But then there's companies like Nintendo and Sony that are globally successful in spite of their lack of diversity.
Most of Nintendo's failings in the past can actually be traced to where they refused to innovate simply because they followed the Japanese business culture too strictly (where, if your boss tells you to do something, you do it. Otherwise, you don't. And so on). If they had a diversity of ideas, they would likely not be in so much trouble right now.
I am not defending AA, the racial/gender/whichever thing; I'm not talking about that right now. This is simply about the diversity of ideas.
This is separate from the question of providing fair and gainful employment for everyone --I think that's a goal as a society we should strive for _even if_ it puts us at a disadvantage. My question was more geared toward questioning the received wisdom.
One obvious advantage for companies operating in a homogenous society is they don't face the challenges in hiring a diverse workforce.
I'm curious, what do you think of the opposing goal of eliminating the need for all employment through automation?
Which is why Chinese and Japanese sites for example have struggled to extend beyond their own borders.