US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4694

Prev 1 4692 4693 4694 4695 4696 4946 Next

Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.

If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread

RvB

Netherlands6195 Posts

January 15 2025 05:54 GMT

#93861

You're making the claim. It's up to you to support it with evidence. I understand if you don't want to do it because it's an internet forum but to then say Maybenexttime has to 'educate himself' is nonsense. Either way the effects of diversity are contested. See this for example.

ZerOCoolSC2

8960 Posts

January 15 2025 06:07 GMT

#93862

On January 15 2025 14:54 RvB wrote:
You're making the claim. It's up to you to support it with evidence. I understand if you don't want to do it because it's an internet forum but to then say Maybenexttime has to 'educate himself' is nonsense. Either way the effects of diversity are contested. See this for example.

The claim was initially made by MNT that diversity doesn't increase anything. It's on him to provide the details and then we would retort with our own evidence that it does indeed increase something. That link points to a perceived profit based on if the hire was diverse. It doesn't answer if a hire in any other aspect outside of boards would be a net plus to the workforce. That is what we're talking about. Boards are typically made of white males, so of course a diverse board would be perceived as not being equitable to shareholders because they are, you guessed it, mostly white males.

Try again.

CuddlyCuteKitten

Sweden2559 Posts

January 15 2025 06:43 GMT

#93863

On January 15 2025 08:38 maybenexttime wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 15 2025 08:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

On January 15 2025 08:09 maybenexttime wrote:

On January 15 2025 07:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:

On January 15 2025 06:25 maybenexttime wrote:

On January 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"Diversity is a key driver of innovation and is a critical component of being successful on a global scale. Senior executives are recognizing that a diverse set of experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds is crucial to innovation and the development of new ideas. ...
A diverse and inclusive workforce is crucial for companies that want to attract and retain top talent. ...
The business case for diversity and inclusion is intrinsically linked to a company’s innovation strategy. Multiple and varied voices have a wide range of experiences, and this can help generate new ideas about products and practices. ...
This is particularly true for the largest companies. Among companies with more than $10 billion in annual revenues, 56% strongly agreed that diversity helps drive innovation. “Because of our diverse workforce, we’ve experienced a boost in productivity. When you can move people to contribute to their fullest, it has a tremendous impact,” noted Rosalind Hudnell, director of global diversity and inclusion at chip maker Intel. ...
Respondents in Asia also were more likely to see a link between diversity and innovation. In the APAC region, 56% “strongly agreed” with this notion, compared to 48% in the Americas and 41% in EMEA. “In Asia Pacific, we’re focused on leveraging diverse skills in growth markets and getting better gender representation in senior management,” explained Niki Kesglou, head of diversity and inclusion, Asia Pacific, for financial services firm Credit Suisse. ...
In the fight for global talent, diversity and inclusion policies are being designed specifically as recruiting and retention tools, helping to broaden the pool of talent a company can recruit from, while also helping to build an employment brand that is seen as fully inclusive. “If you want to attract the best talent, you need to be reflective of the talent in that market,” said Eileen Taylor, Deutsche Bank’s global head of diversity. ...
“The recruitment of diverse talent for our organization is critical to our ability to build our business and drive future growth,” said Sumita Banerjee, vice president, talent recruitment at L’Oréal USA.
https://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation_Through_Diversity.pdf

These are opinions, not evidence.

"Companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 15 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians. ...
Companies in the bottom quartile both for gender and for ethnicity and race are statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the data set (that is, bottom-quartile companies are lagging rather than merely not leading).
In the United States, there is a linear relationship between racial and ethnic diversity and better financial performance: for every 10 percent increase in racial and ethnic diversity on the senior-executive team, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) rise 0.8 percent.
In the United Kingdom, greater gender diversity on the senior-executive team corresponded to the highest performance uplift in our data set: for every 10 percent increase in gender diversity, EBIT rose by 3.5 percent."
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

Correlation =/= causation. It might be that those better performing companies can afford to have DEI-based hiring policy. Would be interesting if they studied how change in diversity was correlated with change in EBIT (while accounting for other factors).

"In numerous studies, diversity — both inherent (e.g., race, gender) and acquired (experience, cultural background) — is associated with business success. For example, a 2009 analysis of 506 companies found that firms with more racial or gender diversity had more sales revenue, more customers, and greater profits. A 2016 analysis of more than 20,000 firms in 91 countries found that companies with more female executives were more profitable. In a 2011 study management teams exhibiting a wider range of educational and work backgrounds produced more-innovative products. These are mere correlations, but laboratory experiments have also shown the direct effect of diversity on team performance. In a 2006 study of mock juries, for example, when black people were added to the jury, white jurors processed the case facts more carefully and deliberated more effectively."
https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-better

Again, correlation =/= causation.

