Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1]
[1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...
https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-...
Those at the top will often prioritize their feelings over profit potential. Corporations are not true profit maximizers, that's a total myth. It's one of the reasons why WFH wasn't more popular earlier, and why some companies are trying to force back-to-office to the point it causes some of their employees to quit.
Do people not go to work and see their managers in action? What makes them think that after just enough career steps a switch happens and people just magically become soulless profit driven AIs?
People also tout these studies for getting more women in business leadership. in reality that's a weird argument, women or lgbt or people of color don't need to be better in order to be accepted, they should be accepted by default. Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it. Things like, how business people socialize, what they 're expected to wear, what business gifts they send etc.
"Diverse" people do not have to be intrinsically better employees, for them to positively affect the business's success.
So no, you can't view overall productivity as the sum of individual productivity because there are factors like this that are a function of group composition. And there's a lot of factors that are not functions of individual productivity.
If the best response you have is handwaving team dynamics as a buzzword, and pretending its not a real and tangible thing, go to work and start abusing all of your coworkers and see if their performance remains consistent.
i also have no interest in replying to flame bait
And yet they are not. Why not?
> Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it.
If we look at the history of these groups in the US, Occam's Razor points to simple bigotry as an explanation.
Well I’m not a woman but as for the rest of it it’s never been an issue.
The only time it’s even been mentioned is that when traveling by bus in Texas in 1999 that I should make sure I take my ID with me when leaving the bus just incase there’s ICE around.
My experience has been that people largely create their own problems, right now I’m in a very catholic country and looking for a cross necklace. It’s just to avoid people asking me if I believe in God which I don’t care to talk about.
Blend in and you’ll have 100x less problems. Your work likely doesn’t care who you’re banging but is going to care if you want to talk about your relationship all day instead of business.
In reality every non-majority demographic has to be better in order to be accepted. They often have to work harder just to reach the default that the majority takes for granted, because that system works with the majority, and against everyone else.
Ivy League US Ratio
Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16
Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71
White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82
Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65
Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61
White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56Which other racial disparities do you attribute to differences in behavior?
Does Michael Phelps (23 Olympic gold medals) swim 23x faster than Mack Horton (1 Olympic gold medal)?
1. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/...
I guess it's a very special kind of studiousness whites have - one that helps with SAT scores, but not Ivy League admissions: https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-h...
(Looking at your link, it's important to note that it doesn't separate Jewish and non-Jewish Whites.)
On average, yes. At the Ivy League level, though, they account for a solid third of the white admissions. I'm sure you'd find a similar overrepresentation in the top few percentiles of the SAT.
Even supposing this is true, it still doesn't answer the question: Since non-Jewish whites do better at the SAT than Blacks and Hispanics, why does this translate to lower, not higher, Ivy enrollment rates?
The data clearly shows: higher SAT scores help every group except non-Jewish whites.
It's reasonable to expect a refutation to contain at least some data, instead of dismissing what data we do have as not complete enough, and reverting back to the original fact-free assertion.
So, what meaning do you draw from it? What explanation do you have for these discrepancies? How do they relate to what you replied to?
In other words, show your work.
You've added a whole bunch of words here that weren't in any claim of this thread. The person I was replying to is the one who brought students and school acceptance into it. I've double checked the whole thread to make sure, so if I missed it please point it out. The conversation above car_analogy's post was about business leadership.
At any rate, while of course I'm being a little obtuse, I really do not know what car_analogy is driving at. I can speculate, but I suspect I'd be accused of being uncharitable if I said my speculation out loud. It's not up to me to make their argument for them, and they didn't even bother to make one.
Anyways,
> If you think other factors are the cause of that
Fortunately, as I'm not the person who threw a snark bomb into the thread tied to a table of tenuously related data, it's not my job to interpret the data I don't think is significant to the argument at hand. If car_analogy wants to convince me of its relevance, they can say more than two words about it and then get defensive.
Is the native part of me more deserving of a contract than the Latin part?
