confused because it is an extreme multi culture with a one party political system.
Regions in America that are more homogeneous with a common culture and a functioning political system are less confused and anomic.
If you actually want to talk about race, let's talk about race. Rather than you trying to trick me into saying something racist that you can then go snitch over.
You are Asian. I am White. You object and are offended that I object to the multi culture imposed upon us. I recall what California was 30 years ago. The quality of life has declined by orders of magnitude.
California is one of the most racially integrated states in the country and is no more a one party state than West Virginia or Idaho.
>I recall what California was 30 years ago
Why not go back 50 years to the 1970s when it was even more homogeneous? You know, back in the old days where every other lunatic serial killer in the country operated in the state and [crime rates spiked nationwide, including CA](https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)?
> California is one of the most racially integrated states in the country.
No, California is segregated into ethnic communities. And the neighborhoods get more racially segregated every year.
Yes, California was better in the 1970s as well. Before we doubled the population, a normal person could buy or rent a house near the beach. Music did not suck balls. There was a common culture outside of mass culture.
I was here in the 1970s. Serial killers and crime made no impact on my day to day life.
>California is segregated into ethnic communities
The most segregated cities in the nation are all in the Midwest and Northeast. Even the most "segregated" cities here like LA are nothing compared to Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, Milwaukee etc.
>Before we doubled the population
California's population has been stagnating for most of the last decade. Most of its growth happened from 1930-1990 due to domestic migration.
House prices are up because of zoning laws and general NIMBYism towards building. Texas has higher population growth but lower house prices because they actually build in proportion to their population.
>made no impact on my day to day life
Crazy how nostalgia works, huh?
Then go live in a homogeneous society. America doesn't have that option or history, and we've done just fine (despite the use of racism as an excuse for regression and cruelty).
I like America I’m just saying there are pros and cons. All love here but also I used to live in a community that didn’t lock its doors 20 years ago. Now we have cameras outside the house. So yeah pros and cons
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree except for the implication that it's a liberal phenomenon. Conservatives are just as (and IMO even more) focused on beliefs and detached from reality. E.g. on climate change and tariffs.
The idea of hiring people based on race/ethnicity comes from Communism. They began to do it in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba before it began to happen in the US. The idea is to win over people who has traditionally been left behind in society. This is just purely political to create a loyal group of people that doesn't care much if the economy and everything else gets bad as long as they think the political party in power is giving them "benefits."
For what it's worth, at least European communism *usually* picked more educated and qualified people, among all the unqualifieds and brown noser insiders. The problem with technocrats is that they're often just as blind and bad as the unqualified when it comes to compromise.
why do people think this is a convincing point? at this point, liberal/leftist media is far less reliable in my view with the extreme copium and detachment from reality with which they talk about this topic.
to push policies they support, ideally based on empirical research that can be criticised and reproduced (or not) in the free exchange of ideas. they should be judged based on the merits of the studies/methodology they use, similar to anything from academia.
Pretty much of all sociology at this point is leftist activism, but i don't see so many liberals immediately being skeptical of the bs sociology puts out.
https://archive.ph/woefd
I read the McKinsey report after someone on reddit referred to it as evidence that "Diversity makes us stronger."
I recall reading the report and some of its "findings" (a diverse staff creates 25% more profit for a company) and thinking this is obvious propaganda from an employment firm seeking to grow its business. It was no more believable than a report from Big Tobacco claiming proof that cigarettes calm your nerves and gives you energy.
I had no idea anybody considered this ludicrous report "influential" and that only now has its methodology been questioned.
>In his 1925 book Practical Idealism, Coudenhove-Kalergi theorized that the historical development causing the death of European hereditary social classes would lead to an all-encompassing race of the future made up of "Eurasian-Negroid[s]", would replace "the diversity of peoples" and "[t]oday's races and classes" with a "diversity of individuals".
Consulting firm McKinsey writes vague report with unverifiable claims due to keeping underlying data a secret. Report likely influenced by client desires (wishful thinking that diversity is good for profits, looking for "evidence" that this is true).
Since vague report offers no implementation strategy, McKinsey then likely gets clients asking to help them implement a diversity strategy, raking in 5-7 figures per engagement.
It's 100% marketing and 0% science.
Trickle down economics was the stupid idea that cutting taxes to the rich would cause the economy to grow and the middle and working class would benefit.