"Homogenous Teams Feel Easier — but Easy Is Bad for Performance

A revealing 2009 study of fraternity and sorority members published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin offers a remarkable window into the workings of diverse and homogenous teams. Fraternity and sorority membership conveys a powerful group identity, much like political or religious affiliation, and consequently can create a strong sense of similarity (or dissimilarity) with others. In the experiment, teams were asked to solve a murder mystery. First, students were individually given 20 minutes to study the clues and pinpoint the likely suspect. Next, they were placed into teams of three with fellow members from the same Greek house and given 20 minutes to discuss the case together and provide a joint answer. Five minutes into the discussion, however, they were joined by a fourth team member, someone from either their own house or another one.

After collectively naming their suspect, members individually rated aspects of the discussion. More diverse groups — those joined by someone from outside their own fraternity or sorority — judged the team interactions to be less effective than did groups joined by insiders. They were also less confident in their final decisions.

Intuitively, this makes sense: On a homogenous team, people readily understand each other and collaboration flows smoothly, giving the sensation of progress. Dealing with outsiders causes friction, which feels counterproductive.

But in this case their judgments were starkly wrong. Among groups where all three original members didn’t already know the correct answer, adding an outsider versus an insider actually doubled their chance of arriving at the correct solution, from 29% to 60%. The work felt harder, but the outcomes were better.

In fact, working on diverse teams produces better outcomes precisely because it’s harder.

How is this study even relevant? It did not investigate the influence of diversity as defined by the proponents of DEI policies, which is based entirely on superficial characteristics like gender or ethnicity. They studied something entirely unrelated, just gave it the same name. I bet that the groups they tested were all diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity. Would be interesting if they compared homogeneous groups against diverse ones instead. Would be a bit embarrassing if they found no difference, though.

I still can't quite grasp how this whole diversity would have any impact in technical fields. They hire intelligent people who graduated from the same universities, studied from the same textbooks, were taught the same analytical methods, and learned the same tools and they expect a team with more varied skin colors to perform better. Like, how exactly does that affect how you write code or design a chemical process or whatever?

The general reasoning for diversity being good for companies is quite simple.

Companies try to make "things" that people want to "buy". The world is diverse and men/women/different cultures/age and countries like different things. Having people from different backgrounds helps you understand more people better, thus making it easier to make things more people like.
An obvious example would be having a marketing or sales department of only white men in their 30s if you are trying to sell products for women or in another country.
It could be more or a lot less important but even in technical fields I've seen examples (like making a medical device that is to heavy or big for prolonged use by people with generally smaller hands, like women. When 70% of your target market are women...).

As we have seen recently (not fires, more like beer commercials) it can also go the wrong way if you are diverse for diversity's sake and start applying it everywhere.

So in general diversity is a good thing because it helps companies see things from different angles which can help them avoid problems with different consumer groups or identify opportunities in other. But it's probably not that important for all parts of the company.

Sure, you can make a reasonable case for things like marketing or sales. I was talking mostly about technical fields. I fail to see how whether someone eats curry or schnitzel has any bearing on how they do their job.

Ever think there might be a problem that needs solving? How a white guy problem solves vs an indian or black guy might be one of those things. They might have a more elegant solution instead of brute forcing it. Or maybe the brute force works. But you wouldn't know if there wasn't someone to offer that perspective. There are a myriad of reasons why you want diversity.

I have yet to see people approach technical problems differently due to their ethnicity or gender. As I said, those top companies hire intelligent people who graduated from the same universities, studied from the same textbooks, were taught the same analytical methods, and learned the same tools. Pick ten random white dudes from Poland and I'm pretty sure you'll end up with a much more diverse range of opinions and life experiences than ten random people at some Apple or General Electric.

There is often a difference in how to approach problems from culturally identical people who graduated from different universities or even had different teachers. Even in extremly technical fields how to approach problems can vary. Especially for things like programing which is as much a craft as it is technical.
If you want to hire 2 people out of a pool of qualified candidates you would be better of picking people with different universities or previous work experience even for the same degree. It's a well known tactic for research as an easy example. You want people to leave the place they did their phD to pick up experience from others places precisly because the same problems are approched differently.