If I was with a guy the night before instead of a woman am I more beneficial to a company? Am I even more valuable on the odd night I’m with a trans person?
Am I more beneficial with my Paraguayan passport instead of a Canadian passport?
Diversity should just be called what it is, bigotry.
* in an organization filled with native (whatever that means) people, your Latin heritage would add value. In an organization filled with people with Latin heritage, the native part of you would add value.
* in a company filled with cis-straight men, then diversity being valuable implies that anyone with a different experience would add value.
* in Paraguay, your Canadian experience is more valuable in terms of whatever value diversity brings than it is in Canada. By contrast, in Canada, your Paraguayan experience would offer more value.
I kind of get it but I just call that hiring people with experience.
Like I do get hired because I’ve done a whole bunch of different roles and have actual diversity I’m not just a Java programmer with 20 years of experience making login forms.
Also having done a lot of things I usually have an interesting non-work story to tell.
I find that kind of diversity hugely valuable. I find hiring people because they check a diversity box dumb and bigoted.
The worst-case scenario is a bunch of people with different ethnicity, religious affiliation/experience, gender identity, age, etc. etc. ... who all like the same entertainment, food, clothing and vacation options. "Diversity" ... yes. But actual diversity, no.
However, I'm not sure that this actually a real-world problem.
For some roles this might be important (sales) for others like accounting it's foolish.
Location is a factor.. in China everyone is Chinese. In the US you have a variety of people with different cultural backgrounds. What works in China couldn't work in the US.
While that may be true, it isn't the case that more diversity necessarily makes a more profitable organisation. It's also a pretty dangerous game to play; diversity policies can be, and often are, implemented in a ham-fisted or corrupt way that destroys value.
Simply look at the havoc that BEE has wreaked on South Africa's economy and especially the public service.
Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers.
And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rights for every Euro that I save for old age, who can make this outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing companies for lack of diversity.
I don't think it's possible to control for all of this.
It’s probably a bit tautological. The only effective way to make your company more diverse is to grow and hire diverse candidates. This is not the case for top level leadership though. Boards as well. Growing companies want to invest in their people and that tends to result in some more attention to diversity. Conversely dusty old companies that are having their lunch eaten by tech enabled competitors do tend to be very non diverse because that’s they way it is and it’s not an environment that diverse candidates want to join. Also self fulfilling.
> White people were the most opposed to considering race and ethnicity in hiring and promotion: 78 percent said only qualifications should be considered. But a majority of black respondents (54 percent) and Hispanic respondents (69 percent) also said race and ethnicity shouldn’t be considered.
These are policies are being driven mostly by liberal whites oh behalf of racial minorities, but those minorities themselves mostly oppose such policies.
It's not that simple.
I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most logical solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
That's either a bit strong or a bit already true, depending on how you look at it; the state sets boundaries and responsibilities on the relationships parents have with children, and if they violate those boundaries or fail to live up to those responsibilities, the legal relationship between parent and child can be terminated.
I'm for it is a more practical way. It is the state's responsibility to be good at raising children, because some children will have no family to take care of them. We (at least in the US) horribly fail at this, which is a clear signal that our society is selfish and irresponsible. This should be changed. People with shitty parents should be jealous of state wards. If we can't be successful when we have complete control, we shouldn't have much to say about how well parents are doing except in the cases of gross neglect and abuse.
We can't figure out what to do with constituencies that don't have lobbyists.
I think you could do a lot of stuff to provide support to all kids without going all the way to universal government custody. Things like (optional) government paid universal day care and after school care, government paid universal health care for minors, food/housing/etc stipends (like the child tax credit, but bigger), and arguably better pay for teachers and smaller class sizes. These things wouldn't end inequality, but might more kids up to good enough resources.
You could also pull a China and outlaw tutoring/test prep to reduce the advantages wealth can provide.
Violence in the home (most goes unreported), Mocking education in the home, Drug abuse in the home, An example of single parent pregnancy everywhere, General neglect - nobody to read to you
These are all cultural things. Culture is the software that gets installed on you and some people are getting a shitty software version that almost guarantees failure. If you don’t believe that, watch any documentary on rural Appalachia.
Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.
I'm not sure that's the case.
We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads).
Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender.
In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l...
https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge...
Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family.
Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
I include women because of this:
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results
AFAIK most of these studies focused on "women in boardrooms/leadership"
This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.
If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.
Based on personal observations, innate aptitude and interest doesn't seem to be aligned. Eg, one of the more amazing minds I've ever met was contained in a woman who just didn't have the competitive glint in her eye to make herself successful. Sad story in many ways.
But - if that observation is true - then diversity policy quotas will break the correlation. At the moment, about half the aptitude is in women, some percent in various minority groups in rough proportion to their prevalence, etc. Companies better at surfacing talent will naturally be more diverse. Companies that forcibly make themselves more diverse through a quota will ironically probably regress to the mean level of competence and perform worse.
Oh for sure it's the right decision. If even the legislation's intention was successful, forcing this matter will only go to create more radicalization and make the situation worse.
>I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders.
Regardless of the issue you wish to prop up. There is always a study that says it will work.
>It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies.
Businesses should not even consider diversity. There is a problem in some businesses in that they do discriminate. They discriminate against and that's the ideal goal of what should be fixed. Or should it? If we are in a free market and Business 1 refuses to hire LGBT. Business 2 hires those and will eventually pick up good people that give them a competitive advantage.
Government coming in and using force to make Business 1 take LGBT on the board... That's not going to work out.
I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common.
Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle.
[1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...
Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf.
Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts of the world, it's still quite bad.
So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly, then of course it makes sense for them to act as a group. (Though of course I don't literally mean that everyone treats them badly, just the general trend)
Simply put: Nonsense
A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes they wear. This has always been that way and will always be so. Most people harbour some preconceived ideas about those 'others' - yes, you do as well. In most liberal western societies these preconceived ideas are frowned upon by official institutions, especially when it concerns such ideas related to 'protected' identity categories like sexual orientation, race and religion. your statement regarding the supposed mistreatment of that group does not hold any water. It is a lie, an untruth, a distortion of the facts - unless you can prove your claim.
Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, not even when it is claimed to be true by academics from the grievance studies departments - especially not when claimed by those academics from those grievance studies departments since they are on an ideological mission.
As I said in the original comment, not literally everyone treats LGBT people badly. But are you seriously suggesting there is zero bad treatment of LGBT people? Do you think historically there was, but now there isn't? Based on the language in your comment, it seems you have a certain point of view about this topic which makes you think there isn't any bias against LGBT people, and you're not just randomly asking for proof.
So as proof, I can easily show historical mistreatment of LGBT groups. Example: having homosexual sex, at least for men, was illegal in some places (including some states in the US). Until fairly recently, getting married to a same-sex partner was illegal in the US. Those are two easy examples, the latter change happening what, less than a decade ago?
For existing mistreatment, homosexuality is still illegal in many countries. There are new laws being passed in the US which some LGBT groups consider to be against their interest. In my own country, it's only within the last year that gay couples could have a baby through surrogacy within the country. Etc.
If you think that none of this counts as mistreatment, I'd urge you to say what * would* count in your opinion.
Also, I asked for proof of your statement in the here and now, not for historical proof. Not 'was' but 'is'. Furthermore, the fact that some things are illegal in some countries does not mean anything for how those things are treated in liberal western democracies which is what I was asking about.
The fact that 'new laws being passed in the US which some LGBT groups consider to be against their interest' is totally irrelevant unless you can show which laws those are and in what way they actually discriminate against gays, lesbians and bisexual people.
You have not shown proof of your claim that everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. It is not up to me to provide you with examples of what would be mistreatment since I did not make any claims about people being mistreated. You made a claim but you can not prove it, it is up to you to either provide proof or walk back your claim.
I think there are a LOT of products that would benefit from company leadership having someone left handed (or colorblind, for that matter) due to the fact that more than a few products work sub-optimally ... probably more than from having someone who's gay.