Trickle down immigration is the current stupid version of trickle down economics -- if we bring in millions of low skill, non information workers it will grow the economy and the middle class and working class would benefit.
Reagan is responsible for both trickle downs: massive tax cuts and massive immigration. I spit on his grave for what he did to the American nation.
Diversity, which is understood as representative presence in the workforce of people with various ethnic backgrounds, is good because of two reasons:
- Frequently, people of differing ethnicity are recent immigrants, they sometimes have lower skill set and do important jobs that the majority of the population doesn’t want to do for the pay offered, and businesses can’t afford to pay more;
- Exposure to different looks and ways of life makes the society as a whole more open-minded, tolerant and stable.
Lack of immigration, as well as uncontrollable increase of immigration without enough resources required for initial support and integration, are both bad. However, none of these are happening in the US now.
>Frequently, people of differing ethnicity are recent immigrants, they sometimes have lower skill set and do important jobs that the majority of the population doesn’t want to do for the pay offered, and businesses can’t afford to pay more
The left: if you cant pay living wages, you dont deserve to be in business!!!
Also the left: our economy will crash if we dont underpay undertrained people, and cultural exposure will surely put food on their table!
The idea behind lower-paid seasonal workers from abroad is that they live and spend in their countries while coming here for a few months to make money. Because of that, their “living wage” is well below of what it is for Americans, and even lower salaries in the US make it worthwhile for them to want to come and “work the fields” here.
That also helps our agriculture to survive the competition of the lower wage countries and to offer reasonably priced produce to everyone.
There are so many illegals among those workers because of very poor immigration laws that we have that make it very hard to get them hired legally.
Diversity leads to higher revenues. Especially international diversity. Revenues lead to higher profits. Profits lead to higher stock prices and C suite executive bonuses and stock options. What it hasn’t lead to as much for the average worker of U.S. companies is higher wages and also, said stock options when considering productivity vs average wage over the last 50 years.
You know what’s better for profits? Hiring for talent and experience.
Profits are at record highs. This does fuck-all for most people. Even Adam Smith noted that profit tends to be low in what we consider to be wealthy countries, and high in places we consider poor.
Hiring less-qualified people in pursuit of diversity is great for the selected individuals - but it's not best for the company in the long run. Re: Adam Smith's observation - his idea is that the healthier free markets in developed nations limit profit margins for each supplier through competition, while creating more wealth overall.
Did you read the article?
no, blocked by paywall.
Diversity makes you great. If you give everyone an equal chance and hire the best, you will end up with a diverse staff who will spot more potential problems due to diverse perceptions. That's not what major companies and corporations do. They hire sycophants and grifters to **look** diverse.
Also, diversity is more than race, ethnicity, and gender. You could higher black women into a c suite position but if her political and social views are the same as her coworkers, you will not get the same benefit from diversity.
There are no benefits of having a group where nobody agrees about anything. That is chaos and confusion and hostility. And the more diversity, the greater the chaos.
You’re assuming everyone has their own separate agenda while working on the same project or at the same company. If they’re all working towards the same goal, then typically the different perspectives help to find outlier cases that typically wouldn’t be caught or considered in an initial investigation, design, etc. It’s why projects are spearheaded by more senior people. They’ve, on average, worked on more projects and have encountered more scenarios in their experience that they can pull on to make the best decisions with the information at hand. Diversity is essentially this, but at a wider breadth.
An open meritocracy with some correction to prevent too much concentration of money makes you great.
>to prevent too much concentration of money "Guys, what if we diversify and let everyone clique up and compete with one another? Brilliant idea, double bonuses for the whole board!"
You think we should allow money to be concentrated with no limits?
Did I say that? Fake diversity pits us one against each other while those on top continue profiting.
Okay, I get what you're saying. Maybe, "fake diversity" is racial quotas and the atomization of society. Real diversity is diversity of ideas.
Correct. But that's not the kind of diversity that's in demand. Companies want diverse people who fall in line and not necessarily for their individual ideas. Apple's diversity chief, a black woman, was run out of town tor saying a roomful of white engineers would also have diverse ideas based on their diverse backgrounds.