Also there is a real risk of saying that diversity only matters for sales or marketing or the executive levels. Because then the people you bring in for diversity are not going to be subject experts in the technical areas of the company unlike the people you promote from the technical side.
It's already a pain in the ass to deal with any groups from HQ when you get brought in as an expert (speaking from experience) and they know nothing.
In the ideal world you take suitable people with a tech background and promote to management or to help high level sales or marketing. Or you take your MBA and teach them the tech (impossible?).
At that point they need to start thinking about issues around diversity. It helps if the tech department is already doing that. In fact the person you promote doesn't even have to be diverse themselves if they are already in the mindset that you need to think about these things.

Like something simple as double checking the name of your product against the market your about to introduce it to.
Avoids things like introducing the Honda Pussy in the nordic market (after you printed all the promotional material

)

JimmyJRaynor

Canada16594 Posts

January 15 2025 06:54 GMT

#93864

i find age diversity gets ignored while the screaming about sexism and racism is really loud.

Seeing as it is the Night of January 16th and we're talking about diversity let's check out the views on America from a 54 year old russian jew.

IMO, age diversity is critical. i constantly try to expose myself to people of all ages. it makes me a better salesman.

"i am for the separation of state and economics just as we have separation of church and state".
at the time of this interview Miss Rand had no idea whether or not her parents were alive or dead. It is fascinating how a jewish immigrant views the USA.

Falling

Canada11314 Posts

January 15 2025 07:51 GMT

#93865

I'm amazed (but probably I shouldn't be) at just how many imperialists are amongst the MAGA fanbase considering how much I was assured they had moved on from Cheney and overseas adventurism.. and that it was no accident that Cheney now supported the Democrats.

I'm amazed because I seeing this defence run up again and again: Of course in trade negotiations Trump refused to rule out military action :

He said i wouldn't rule anything out because why in holy F would you do that if you're trying to negotiate something?

This is representative of the sort of attitude I'm seeing in the wider circles on the web. That and that Obama did this sort of thing as well. And it's either malicious lies or else the MAGA version of Trump Derangement Syndrome because absolutely not, this not how anyone negotiates free trade agreements with their allies. How free is the free market when trade is agreed upon under military coercion?

Maybe you wouldn't rule out violence when negotiating with a hostile actor such as North Korea or Iran. Only if you are an empire are you making trade agreements with the implied threat of violence and your 'allies' are satellite states/ puppet regimes. No, this is not the typical way of negotiating. No, Obama did not do it too. Show me in all our softwood lumber disputes where that is the case. It's not used because it's stupid to treat your allies that way.

Nor is it a big brained negotiating tactic.
For it to be a negotiating tactic, the threat must be credible (therefore he wouldn't be trolling).
If it's not a credible threat, then it's an empty threat and useless for gaining a negotiating position.
(If you threaten to walk, but the salesman knows you have no intention of doing so aka they know the threat is hollow... you aren't getting a better deal.)

We are only a couple steps away from defending gunboat diplomacy as perfectly normal while at the same time claiming to reject neo-con military adventurism.

What ever happened to the party that would quote Adam Smith and tote around Atlas Shrugged? (Don't care for the book myself, but there it is.) MAGA seems to lack any coherent political identity beyond defending whatever the hell Trump happens to say or do next.

KT_Elwood

Germany808 Posts

January 15 2025 08:23 GMT

#93866

It's a fascinating video, but it's too theoretical and absolute.

Water supply by company XY is too expensive? Just wait 5 years until a competitior arises and don't drink water.

A-B Road toll is too expensive? Just wait a year till A-C C-B is done by competitor and just don't go to work.

A "collectivist" approach to create a basis to a free market is much more preferable.

The important thing is not to let companies get either a government issued monopoly, grow so large, that they can slap swat and bury competition before it arises, or get whole industries to be dominated by few companies that are no longer competing, but accepting of their "market companions" and just collectively raise prices and enshittificate their products.. because the only choice are competitors that are exactly the same.

And even if you are dissatisfied with company A, and switch to B... there will be some mirror-customer who goes from B to A.

(Streaming services, the two choices in smartphones.. or GPUs.. or CPUS.. or consoles.., ISPs, utilities, cars, insurance companies.. )

...

The problem is, that you can't create legislation that is flexible enough to be adaptive and effective.. and you can't legislate fast enough in verbatim to adept to corporate lawyers to weasel out of your wording.