Diversity in company leadership would better be spent on factors relevant to the product or workforce. Outside of some specialist industries, board members sexuality has absolutely no place in the workplace.
If Hollywood movies start getting a lot better with the new diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility, presumably this will serve as an example for every other industry.
At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role.
The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled.
At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.
That isn’t to say non standard biology is always involved, just that it can be.
Point is - no doubt there's something biologically and cognitively going on with these people (I'd frame it as there being something wrong with them, in the same sense that eating disorders are maladaptive and harmful).
Longwinded way of saying I agree with you.
Ex: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/D...
Also, though I'm trained as a lawyer, I also have a BsC with an interest in endocrinology and I'd suggest that nothing in the human body besides the brain is more complicated than one's hormones and their interactions inter se. I'm a big believer in modern medicine, but I do think we have too high an opinion of ourselves as a species when it comes to our ability to control outcomes vis-a-vis a person's hormones.
As to having a mental illness, that’s often how we describe issues we don’t understand or have the ability to treat. Stress ulcers are a great example of such classifications. I am not disagreeing that many of these people have significant mental issues, but calling something a mental illness isn’t specific enough to do anything with and tends to be used dismissively. Further once the underlying cause is discovered we stop thinking of say mercury poisoning as a mental health issue.
I should also add: the trans-rights thing is actually something that in my experience most people, even those who are otherwise socially 'liberal', generally find disagreeable. I've got gay friends and feminist friends who both get just as outraged as I do at the idea that men should be able to waltz into female bathrooms, or compete in women's sports, etc. My own view is that this is actually something that the large majority of the population thinks a certain way about, but as usual in this day and age a very small minority of people dedicate their existence to 'activism' and cause the movement to seem larger than it is.
> My own view is that this is actually something that the large majority of the population thinks a certain way about, but as usual in this day and age a very small minority of people dedicate their existence to 'activism' and cause the movement to seem larger than it is.
Agreed, but also that most people up until recently haven't really thought much about it at all. That the activism of this small minority is drawing more attention and scrutiny of late is probably a good thing in the long run, given all the harmful downstream effects of gender identity ideology, particularly on women and children.
I think this image post, from a radical feminist forum, makes this point well (with examples): https://ovarit.com/o/Radfemmery/67892/listen-to-tims
Like straight out the gate with "I support marginalized people but only the way I think is best for them, disregarding their own experiences and preferences." Then immediate followup with the 2011-era reddit style pseudo-evo-psych about how our current social order is fully justified because of science or whatever.
Hm why do men not want to go into some of these fields could it be the decades of ensuring they have low prestige, low wages, or both? No, it must be evolution.
These may pass for liberal positions in the US but they are moderate-to-hard right compared to things like "medical care is between an individual and their doctors" and "there are still barriers to equality in society and the workplace, and it takes generations for all the effects of social change to be realized so of course we'll be seeing the effects of past exclusions for decades."
There is also plenty of evidence that testosterone has effects on male aggression, caring instincts, bonding, etc. Pretending that gender hormonal differences don't exert massive effects on interests and social behaviours is not tenable, IMO. No doubt more men than currently do would would go into childcare if the wages suddenly became $200/hour, but that doesn't mean they'd be as good as it as women are on average, nor would it reflect a change in their natural desires/motivations.
Good day.
But there is a very big leap between identifying inclinations in primate infants and determining that the unjust structures of our society are caused purely by that. Especially when there are so many other easily observable factors in that inequality right now.
That aside, why even focus on it when there are more powerful incentives already at play? Let's get the wages evened out then see what people do, rather than decide in advance what we think they will do.
Take blacks and the black crime rate, for example. It's known that blacks are busted for, and convicted of, marijuana possession at rates exponentially higher than other races. Instead of concluding that perhaps blacks have some genetic predisposition for weed, or that they have cognitive differences that affect their judgment and self-control - either of which isn't an obviously unreasonable conclusion IMO - in many US states it's now been determined that, apparently, the laws themselves (viz., the laws the criminalise marijuana possession) are racist. Or take college admissions - because blacks are, on average, 1 standard deviation less intelligent than literally every other race, and hence do substantially worse on standardised tests, SURPRISE, they don't get into Ivy League universities, become lawyers and doctors and engineers, etc. But instead of considering that maybe, just possibly, there's a genetic difference - or a difference caused by them having been enslaved for a few generations - society has now apparently concluded that in fact it's the standardised tests that are racist, or the admissions process itself. Frankly I find all this laughably asinine, and if that's what you mean by the 'unjust structures of our society' then I'll have to disagree with you. Even if you want to blame their current problems on slavery, don't you think it's reasonable to call the slavery itself racist, and not today's current laws?
Regarding the gender pay gap, my understanding is that men literally work more hours than women per capita, therefore, logically, they do on average get paid more in lifetime earnings. Adding to that point, let's look at 'women's sports'. I've seen it said that WNBA players, for example, should as a matter of 'equality' be paid the same as men's NBA players. But men's players are compensated according to the market, and the market is based almost exclusively on the public's desire and willingness to pay to see men's NBA players play. People, apparently, do not want to see physically inferior females who are weaker, slower, less coordinated, etc., play basketball, and apparently people refuse to value the experience as highly as they do men's basketball. And if you find that objectionable, just look at how many females and female Olympians were outraged at the idea of having men who'd had surgery/hormone therapy compete against them in the Olympics. They know, just as I do, that there is a massive physical gap between the genders. As an aside, query whether those differences carry over into the cognitive domain (I think they do - as a start, men have 10% larger brains, and completely different proportions of important regions like Broca's area, the anterior cingulate, area 10, etc). What if they did, and men happened to be better at things that people find more valuable. Is that unjust?
Curious to know your thoughts on this, specifically whether you think 'sexism' is to blame for that market situation.
I bring that example up because, quite literally, it is one of those intractable problems (women being physically inferior to men) that we can do nothing about except accept and move on. Not every apparent inequality is a problem, IMO, nor can we fix them all.
Take care.
Definitely not busting out 'the white hood', but if you want to caricature me in that way I can't stop you, obviously. What I claimed was that I hold a number of views that are socially 'liberal' in the American sense, noting that liberal means something different in the rest of the world, including Australia (where I live).
Not sure how old you are, but at some age you'll realise that in real life the political beliefs people hold often don't conform precisely with those of any particular political party. Such is life, regardless of their political bent.
There are many reasons.
In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another.
In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil?
In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or worse: raised in a family who do not love you.
I don't. You asked why would anyone. I just presented some reasons that I know my lady friends have stated.
I do, in fact, think that you don't "need" any reason whatsoever. I think a woman has every right to choose whether or not to have a baby including to abort a baby for any reason or even for no reason.
I think it's normal that different people think differently. I think this is a very flame-inviting question as it stands.
I've certainly met vastly more people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they want to preserve a woman's right to choose than people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they think that we need more abortions. I can't recall ever meeting someone who was actually pro-abortion.
Even those who think we should significantly lower the population almost always want to do that through better contraception, not through more abortions.
- that is semantics (if you want the choice to exist, you're pro-abortion, existentially speaking)
- everyone knew what the poster meant
- this is the least interesting conversation derailment folks could choose. Maybe instead go to bat against the raging anti-trans statement included for some reason?
In most cases it takes a man and a woman to conceive a fetus. But if the fetus is finally born into a baby, the consequence of that is rarely divided evenly between the man and the woman. In extreme but not really uncommon cases, the division can be 100%-0%: that the man bears no consequences at all and the woman bears all the consequences. Abortion makes the consequence close to 0, so that it's more even between 100% and 0%.
I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.
I empathize with those in diversity roles that are tasked with finding the informal-but-not-legally-enforcable means by which to increase diversity. How are you reasonably going to achieve that? It's a hard problem to solve. It seems like something driven by society at large. I'm not sure if you can hire a person to solve this problem, honestly.