The goal is an open system where merit governs, but given the history of racism, when there is a population in an organization that doesn't match the larger population, people will allege racism. Companies want to avoid getting sued in pattern and practice cases or getting bad press for perceived discrimination. So they use systems that deliver ethnic diversity.
idiots like you always miss the point - look at the origins of diversity and why it was created - it was empire britain, and out of economic necessity - basically to keep the nationalistic plebs in line when they had to work with foreign workers that undercut their jobs. this has actually little to do with social "goods" but is sold that way today - of course it is. at least the suffrage movement started with moralizers who did it out of moral "goods" and not economics entirely
When did empire britain create this diversity?
i already said, imperial britain - (pre ww1 britain) and it wasn't out of "diversity" as a moral good, but out of a necessity to get imperial workers and their own british workers to work together. nationalism was strong at the time, and they needed an ideology to cut through that. modern globalization actually began in this period (ask any historian of this era and they will agree) then there was a pause around ww2 of course.
The British Empire exploited its non-white colonies for cheap goods and labor and for captive markets. That's not diversity. The U.K. is still 83% white and non-whites mostly came in with the Windrush immigrants after WWII when the UK was trying to rebuild.
What is a correction that is not an affront to liberty and equality under law?
Progressive taxation and the eradication.of tax loopholes for the rich.
DEI isn't about an equal chance. That's equality. The E in DEI is equity, which means there should be as much support as needed so that there are equal *outcomes*.
which is why anyone with half a brain is against DEI initiatives we shouldn't be promising people equal outcomes, just equal opportunities equal outcomes means that a person doing no work will get compensated the same as someone doing 100% of the work
Equal opportunities are impossible. Kids are raised in a family. Full family, engaged parents? Probably good outcome. Single mother? Probably bad outcome.
That's why we should help based on economic situation and not race or gender.
Race is a strong predictor of "an economic situation".
Isn't income a better predictor of how disadvantaged someone is though? There is a great TED talk about this topic. https://youtu.be/QxB3b7fxMEA?si=pYfhsuAr5vjWkwVW
How do you determine income? Tax returns? It is not perfect either. But sure, we can and should use tax returns as well. As one of the indicators. Race could be another. Not only it has a high correlation with poverty, but it might also help account for the racism against them.
Tax returns yes. It's far from perfect but much better than race. When helping based on race you end up helping rich black or Latin American people for example, instead of the poor people that really need it (which may be from any race, the race with the most number of poor people in the US is white, they don't deserve help too?). And racism cannot be measured, so how would we know if someone was a victim of racism? Many immigrants from Africa who are not poor arrive and benefit from DEI initiatives, were they suffering from racism in their own countries, where almost everyone is black? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the TED talk.
Racism can absolutely be measured. And it was. For example, have identical applications apply for a job: one with a white sounding name and another with a black sounding name. And measure the difference in response rate. I don't think DEI is perfect. Nothing is perfect in the real world. But to combat inequality you do need to help certain groups of people. Even if it is not "fair".
People imagine this ideal world where we can proactively make sure everyone has the same opportunities, which is already very clearly not happening and won’t happen without major changes. The only option left is to assist some people more than others to bring them up to speed, which just ends up being the only way to achieve the first outcome anyways.
Technically, you are right. But the way liberals approach “equal chance” moved from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome by employing affirmative action and diversity points. Further, have you thought that maybe major companies find it more rare to find strongly qualified black/hispanic investment bankers/private equity that are better than whites/asians that they resorted to hiring them in more menial jobs to make the company to look more diverse?
It's Liberals and conservatives. Conservatives run most of the non-entertainment businesses. Conservatives are BIG on tokens and sycophants. It's a right sided blind spot And yes strongly qualified black/brown candidates are rarer. They are 12/13% of the nation AND had decades of government and social barriers put on them. But they do exist. If you can't find **any**, that says something about you. That's why DEI is full of scammers. They know the top people on both sides are looking for looks and obedience.
>But they do exist. If you can't find any, that says something about you.That's why DEI is full of scammers. When demand outstrips supply, you're bound to struggle to find enough and wind up with less trained employees. The real path is to start earlier and build up supply over time, but companies and society want instant gratification now.
Exactly. The best path is to invest early but the business world discourages investment that the people who approve of it won't see and get credit for.
Asians are lower population than Hispanics and blacks though
It's harsh to say but. Asian culture promotes education but also submission to bosses. American companies LOVE that. Smart hard workers who they can abuse.
Yeah I see your point and I don’t disagree. But that mindset seems to produce a very modern society that’s very clean, safe, and has a lack of assholes - things we desperately need over here in the U.S.
It also produces a society where life is super stressful and a society where I would not want to live personally. Or raise my kids. There is more to life than work.
Singapore, anyone?