The solution would be election on corporate regulations directly.

"Should Alphabet be split up into an SSO/Email-Service, A company that creates mobile OS, a company that runs a search engine website, and a company that sells advertising space on the internet?"

"Should Meta be forced to split their social networks, and create local business entities in all countries to be hold accountable to local law?"

"Should Apple Inc. be forced to allow alternate Appstores on their Devices"

"Should Microsoft (or any software company) be forced to OpenSource Windows Versions (or any software) that are no longer maintained?"

Capitalism that drives prices down, productivity up and innovation forward is pretty nice.

Capitalism that sits on it's fat arse and just price gauges is even worse than communism.

EnDeR_

Spain2623 Posts

January 15 2025 09:19 GMT

#93867

On January 15 2025 08:09 maybenexttime wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 15 2025 07:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:

On January 15 2025 06:25 maybenexttime wrote:

These are opinions, not evidence.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Ignoring the food comment, people with different backgrounds will approach things differently. Simple example from my own PhD: my colleague (graduated from a top 10 world uni, wealthy parents, private school), whenever he wanted to do any new experiment, his first instinct was to just buy the most expensive piece of kit available that would do the job. I, on the other hand, was much more used to doing things on a budget, so I tended to just cobble together whatever was lying around. Regardless of the outcome, we ended up with very distinct approaches to solving problems, even if our "education" was nominally the same.

Gorsameth

Netherlands21480 Posts

January 15 2025 10:22 GMT

#93868

On January 15 2025 16:51 Falling wrote:
I'm amazed (but probably I shouldn't be) at just how many imperialists are amongst the MAGA fanbase considering how much I was assured they had moved on from Cheney and overseas adventurism.. and that it was no accident that Cheney now supported the Democrats.

I'm amazed because I seeing this defence run up again and again: Of course in trade negotiations Trump refused to rule out military action :

Show nested quote +

Because it was always bullshit.

We had people saying they don't support Kamala because she was a warhawk and Trump isn't even in office yet and he is considering invading F'ing Greenland.

Sbrubbles

Brazil5776 Posts

January 15 2025 11:40 GMT

#93869

On January 15 2025 17:23 KT_Elwood wrote:
It's a fascinating video, but it's too theoretical and absolute.

Water supply by company XY is too expensive? Just wait 5 years until a competitior arises and don't drink water.

A-B Road toll is too expensive? Just wait a year till A-C C-B is done by competitor and just don't go to work.

A "collectivist" approach to create a basis to a free market is much more preferable.

The important thing is not to let companies get either a government issued monopoly, grow so large, that they can slap swat and bury competition before it arises, or get whole industries to be dominated by few companies that are no longer competing, but accepting of their "market companions" and just collectively raise prices and enshittificate their products.. because the only choice are competitors that are exactly the same.

And even if you are dissatisfied with company A, and switch to B... there will be some mirror-customer who goes from B to A.

(Streaming services, the two choices in smartphones.. or GPUs.. or CPUS.. or consoles.., ISPs, utilities, cars, insurance companies.. )

...

The problem is, that you can't create legislation that is flexible enough to be adaptive and effective.. and you can't legislate fast enough in verbatim to adept to corporate lawyers to weasel out of your wording.

The solution would be election on corporate regulations directly.

"Should Alphabet be split up into an SSO/Email-Service, A company that creates mobile OS, a company that runs a search engine website, and a company that sells advertising space on the internet?"

"Should Meta be forced to split their social networks, and create local business entities in all countries to be hold accountable to local law?"

"Should Apple Inc. be forced to allow alternate Appstores on their Devices"

"Should Microsoft (or any software company) be forced to OpenSource Windows Versions (or any software) that are no longer maintained?"

Capitalism that drives prices down, productivity up and innovation forward is pretty nice.

Capitalism that sits on it's fat arse and just price gauges is even worse than communism.

It's funny how in economics (even introduction courses) competition is central to most optimality results yet the importance of effective antitrust policy is ignored or forgotten by politicians who pretend to be free market defenders.

Biden did a lot to toughen antitrust policy through appointing Lina Khan, maybe more than any other US president in the last 40-odd years. I doubt she or her policies will survive under Trump.

KT_Elwood

Germany808 Posts

January 15 2025 12:16 GMT

#93870

On January 15 2025 20:40 Sbrubbles wrote:

It's funny how in economics (even introduction courses) competition is central to most optimality results yet the importance of effective antitrust policy is ignored or forgotten by politicians who pretend to be free market defenders.

