|
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 |
On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: Show nested quote +A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive?
Last time pro-diversity data was cited using a McKinsey source, we got a lot of dismissals and "correlation =/= causation" by those who argue against DEI initiatives. I'm not sure what could convince them otherwise.
https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4693#93846
|
On March 13 2025 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Last time pro-diversity data was cited using a McKinsey source, we got a lot of dismissals and "correlation =/= causation" by those who argue against DEI initiatives. I'm not sure what could convince them otherwise. https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4693#93846
Ah, I missed your post the first time around. I guess this is going to go un-answered then.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella. Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town. Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers.
Fair point, which is why I think insofar as possible the benefits of green initiatives should be somewhat tangible as well, to counteract that ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ effect.
New jobs, better quality of your air, water etc. Both more energy independence and ideally, cheaper energy if it can possibly delivered.
I think the problem we’re currently having is not a ‘what’s the point trying if other people aren’t?’ problem, but an active political hostility to the very idea.
|
On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella.
Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town.
Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers.
But isn't the release of pollutants into the air one of the major driving factors of human-accelerated climate change? Air pollution examples, such as industrial emissions and burning fossil fuels, are significant players in the overall conversation that includes both immediate/local and long-term/global issues, right? (That's not all there is to the topic of climate change, but I feel like pollution is still pretty relevant.)
I do agree with your prisoner's dilemma reference though, and the fact that we'd need a lot of people/groups/countries to all chip in to address climate change.
|
On March 13 2025 22:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella.
Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town.
Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers. But isn't the release of pollutants into the air one of the major driving factors of human-accelerated climate change? Air pollution examples, such as industrial emissions and burning fossil fuels, are significant players in the overall conversation that includes both immediate/local and long-term/global issues, right? (That's not all there is to the topic of climate change, but I feel like pollution is still pretty relevant.) I do agree with your prisoner's dilemma reference though, and the fact that we'd need a lot of people/groups/countries to all chip in to address climate change.
There's definitely a difference between stuff like CO2/methane emissions and particulates/NOx, etc. Not to mention water pollution and other very obvious things the EPA regulates.
|
Water pollution, diatomeceous death, oceans acidify, less oxygen production, ...
The cascade is there, albeit done with very broad brushstrokes.
|
On March 13 2025 22:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella.
Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town.
Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers. But isn't the release of pollutants into the air one of the major driving factors of human-accelerated climate change? Air pollution examples, such as industrial emissions and burning fossil fuels, are significant players in the overall conversation that includes both immediate/local and long-term/global issues, right? (That's not all there is to the topic of climate change, but I feel like pollution is still pretty relevant.) I do agree with your prisoner's dilemma reference though, and the fact that we'd need a lot of people/groups/countries to all chip in to address climate change.
I actually don't know about pollutants and climate change. As far as i know, most gases that contribute to climate changes are otherwise completely unproblematic, but often come bundled with problematic stuff.
Let's take the big one: CO2. CO2 is odorless, invisible, and doesn't lead to any health problems (If you are not literally suffocating) If CO2 didn't lead to climate change, pumping it into the atmosphere would be absolutely no problem, and i don't think i would classify it as a pollutant. Your neighbour emitting some CO2 has no negative effects on your life. But since CO2 usually comes from burning stuff, it is often emitted in combination with other stuff that is actually bad for you (like smoke and microparticulates)
My understanding of pollution is that it is stuff that gets emitted into the environment that is bad for you if you take it in from the environment in some way. Smoke in the air, toxins in the water, that kind of stuff. And afaik the climate changing gases don't really do that.
I agree with your other post that the discussion about climate change seems to have shifted from opposition based in opportunistic egoism to opposition based in antagonistic hate, and i can't quite understand how that happened.
|
On March 13 2025 22:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 22:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella.
Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town.
Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers. But isn't the release of pollutants into the air one of the major driving factors of human-accelerated climate change? Air pollution examples, such as industrial emissions and burning fossil fuels, are significant players in the overall conversation that includes both immediate/local and long-term/global issues, right? (That's not all there is to the topic of climate change, but I feel like pollution is still pretty relevant.) I do agree with your prisoner's dilemma reference though, and the fact that we'd need a lot of people/groups/countries to all chip in to address climate change. I actually don't know about pollutants and climate change. As far as i know, most gases that contribute to climate changes are otherwise completely unproblematic, but often come bundled with problematic stuff. Let's take the big one: CO2. CO2 is odorless, invisible, and doesn't lead to any health problems (If you are not literally suffocating) If CO2 didn't lead to climate change, pumping it into the atmosphere would be absolutely no problem, and i don't think i would classify it as a pollutant. Your neighbour emitting some CO2 has no negative effects on your life. But since CO2 usually comes from burning stuff, it is often emitted in combination with other stuff that is actually bad for you (like smoke and microparticulates) My understanding of pollution is that it is stuff that gets emitted into the environment that is bad for you if you take it in from the environment in some way. Smoke in the air, toxins in the water, that kind of stuff. And afaik the climate changing gases don't really do that. I agree with your other post that the discussion about climate change seems to have shifted from opposition based in opportunistic egoism to opposition based in antagonistic hate, and i can't quite understand how that happened.
I was precisely thinking of CO2 too lol. I know that CO2 is naturally occurring, but I figured that its increased release through burning fossil fuels would allow it to eventually be characterized as pollution. While it doesn't necessarily have harmful effects in measured amounts, having too much of it helps to create the negative effect. Maybe my inclusion of CO2 as an example of air pollution was too broad of a definition though; I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing it.
|
On March 13 2025 22:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 22:33 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 22:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella.
Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town.
Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers. But isn't the release of pollutants into the air one of the major driving factors of human-accelerated climate change? Air pollution examples, such as industrial emissions and burning fossil fuels, are significant players in the overall conversation that includes both immediate/local and long-term/global issues, right? (That's not all there is to the topic of climate change, but I feel like pollution is still pretty relevant.) I do agree with your prisoner's dilemma reference though, and the fact that we'd need a lot of people/groups/countries to all chip in to address climate change. I actually don't know about pollutants and climate change. As far as i know, most gases that contribute to climate changes are otherwise completely unproblematic, but often come bundled with problematic stuff. Let's take the big one: CO2. CO2 is odorless, invisible, and doesn't lead to any health problems (If you are not literally suffocating) If CO2 didn't lead to climate change, pumping it into the atmosphere would be absolutely no problem, and i don't think i would classify it as a pollutant. Your neighbour emitting some CO2 has no negative effects on your life. But since CO2 usually comes from burning stuff, it is often emitted in combination with other stuff that is actually bad for you (like smoke and microparticulates) My understanding of pollution is that it is stuff that gets emitted into the environment that is bad for you if you take it in from the environment in some way. Smoke in the air, toxins in the water, that kind of stuff. And afaik the climate changing gases don't really do that. I agree with your other post that the discussion about climate change seems to have shifted from opposition based in opportunistic egoism to opposition based in antagonistic hate, and i can't quite understand how that happened. I was precisely thinking of CO2 too lol. I know that CO2 is naturally occurring, but I figured that its increased release through burning fossil fuels would allow it to eventually be characterized as pollution. While it doesn't necessarily have harmful effects in measured amounts, having too much of it helps to create the negative effect. Maybe my inclusion of CO2 as an example of air pollution was too broad of a definition though; I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing it.
I think this is mostly an issue of definitions. If we define "pollution" as "stuff we emit (usually as a sideproduct of what we actually want to do) that has negative effects", then CO2 definitively counts. But to me, it doesn't really "feel" like pollution, so i would prefer a definition that is more local and immediate. Something like "Stuff we emit that leads to health risks when incorporated", maybe with an inclusion of stuff that leads to health risks in animals or plants.
But no matter the terms we use, i think the core point i want to make is that we benefit from differentiating between the local, immediate pollution, and the global effect pollution like global warming (or the ozone layer stuff from two decades ago). While they have some superficial similarities, they require very different approaches and psychology to effectively tangle, and trying to treat them as basically the same thing leads to confusion and subpar results.
|
On March 13 2025 23:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 22:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 22:33 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 22:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:51 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2025 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 21:26 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just as he promised during the election, Trump is accelerating the destruction of our planet: "The Trump administration announced its intent to roll back major climate policies Wednesday, including rules that target pollution from vehicles and power plants, in a major blow to America’s progress on clean air, clean water and climate action. ... The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity. Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming." https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html Ah, fantastic. Sigh. The thing with some of this is like, even if you don’t believe in climate change, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t believe in regular air pollution, or that of water tables etc, and this also doesn’t exactly help there. That reminds me a little bit of how Creationists will sometimes concede that there is microevolution / changes within a species, yet refuse to believe in speciation / the evolution of new species. Sure, they may argue, pollution isn't great and you don't want to directly breathe in any black smoke that you can see, but those are just minor "common sense" things that each person may or may not care about, and to suggest that those normalized drawbacks would lead to the ice caps melting and the world burning up is just fearmongering and slippery slope craziness and a desire for government overreach (and something something "Big Science"). I don't think i agree here. Pollution is only similar to climate change because both involve stuff going into the air. Other than that, they are very different topics. And i don't think we benefit from putting them into the same umbrella.
Pollution is an immediate and local problem, and that seems to be something that humanity is actually pretty good at handling. Everyone is happier if they can breathe the air around them. Changing stuff in your town makes things better in your town.
Climate change is much more diffuse, long-term and global. Changing stuff in your town doesn't really do anything. Only if all towns change stuff are effects felt. This kind of prisoners dilemma situation seems to be one that humanity is very bad at handling, because someone always chooses to snitch, which means that everyone chooses to snitch because otherwise they feel like suckers. But isn't the release of pollutants into the air one of the major driving factors of human-accelerated climate change? Air pollution examples, such as industrial emissions and burning fossil fuels, are significant players in the overall conversation that includes both immediate/local and long-term/global issues, right? (That's not all there is to the topic of climate change, but I feel like pollution is still pretty relevant.) I do agree with your prisoner's dilemma reference though, and the fact that we'd need a lot of people/groups/countries to all chip in to address climate change. I actually don't know about pollutants and climate change. As far as i know, most gases that contribute to climate changes are otherwise completely unproblematic, but often come bundled with problematic stuff. Let's take the big one: CO2. CO2 is odorless, invisible, and doesn't lead to any health problems (If you are not literally suffocating) If CO2 didn't lead to climate change, pumping it into the atmosphere would be absolutely no problem, and i don't think i would classify it as a pollutant. Your neighbour emitting some CO2 has no negative effects on your life. But since CO2 usually comes from burning stuff, it is often emitted in combination with other stuff that is actually bad for you (like smoke and microparticulates) My understanding of pollution is that it is stuff that gets emitted into the environment that is bad for you if you take it in from the environment in some way. Smoke in the air, toxins in the water, that kind of stuff. And afaik the climate changing gases don't really do that. I agree with your other post that the discussion about climate change seems to have shifted from opposition based in opportunistic egoism to opposition based in antagonistic hate, and i can't quite understand how that happened. I was precisely thinking of CO2 too lol. I know that CO2 is naturally occurring, but I figured that its increased release through burning fossil fuels would allow it to eventually be characterized as pollution. While it doesn't necessarily have harmful effects in measured amounts, having too much of it helps to create the negative effect. Maybe my inclusion of CO2 as an example of air pollution was too broad of a definition though; I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing it. I think this is mostly an issue of definitions. If we define "pollution" as "stuff we emit (usually as a sideproduct of what we actually want to do) that has negative effects", then CO2 definitively counts. But to me, it doesn't really "feel" like pollution, so i would prefer a definition that is more local and immediate. Something like "Stuff we emit that leads to health risks when incorporated", maybe with an inclusion of stuff that leads to health risks in animals or plants. But no matter the terms we use, i think the core point i want to make is that we benefit from differentiating between the local, immediate pollution, and the global effect pollution like global warming (or the ozone layer stuff from two decades ago). While they have some superficial similarities, they require very different approaches and psychology to effectively tangle, and trying to treat them as basically the same thing leads to confusion and subpar results.
Agreed 
|
On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: Show nested quote +A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive?
Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right.
If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers.
I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century.
I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin.
|
On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin.
So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result?
|
BIG4 habe a rich history of adivisng that executives need to double their salary and pay for it by firing more people.
That's the whole spiel and why executives hire them.
|
On March 14 2025 00:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin. So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result?
If we only assume I'm the hypothetical CEO and nothing else changes:
I wouldn't do it on my own but I could be convinced by lower ranked employees to pour some resources into preparing a diversification plan I would later consult with the rest of the company. If (for example) the accounting said the plan isn't very costly to implement and the PR department said it would greatly improve my company's image in the eyes of our target audience, I would recommend following the plan.
If we assume I'm the hypothetical CEO, I'm 100% sure diversification will be profitable and it's up to me to find a way to achieve that goal:
This is a very hard question to answer because of the multiple unknowns but I would look into soft measures that wouldn't entail making it harder to get or keep a job at my company to people who are currently overrepresented. I would make sure our anti-discrimation policies are working correctly. I would look into our hiring practices and try to make our job adverts more visible to minorities. This includes being open to hiring foreigners even if it means fewer jobs for my countrymen and keeping the local minorities underrepresented btw*.
If those soft measures wouldn't work I would just give up instead of making risky moves like promoting worse performing employees purely because they fit the diversity criteria. I'm only a CEO of a single company, I'm not responsible for the whole market. It's not my fault if some field is currently dominated by X kind of people. If I was a CEO of a very big company, I might consider sponsoring schools and universities in the areas with more minorities.
* - This is why I think some things should be regulated by the state and we shouldn't leave everything to the mythical invisible hand. I'm not a libertarian.
|
I'm sometimes wondering what CEOs actually are and how sustainable growth is looked at, or like some homeostatic carved out piece of the market that understands its place in the market and does enough to stay competitive but where growth is like.. subservient to actual sound business?
Is growth = more volume, more margin, more customers, more infrastructure from the hypothesis to be able to compete?
Or is growth something that makes you last because you leave a deep image of trustworthiness with your end users?
Not only have companies become predatory in the market, I feel like this sentiment has now crept into the company itself, where they're scrambling to figure out what the most efficient metrics are and making everything as lean as possible. It's all a numbers game at the moment and it seems like this goes at the cost of the employee and customers relations. Meanwhile you have middle and upper management having these lavish mutiple day meetings trying to figure out why the next strategy to find x amount more revenue while standing on crumbling infrastructure.
Procedures are hollowed out (not updated and skimmed), starting employees aren't decently trained, systems are outdated, projects aren't followed through or presented in an abysmal state. I'm ranting about my experiences but I don't believe for a second this isn't happening at other multinationals.
The problem is, as long as things keep chugging along, people get pais, mangement can smile and shake hands and lowest level employees keep eating shit begging for things to change. Promises promises.
So. My rant in mind. How will you be convinced as a CEO to actively change something that might potentially do a thing that isn't necessarily relate to your numbers being better then before? You just have a be a decent human being I guess. Profit isn't everything. Standing firm in your market and not building on crooked steps and cardboard walls is probably a better idea imo. Much more difficult, much more daring.
To relate to your second, how will you accurately be able to define, based on your non-diverse business analysts what diversity is and how this impacts things? Who even compiles the numbers and understand the true nature of diversity? Is being diverse a reflection of your society, or the markets you operate in? Is that being more diverse than society?
How would you even calculate that cost-payoff analysis?
Like you said: it's such a difficult thing to figure out.
|
On March 14 2025 01:50 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 00:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin. So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result? If we only assume I'm the hypothetical CEO and nothing else changes: I wouldn't do it on my own but I could be convinced by lower ranked employees to pour some resources into preparing a diversification plan I would later consult with the rest of the company. If (for example) the accounting said the plan isn't very costly to implement and the PR department said it would greatly improve my company's image in the eyes of our target audience, I would recommend following the plan. If we assume I'm the hypothetical CEO, I'm 100% sure diversification will be profitable and it's up to me to find a way to achieve that goal: This is a very hard question to answer because of the multiple unknowns but I would look into soft measures that wouldn't entail making it harder to get or keep a job at my company to people who are currently overrepresented. I would make sure our anti-discrimation policies are working correctly. I would look into our hiring practices and try to make our job adverts more visible to minorities. This includes being open to hiring foreigners even if it means fewer jobs for my countrymen and keeping the local minorities underrepresented btw*. If those soft measures wouldn't work I would just give up instead of making risky moves like promoting worse performing employees purely because they fit the diversity criteria. I'm only a CEO of a single company, I'm not responsible for the whole market. It's not my fault if some field is currently dominated by X kind of people. If I was a CEO of a very big company, I might consider sponsoring schools and universities in the areas with more minorities. * - This is why I think some things should be regulated by the state and we shouldn't leave everything to the mythical invisible hand. I'm not a libertarian.
Thanks for engaging! I actually agree with you that positive discrimination is not really a sustainable way forward at that level. Ensuring anti-discrimination policies are in place and working effectively are actually the main goal of most EDI initiatives, so you sound like you are actually on board with the program! The hard part is the implementation, i.e. how do you actually ensure anti-discrimination practices are working? It is very easy to justify that a particular profile just 'fit' the job better than a similar profile.
How would you ensure visibility for your job adverts? A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Would you consider this a form of discrimination?
What do you think about "direct to interview" policies? For instance, if you are trying to increase representation from a particular group and you have a new job opening, would you consider automatically shortlisting anyone from that group that fulfills the essential criteria even if that would necessarily mean you have to remove a candidate out from the 'more represented' group from the pool?
|
It's not that hard.
-Transparent and accessible application process
-Make the screening process as objective as possible such as reacting names/other demographic information
-Standardized interview format
-Recruiting training for HR and interviewers (inherent biases, how to evaluate objectively, etc.)
-Track your progress, continuously improve your process
|
United States43210 Posts
During the election
Biden said:
Egg shortages are due to the culling of infected birds and a lag between hatching new chicks for egg laying and them reaching maturity. The supply problem has already been fixed, it just takes about 8 months for a hen to start laying and longer to reach peak production. Once the laying stocks are recovered the prices will come down.
Trump said:
Sleepy Joe hates America, I'll fix egg prices day 1.
After the election
New secret information that I just learned and am able to share with you for the first time. I just learned that Biden actually killed all the egg laying chickens. Sad. It's all his fault, nothing I can do about it.
+ Show Spoiler +
In a month
Trump:
I just fixed egg prices. MAGA!
|
I assume these morons don't know that its entirely normal to kill infected chickens, and any other chickens in a radius around infected farms to try and stop the spread.
|
United States43210 Posts
On March 14 2025 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:
I assume these morons don't know that its entirely normal to kill infected chickens, and any other chickens in a radius around infected farms to try and stop the spread.
But they didn't seem to know that there was bird flu during the election when bird flu was explained to them. They're not just the slowest horse in the race, they're the slowest goat in the horse race. And they're completely convinced of their own brilliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXucTQWcAI7ylK?format=jpg&name=900x900)