Asia is DYING because people prioritize working for the boss over having families. We are almost there here but due to economics and not submission.
My dude - I don’t like the lack of work life balance in Asian societies but I do admire and I wish we can mimic here in regards to cleanliness and law abiding individuals. We can achieve both right?
Sure but that's on employers. Employers have the power. They are creating the work culture.
Yes, bosses love smart people who aren’t insubordinate.
Yes, asians push for a culture that makes them more employable. It’s also true that the black culture pushes for more people in the entertainment industry so blacks tend to find more success in the entertainment industry than asians. The blacks are generally more athletic than other races so you find them more in sports. Meanwhile, the average asian spends significantly more hours into their studies than the blacks/hispanics so they secure more jobs in the lucrative fields. Hard work pays. If you believe that the black culture suffers from their historical wrongful treatment, unfortunately, you gotta work twice as hard to overcome that. Italians have done it when they first came to the states. Asians have done it. Blacks also have to do it to become more employable instead of playing victim all the time. Also, Indians and asians account for more than 20% of CEOs in the fortune 500s, so while it’s true they are taught to be submissive to bosses, there’s no inherent barrier to make them become too CEOs. Same goes for african americans. 12%-13% of CEOs in fortune 500s are african americans. Just work hard if not harder. Stop victimizing yourselves.
"the blacks" lol No one is talking about victimization. We are talking about employing for looks and being surprised they hire scammers and suck ups. We are taking about employing workers who will work hard with no pushback and being surprised that those on the outside see all your depressed overworked beaten down employees. Reap Sow
A lot of that is just the result of the US being so unwilling to make the necessary societal changes and admissions. We know that there's no inherent disadvantage to black people in intelligence so they should do just as well in higher ed as white people. Why aren't they? For the most part, that's down to the lingering effects of segregation. To fix that takes huge admissions on behalf of the US government and the willingness of the US People to take accountability for their nations past mistakes. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, the next best thing is to force schools to have a certain number of spots reserved for people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It's a band aid solution to a societal problem.
Yep, perfect example of [Goodhart’s law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law): "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Essentially when diversity metrics were developed it signified that an organization was meritorious and forward thinking thus leading to profits. Companies then began to implement diversity quotas to beat the metrics and use as evidence that they were meritorious and forward thinking. Diversity quotas destroyed the correlation between diversity and profitability as companies tried to game the figures.
> Diversity makes you great. Becoming diverse has really helped us advance our standing in the world. And increased stability in America. And helped more fairly distribute the wealth. And it has certainly made us powerful enough to finally kick homogeneous China's ass. With all the positives of diversity for the people of the host nation (ethnic food), it is shocking, absolutely shocking, that some are opposed to it.
> If you give everyone an equal chance and hire the best, you will end up with a diverse staff who will spot more potential problems due to diverse perceptions. This is nonsense. There is rarely a "best" candidate.
There's no best overall. But there is a best in your pool of applicants. Companies often don't hire the most qualified among those who apply.
There isn't even clear best in pool for most positions. I hire engineers and operators, it's a toss up at best where we can narrow down our selection to the 10-20% of people we think will be a good fit. And we end up selecting shit people semi often because hiring good people is hard. The best engineer I've ever hired was almost certainly the least qualified lol. They just got through because we needed someone quickly and didn't get a ton of applicants.
That's another part. We aren't even promoting and supporting people getting into the fields we need fairly and equally.
>If you give everyone an equal chance and hire the best, you will end up with a diverse staff who will spot more potential problems due to diverse perceptions. This is a very simplistic and idealist view. You can give everyone an equal chance but many times you will not end up with diversity. Problem is this is ideologically unacceptable to many people so equal has been replace with "equity", and that's how you end up with DEI.
Oh never said it would happen anytime soon.
So you are OK with waiting? Because many people of that ideology are not and push quotas in the name of DEI.
the beginnings of diversity actually begin in pre-ww1 england: (during the height of their empire) they massively started importing workers / borderline ethnic slaves and needed a new ideology: diversity. not diversity in how we see it today, but the antecedants of it: to begin a color blind revolution out of economic necessity. they needed an ideology to keep people of different ethnic backgrounds to work together: diversity 1.0 (we're at 3.0 or so now) IE - it was cheaper to import cheaper labor that kept labor in check, and had a variety of economic benefits. the social consequences they really didn't care about. and this is really the motivation here people: people ignore how much "diversity" is an economic motivation of capital / those with money, just like a lot of women's right have been bastardized to the point of economic incentives. in only started learning of this stuff in my phd track, btw. it's not talked about but well known in upper level academic circles. TLDR: "diversity" is as much a value created out of economics rather than an existentially "good" social good. those promulgating it really dont' care about the social "good" part much. I'm sure this will be downvoted a lot but it's super true
You have a non paywalled version?