Biden did a lot to toughen antitrust policy through appointing Lina Khan, maybe more than any other US president in the last 40-odd years. I doubt she or her policies will survive under Trump.

Allowing de-competition and de-regulation by calling that "Free Market" is almost as painful to watch as christo-fashists try to justify their inhumane policies with "the bible said don't be gay and have abortions"

brian

United States9616 Posts

January 15 2025 12:19 GMT

#93871

the most compelling part of the paper is that there is harm in the law because california publicly shames failure to adhere to some DEI law and as a result its stock drops.

this paper doesn’t say that diversity is bad. it says when california shames noncompliant [i.e. non diverse] companies the companies’ stocks drop. to be clear, this is the converse of your implication.

this isn’t research, this is a nit picked hit piece highlighting cherry-picked statements from other research written by a law professor. what did you google to find this lol

the guy is an expert witness in executive compensation cases and the conclusion is that asset managers are virtue signaling to increase their portfolios at the expense of stock price [again, not demonstrated to be a result of diversity in the workforce] with hypothetical, made up, numbers. i’d quote it but it won’t let me copy paste. hopefully he didn’t get paid too much to write such an impotent take down.

anyway, as it relates to diversity producing [or not] profit, i’ll read whatever’s next instead.

brian

United States9616 Posts

January 15 2025 13:03 GMT

#93872

quoted instead of edited, my bad.

Luolis

Finland7095 Posts

January 15 2025 13:24 GMT

#93873

Btw, what is the Hegseth pick if not DEI for an unqualified white man? Why arent conservatives in a rage about it?

DarkPlasmaBall

United States44019 Posts

January 15 2025 13:34 GMT

#93874

On January 15 2025 22:24 Luolis wrote:
Btw, what is the Hegseth pick if not DEI for an unqualified white man? Why arent conservatives in a rage about it?

Double standard, sadly. What was Donald Trump back in 2016, if not DEI for an unqualified white (orange?) man?

Simberto

Germany11396 Posts

January 15 2025 14:35 GMT

#93875

On January 15 2025 22:24 Luolis wrote:
Btw, what is the Hegseth pick if not DEI for an unqualified white man? Why arent conservatives in a rage about it?

Conservatives never argue in good faith. They say "DEI", but what they actually mean is "hiring people who are not white men".

Uldridge

Belgium4675 Posts

January 15 2025 14:45 GMT

#93876

And they're also stupid and crazy and schizo and so on.

Oh yeah, and it's not just some of them, it's all of them.

Magic Powers

Austria3709 Posts

January 15 2025 16:27 GMT

#93877

On January 15 2025 23:45 Uldridge wrote:
And they're also stupid and crazy and schizo and so on.

Oh yeah, and it's not just some of them, it's all of them.

Other than being against minorities, what else could be the reason that conservatives see no problem with an overabundance of white men in power? I'm asking sincerely, I've never found a reason outside of that.

Uldridge

Belgium4675 Posts

January 15 2025 16:30 GMT

#93878

Why is a conservative, conservative?
Is it a choice?

Magic Powers

Austria3709 Posts

January 15 2025 16:58 GMT

#93879

On January 16 2025 01:30 Uldridge wrote:
Why is a conservative, conservative?
Is it a choice?

Alright I guess you're not interested in discussion to begin with.

ZerOCoolSC2

8960 Posts

January 15 2025 17:14 GMT

#93880

On January 16 2025 01:27 Magic Powers wrote:

Show nested quote +

(In recent history not going past 2000) I'd proffer that it's all they've known and been raised on for the majority of their lives. Everyone in a position of "power" was probably white so that's what they've come to expect. Once Obama was elected, they started panicking harder than usual. They now rage against anything that they perceive takes away power that they believe they are owed and destined to have. Even the deluded poor whites think they're above anyone not white, not understanding that they're not even a consideration to the wealthy whites.

I think it's just an instinctual fear that they've cultivated over time. They can't understand why the world might be moving away from them or are against them. Whatever that means. So whatever it takes to maintain whatever power they think they have, they do all sorts of stupid shit, not least of all cutting their nose to spite their faces. You can look in this chat and see how they've warped their reasoning . They might try to convince themselves it isn't the case, but it's more than likely not they're scared of not having power.

That's just my assumption from observation.

Prev 1 4692 4693 4694 4695 4696 4946 Next

Please or register to reply.

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4694

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming