I agree. For quite some time, I've told people that I no longer pay attention to the social left, when it is the economic side of left politics that makes the greatest difference, even to social issues. If you ensure that people who are otherwise marginalised have money, they will have enough influence through their buying power to effectively punish the classes who want them to remain marginalised.

Which is why it matters for the elites to make sure the ones who've been marginalized don't have money. Sure puts a different spin on not hiring someone for "culture fit".

I see an obvious flaw in this plan.

How do you ensure the economic power of say, gay people, when they can be legally fired from their job for just being gay? When they can't even visit their dying loved ones in hospital because they're not allowed to be legally married, never mind get tax benefits or inherit pension benefits etc. How do you stop a majority from punishing them economically and punishing others who try to help them?

Can you talk me through how your approach would have worked for the civil rights movement in the 60s or how the various law currently being drafted that legally prevent people from boycotting specific countries would affect your plans if used against your suggestion?

Perhaps I should change my framing on this. Yes there are structures available able to subvert the system. Both do need to be worked on, but focusing on one without the other results in diminishing returns. We've focused on the social side of marginalisation for a long time, and I think we're about as far as we can get with it for the time being. We need to switch back to economic matters which also affect more people. Marginalised groups are already in the poorer majority, if for no other reason than the statistical likelyhood of not being particularly rich.

Once we've got more class majority equality, we can switch back to more focused issues.

To me it seems really stupid, from an economical perspective, to fire a competent employee just because their religion, world-views, sexuality or whatever doesn't align with your own. I'd hope such employees can find good employment elsewhere. If that'd be true, I'd say eventually these issues should work themselves out in the long run, since a more diverse company might be able to outcompete a less diverse company.

That is such a naive framing of this topic when you have structural forces at work here. An example is say half a century ago when you have 99% of businesses practicing racist hiring policies. You can talk about economical inefficiencies all you want but what ends up happening is a segment of the population who are left with no good employment and continuing their generational poverty.

All you read on HN is the thousand ways in which (software) companies are inefficient but stuck in their ways and the market doesn't sort it out. Long hours, butts in seats mentality are the ones I read last. Managers have their own incentives and a lot of those are about perceptions, not necessarily money.

With UBI, they should have enough to still be able to conduct themselves. If unreasonable expenses are still being hoisted on them, then that's still an economic issue. In other words, people should be empowered economically. Being fired for being gay is still a form of economic disempowerment.

It's not a "strategic mistake", but rather a sensationalist divisive message pushed by mass media / the establishment. If you're falling for it, you're falling right in line.

Referring to "the left" (or "the right", for that matter) is more of the same. The people who are more receptive to a certain style of thinking and the political club that exploits them are not a unified group.

Read my last paragraph :)

The people who fund the politicians and media who talk about identity politics are the upper class. They would be incentivized to talk about anything but class.

Read my last paragraph :p