[https://archive.ph/woefd](https://archive.ph/woefd)
Thanks!
Got it. I'm always suspicious of studies that have an agenda to push. That being said, I think the history of America shows that meritocracy with diversity has shown to be a winning combination.
But how do you maintain meritocracy and diversity together. That is the million dollar question.
True meritocracy will always lead to a certain amount of diversity. Racism either direction will generally go against meritocracy.
Affirmative action based on generational wealth has to have the broadcast impact on helping disadvantaged groups.
Income based aid is good, racial based is not.
liberals these days seem so incredibly ideological to the point that they're blind to the most basic of thoughts/questions. like "immigration and diversity = good" is such an overly simplistic framing. like so many variables would impact the equation, like: -does limitless amounts of a "good" thing mean it will always be good compared to a controlled, planned-for amount? -does the type of immigration matter, e.g. low-skilled vs. high-skilled, or those from a compatible culture vs. those from an incompatible one? -do foreign criminals contribute to the society in a positive way? if not, why should they be able to stay in the host country? -why is it just/ethical for massive amounts of immigrants to flood urban areas (where they predominately go to) with already limited housing, competing with natives often with low incomes for increasingly difficult-to-secure housing? like how stupid do globalist neolibs have to be to not meaningfully think about these questions? and if they do they have terrible, simplistic, naive, overly optimistic answers generally completely detached from realities on the ground.
i'm not a marxist myself, but one point marxism has correct is how societies like ours do become increasingly fascist as time goes one, when capital gets increasingly concentrated and the ownership "class" becomes more powerful with less spread in the middle. it's what's happening in america today. that and the imperialist thesis (by lenin) are two things happening in the world today that even most economists don't dispute - it's really crazy when you think about it. (all except austrians, of course - but they are insane)
When it comes to immigration at least that's a false framing. It isn't that liberals want unrestricted immigration and conservatives want no immigration. It's that conservatives want to deport all immigrants which will ruin the economy and liberals want to reform immigration laws so that they can actually work but aren't allowed to because the conservatives like running on saying tgat anything less than a total deportation policy amounts to open borders. That the economy can't keep functioning without immigrant labor is a fact, not an opinion. That ertainly doesn't mean unrestricted immigration would make things better but absolutely no one is arguing for that.
> unrestricted immigration would make things better but absolutely no one is arguing for that. How are you gonna do libertarians like that
Conservatives want to deport (assumingly legal) immigrants? Wtf, can you drop a source? Or are you just making shit up?
Really? Conservatives I talked to are pretty understanding and reasonable about giving pathways to citizenship for illegals that are already here. They just want to enforce border laws to keep things fair for people that are waiting to come in legally. From what I heard, conservatives want legal immigration than illegal.
> Conservatives I talked to are pretty understanding and reasonable about giving pathways to citizenship for illegals that are already here. There's tons of polling on this. Only about 30-35% (depending on which poll you want to look at) of republicans support any path to legal status for people already here. So no, this is not the position of the conservative party in the US. It was considered a deal breaker in the bipartisan border bill which is why it got left out. > They just want to enforce border laws to keep things fair for people that are waiting to come in legally. They claim this, but then at the same time complain about the the democrats and the asylum system. The asylum system is the current law of the land. If they actually just wanted to enforce border laws, they'd either be for helping to adjust the budget shortfalls that have broken this system or would change the system. They've repeatedly decided to do neither. As they say, actions speak louder than words. . Not to mention abbott who has done multiple things that the courts had to put a stop to because they were illegal. I get that he's not the entire conservative party, but he had a ton of support for those actions. They clearly have no intent of actually enforcing the law > From what I heard, conservatives want legal immigration than illegal. That's the position of both parties so it's kind of a pointless discussion point. The point of contention is 1) how important doing something about illegal immigration actually is. Neither party disagrees on whether it's a problem. For a long time it was just considered a relatively unimportant problem by many democrats. Now it's moved higher on the priority list as the problem has gotten worse over the last few years. 2) What should we do with people that are here illegally 3) how much immigration should we allow legally and from where and under what circumstances
> From what I heard, conservatives want legal immigration than illegal. Which begs the question why conservatives keep making it harder and harder to immigrate legally.
How and who? If that’s the case then I don’t agree with that. Immigration needs to be reformed here but I’m staunchly against illegal immigration.
Among other things, less money to immigration judges which makes it harder to process the backlog of cases that already exists: https://www.kqed.org/news/11979131/you-cant-have-it-both-ways-sen-padilla-slams-budget-cuts-to-immigration-courts
No, they don't. Every poll shows that to be false. If they did have that exceedingly moderate viewpoint, they wouldn't reject every attempt at legal immigration reform to streamline the process.
Neat, if that's true they should be lining up behind Biden then because a lot of that was in the bipartisan border reform proposal that the republicans tanked under trump's instructions. Are your conservative friends backing Biden or are they backing the guy who has made rounding up every illegal in the country with the military and expelling them to central issue of his campaign?
>Conservatives I talked to And the liberals I know understand that the borders cannot remain this porous and that the asylum claim system is abused and needs to be reformed and made stricter. But our friends are not the ones calling the shots in DC or the state capitals and are not representative of public opinion.
Yes that’s a true statement. A lot of people are in fact moderate but our leaders are not.
Then the conservatives you talk to are extremely not representative of the conservative voting population https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/democrats-and-republicans-starkly-divided-immigration-policy Conservatives in general do NOT support pathways for citizenship. They do NOT want to make legal immigration easier or more viable. Edit: the fact that an anonymous anecdote is upvoted while data is downvoted shows how full of shit this thread is
liberals aren't offering any reforms that would make it "actually work", they just want to continue to let in limitless numbers of immigrants from everywhere without caring about the negative consequences to this to the native population. they care more about lining the pockets of companies than they do helping the average citizen. no liberal has ever offered strict visa limits, kicking out all illegal migrants, etc.
That’s a lie.
can you name me 1 "liberal" politician that has offered strict visa limits and kicking out all illegals? i can't, because it would contradict "liberalism" in 2024.
> strict visa limits This isn't a reform because it already exists. There area already limits on visas. So I guess all of them? As they could have changed it and they haven't. > kicking out all illegals No one has actually offered *any* plan to kick out "all illegals" because it's impossible. The language in HR2 about it was just braindead stupidity that would have never worked but was meant to grab headlines for people who don't think too hard about the logistics of things the idiots in power on their team vomit out their mouths. Pretty much most of them support deportations though. Obama deported more people than any president before him. Biden is on pace to deport about as many as trump despite the law changing ot make it harder. The "bipartisan" (I know lol it wasn't really bipartisan, but you know the one I'm talking about) border bill had language in it to expedite this process and it was supported by both biden and the majority of democrats in the senate/house.
Strict visa limits and mass deportations are not the reforms, but stupid and dangerous for the economy and the nation measures. Majority, if not all, of the previous Republican presidents rejected them. The reforms should address Current needs of our nation: lack of unskilled labor in agriculture and food processing industries, as well as deep shortages of skilled labor in engineering and science fields. Reducing visas and deportations would make the situation only worse.
The US has plenty of domestic people that shouldn't be borrowing money for college, as they go for "the college experience", so they can go work in agriculture and food processing.
“They shouldn’t?” And how are you going to force them? Sending them to field camps using police force? Gulag? Let’s live in reality, ok?
Yes, they shouldn't. They have zero plan. They go because they've been told they have to go, no matter what kind of student they are. They don't think about it, which kind of tells you what kind of student they are. We can see how that's been terrible. Too many cry about loans they willingly took out. You'd rather import poor people from other places to do this dirty work? You think that's a better idea? That's a more moral idea? You sound like one of those billionaires you probably despise. Well, who else is going to pick our tomatoes but the poor people crossing the border coming from God knows where?
Allowing willing and free people come and earn money doing the job Americans don’t want to do is indeed better than removing democracy, establishing a police state and forcing youth to work in the fields instead of getting education. Khmer Rouge commies did what you suggest in Cambogia. No, thank you.
This
There is already a hard limit of people who are willing to uproot their lives in search of better opportunity. Every single immigrant has self selected for risk taking and hard work, regardless of their social status. The fact that you haven't meaningfully thought about these questions doesn't mean others haven't.
This guy said in another thread that he think nonwhite immigrants should be targeted more than white ones. It's pretty clear what his actual gripe is behind all that faux economic anxiety. They just need to dress it up in more formal language since it's (for now) still not acceptable to go full mask off. If he were so concerned about housing, he'd be talking about zoning laws, land-use restrictions, expanding growth boundaries etc.
It’s silly. There’s tons of research to show homogenous societies like Japan have good outcomes. This was the case in the Nordic countries too and guess what they imported a bunch of people from the third world and now have more crime and more welfare spending.
Yes, confused, anomic societies make people miserable. Like what happened to the USA. But they grow the GDP and the tax base. Won't you consider the interests of Jeff Bezos and Raytheon? They need diversity to grow. /s
I live in California and don't see anything much that's "confused" about this place. If anything, the rest of the world is speaking our slang or listening to music from this state. Be a bit more specific, what're you talking about here?
If you live in California and do not find anything confused and anomic about it, you are either unaware of what a normal society is like, or you are not telling the truth, or it is less confused than whatever place you are familiar with. > Listening to our music That used to happen. Over the last 30 years, our music has turned to corporate pablum for the lowest common denominator -- the UniCulture. You could just as easily get shitty music from Norway or Spain as you can from California. Slang? Maybe. The only new CA slang I know is "fam" and "bro" and "trans". I doubt the rest of the world uses any of these, but I have no evidence.
Go ahead, tell us which parts of the US aren't confused and anomic and the reasons for that. Or better yet, start off by defining what makes a place confused and anomic to begin with. And no one who doesn't speak the language is listening to shitty music from Norway or Spain.
> Go ahead, tell us which parts of the US aren't confused and anomic and the reasons for that. California is anomic and confused because it is an extreme multi culture with a one party political system. Regions in America that are more homogeneous with a common culture and a functioning political system are less confused and anomic. If you actually want to talk about race, let's talk about race. Rather than you trying to trick me into saying something racist that you can then go snitch over. You are Asian. I am White. You object and are offended that I object to the multi culture imposed upon us. I recall what California was 30 years ago. The quality of life has declined by orders of magnitude.
California is one of the most racially integrated states in the country and is no more a one party state than West Virginia or Idaho. >I recall what California was 30 years ago Why not go back 50 years to the 1970s when it was even more homogeneous? You know, back in the old days where every other lunatic serial killer in the country operated in the state and [crime rates spiked nationwide, including CA](https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)?
> California is one of the most racially integrated states in the country. No, California is segregated into ethnic communities. And the neighborhoods get more racially segregated every year. Yes, California was better in the 1970s as well. Before we doubled the population, a normal person could buy or rent a house near the beach. Music did not suck balls. There was a common culture outside of mass culture. I was here in the 1970s. Serial killers and crime made no impact on my day to day life.
>California is segregated into ethnic communities The most segregated cities in the nation are all in the Midwest and Northeast. Even the most "segregated" cities here like LA are nothing compared to Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, Milwaukee etc. >Before we doubled the population California's population has been stagnating for most of the last decade. Most of its growth happened from 1930-1990 due to domestic migration. House prices are up because of zoning laws and general NIMBYism towards building. Texas has higher population growth but lower house prices because they actually build in proportion to their population. >made no impact on my day to day life Crazy how nostalgia works, huh?
Then go live in a homogeneous society. America doesn't have that option or history, and we've done just fine (despite the use of racism as an excuse for regression and cruelty).
I like America I’m just saying there are pros and cons. All love here but also I used to live in a community that didn’t lock its doors 20 years ago. Now we have cameras outside the house. So yeah pros and cons
“like Japan” Japan’s economy has been stagnant for 30 years, and their “homogenous society” has made them very resistant to change.
What changes are you referring to?
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree except for the implication that it's a liberal phenomenon. Conservatives are just as (and IMO even more) focused on beliefs and detached from reality. E.g. on climate change and tariffs.
It makes the activists and middle management firms that constantly push it rich as intended.
Paywall. Someone give us the tldr?
Just read the title and react. That is the intent.
This guy Reddits.
The idea of hiring people based on race/ethnicity comes from Communism. They began to do it in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba before it began to happen in the US. The idea is to win over people who has traditionally been left behind in society. This is just purely political to create a loyal group of people that doesn't care much if the economy and everything else gets bad as long as they think the political party in power is giving them "benefits."
