>"DEIB leads to employee retention, which means there are actually savings on keeping employees in the company longer versus spending money on recruitment to fill those roles..."
These are two points contained within the article, in the paragraphs leading up to the conclusion.
Paradoxically, more profitable companies can afford hiring practices which hurt their bottom line. The causality could easily be the other way around.
Of course it could, though I've come to find this critique pretty weak when two people discuss a study that neither of them has read. You can say it about any topline conclusion about things that are correlated.
The driving factor could be something else - profitable companies could be more attractive to a diverse workforce.
Probably we oughta read the study. I was just pointing out that parent was looking for a business case for diversity in and of itself and seemed to have missed the one the article attempted to provide.
Did the report imply causation from correlation?
You are listing two business cases for retention: do you think tech companies are not aware of the same data? If there was a strong case for keeping employees of a specific demographic, do you think companies would ignore that and prefer to lose more money?
I don't know the answers to your questions. Though I agree the article doesn't back up the claim that layoffs are reducing diversity, except possibly indirectly by references to Twitter, where there are claims layoffs disproportionately affected women.
Which is pretty terrible for talented people color who are making material contributions because it erodes their peers confidence that they're actually qualified.
MLK would be rolling in his grave.
https://edwest.substack.com/p/would-martin-luther-king-be-an...
> But would King have opposed Kendism? Although conservatives like to quote his brilliant speech on the content of a man’s character, he was also quite explicitly in favour of quotas and discrimination measures if they favoured his group. As King said: ‘if a city has a 30 percent Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30 percent of the jobs in a particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas, as the case almost always happens to be.’
> King may have believed in all sorts of preferential treatment, not just on account of race but also income and class, but then he was quite explicitly a socialist. Racial equality was part of a more general belief in social equality between rich and poor (that these two goals inevitably and always clash is one of many problems making this dream not entirely realisable).
> As Matthew Yglesias has written: ‘Today’s conservatives often like to quote Martin Luther King Jr. as an apostle of “colorblind” policy as an aspirational goal. But King was a socialist who argued for a radical redistribution of material resources.’
"Despite loud commitments of solidarity and support for Black communities after the murder of George Floyd, the tech industry, by and large, seems content to quietly overlook the business case for retaining employees of color and prioritizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging."
What is the business case for retaining employees of color other than having them as employees that benefit the company? This reads like companies should keep employees of color no matter what, essentially discriminating against everyone else and just virtue signalling.