For what it's worth, at least European communism *usually* picked more educated and qualified people, among all the unqualifieds and brown noser insiders. The problem with technocrats is that they're often just as blind and bad as the unqualified when it comes to compromise.
It worked out so well /s
The journal this report was in is published by a libertarian/conservative think tank.
why do people think this is a convincing point? at this point, liberal/leftist media is far less reliable in my view with the extreme copium and detachment from reality with which they talk about this topic.
What is the purpose of a think tank?
to push policies they support, ideally based on empirical research that can be criticised and reproduced (or not) in the free exchange of ideas. they should be judged based on the merits of the studies/methodology they use, similar to anything from academia. Pretty much of all sociology at this point is leftist activism, but i don't see so many liberals immediately being skeptical of the bs sociology puts out.
>to push policies they support Boom.
He’s probably brainwashed
https://archive.ph/woefd I read the McKinsey report after someone on reddit referred to it as evidence that "Diversity makes us stronger." I recall reading the report and some of its "findings" (a diverse staff creates 25% more profit for a company) and thinking this is obvious propaganda from an employment firm seeking to grow its business. It was no more believable than a report from Big Tobacco claiming proof that cigarettes calm your nerves and gives you energy. I had no idea anybody considered this ludicrous report "influential" and that only now has its methodology been questioned.
Who was the person who first decided that diversity was great?
[удалено]
>In his 1925 book Practical Idealism, Coudenhove-Kalergi theorized that the historical development causing the death of European hereditary social classes would lead to an all-encompassing race of the future made up of "Eurasian-Negroid[s]", would replace "the diversity of peoples" and "[t]oday's races and classes" with a "diversity of individuals".
Darwin.
He believed in specialization. Hedgehogs don't run down and eat gazelles.
Not with that attitude they don't.
Probably some white guy.
Who had a lot of money and power. And wanted to reverse a recession by goosing the economy with millions of new consumers.
Slave traders
I prefer MEI.
Consulting firm McKinsey writes vague report with unverifiable claims due to keeping underlying data a secret. Report likely influenced by client desires (wishful thinking that diversity is good for profits, looking for "evidence" that this is true). Since vague report offers no implementation strategy, McKinsey then likely gets clients asking to help them implement a diversity strategy, raking in 5-7 figures per engagement. It's 100% marketing and 0% science.
No. I'm pretty sure it was trickle down economics that was supposed to do that.
Trickle down economics was the stupid idea that cutting taxes to the rich would cause the economy to grow and the middle and working class would benefit. Trickle down immigration is the current stupid version of trickle down economics -- if we bring in millions of low skill, non information workers it will grow the economy and the middle class and working class would benefit. Reagan is responsible for both trickle downs: massive tax cuts and massive immigration. I spit on his grave for what he did to the American nation.
Diversity, which is understood as representative presence in the workforce of people with various ethnic backgrounds, is good because of two reasons: - Frequently, people of differing ethnicity are recent immigrants, they sometimes have lower skill set and do important jobs that the majority of the population doesn’t want to do for the pay offered, and businesses can’t afford to pay more; - Exposure to different looks and ways of life makes the society as a whole more open-minded, tolerant and stable. Lack of immigration, as well as uncontrollable increase of immigration without enough resources required for initial support and integration, are both bad. However, none of these are happening in the US now.
>Frequently, people of differing ethnicity are recent immigrants, they sometimes have lower skill set and do important jobs that the majority of the population doesn’t want to do for the pay offered, and businesses can’t afford to pay more The left: if you cant pay living wages, you dont deserve to be in business!!! Also the left: our economy will crash if we dont underpay undertrained people, and cultural exposure will surely put food on their table!
The idea behind lower-paid seasonal workers from abroad is that they live and spend in their countries while coming here for a few months to make money. Because of that, their “living wage” is well below of what it is for Americans, and even lower salaries in the US make it worthwhile for them to want to come and “work the fields” here. That also helps our agriculture to survive the competition of the lower wage countries and to offer reasonably priced produce to everyone. There are so many illegals among those workers because of very poor immigration laws that we have that make it very hard to get them hired legally.
I didn’t quite understand how someone could come to a dumb conclusion like that but then I saw it was from the Wall Street Journal
Diversity leads to higher revenues. Especially international diversity. Revenues lead to higher profits. Profits lead to higher stock prices and C suite executive bonuses and stock options. What it hasn’t lead to as much for the average worker of U.S. companies is higher wages and also, said stock options when considering productivity vs average wage over the last 50 years.