Got deleted. Politics thread is political.until this post I didn't see any
"Diversity makes products so much better and more creative and commercially successful".
Meanwhile the team outselling and outreviewing almost everyone:
"Studies have constantly demonstrated that diverse teams outperform homogenous ones for instance companies with high racial diversity are 35% more likely to have the financial returns above the industry mean inclusive companies are 1.7 times more like likely to be Innovation leaders and varied perspectives breed Innovation creativity and problem solving approaches that are essential in today's rapidly evolving Market landscape"
If this "study" had found that companies with less diversity had higher returns, etc. then it would never see the light of day as it would be deemed entirely racist. What good is any study where the outcome is predetermined? But even if this study were accurate on some level, then are we saying race-based hiring is justified if a company sees financial returns?
No. DEI advocates can't have it both ways. Hiring based on race is racist. Doesn't matter if the speaker in the OP can spin it as good for profits or not.
There are so many ways you can lie and twist the information to make it look like “DEI = good for business”."Studies have constantly demonstrated that diverse teams outperform homogenous ones for instance companies with high racial diversity are 35% more likely to have the financial returns above the industry mean inclusive companies are 1.7 times more like likely to be Innovation leaders and varied perspectives breed Innovation creativity and problem solving approaches that are essential in today's rapidly evolving Market landscape"
If this "study" had found that companies with less diversity had higher returns, etc. then it would never see the light of day as it would be deemed entirely racist. What good is any study where the outcome is predetermined? But even if this study were accurate on some level, then are we saying race-based hiring is justified if a company sees financial returns?
No. DEI advocates can't have it both ways. Hiring based on race is racist. Doesn't matter if the speaker in the OP can spin it as good for profits or not.
if this were true, then hedge funds and other big traders would have figured it out years ago and went long on the racially diverse companies and clean up, because those companies would be massively underpriced in the market. That didn't happen because it's not true. These studies were put out by McKinsey to tell the executives paying them millions of dollars what they wanted to hear, post 2020. You can't just say that people of European descent need to go, that is blatantly illegal (to be sure, many of them did it anyway, but it is illegal), you need a financial justification. So that's why they cooked up these studies."Studies have constantly demonstrated that diverse teams outperform homogenous ones for instance companies with high racial diversity are 35% more likely to have the financial returns above the industry mean inclusive companies are 1.7 times more like likely to be Innovation leaders and varied perspectives breed Innovation creativity and problem solving approaches that are essential in today's rapidly evolving Market landscape"
If this "study" had found that companies with less diversity had higher returns, etc. then it would never see the light of day as it would be deemed entirely racist. What good is any study where the outcome is predetermined? But even if this study were accurate on some level, then are we saying race-based hiring is justified if a company sees financial returns?
No. DEI advocates can't have it both ways. Hiring based on race is racist. Doesn't matter if the speaker in the OP can spin it as good for profits or not.
I'm sure I've asked before but someone please show me a game or show or anything improved by DEI.
It’ll be one of those things where the in-group all start saying it that way just to signal that they’re part of the in group.It's the same thing, but these people are so ridiculously sensitive that they couldn't agree on the order of the letters in the acronym.
Some people place more importance on the E than the D, so will say that the E deserves to be said before the D.
lol who's even making an attempt?Ya'll are never betting the woman hating allegations
does Blackrock and Vanguard have infinite money or there is a shady thing going here? There is a crazy theory about lending money to everyone who forces ESG and then see them go down to buy them for cheap and rein supremeI can only assume ESG money.
Oh no, they do .I can’t believe these people use terms like global citizen and global community and don’t realise how Orwellian it sounds.
It's also illegal and you are going to start seeing a lot more lawsuits coming out in the next several months/years.Hiring based on race is racist.
if this were true, then hedge funds and other big traders would have figured it out years ago and went long on the racially diverse companies and clean up, because those companies would be massively underpriced in the market. That didn't happen because it's not true. These studies were put out by McKinsey to tell the executives paying them millions of dollars what they wanted to hear, post 2020. You can't just say that people of European descent need to go, that is blatantly illegal (to be sure, many of them did it anyway, but it is illegal), you need a financial justification. So that's why they cooked up these studies.
Here is a thorough refutation of those studies: https://maycontainlies.com/discernment-matters-even-more/
Many diversity studies use dubious measures of financial performance, throw away data, and have inadequate controls. This study has all of these problems, as I will shortly describe. But the McKinsey study makes an even more basic error absent from the other studies: they measure diversity after they measure financial performance! In their own words, “The analysis of this report is based on 2022 data on diversity in leadership teams and 2017-2021 data on financial performance.” This makes it very likely that any relationship is due to reverse causality: it is financial performance that allows companies to invest in diversity, rather than diversity causing financial performance.
McKinsey is a premier consulting firm, but that is very different from having expertise in scientific research. The team composition makes it more likely that the study is advocacy, rather than scientific research.
McKinsey make the same basic errors that they did in all their earlier papers, despite the numerous problems having been pointed out (and covered in non-academic outlets such as the Wall Street Journal), and also by other researchers.
you want the game console market to grow beyond 200M, but you don't want women to buy game consoles.
I can’t believe these people use terms like global citizen and global community and don’t realise how Orwellian it sounds.
GTFO with that crap manyou want the game console market to grow beyond 200M, but you don't want women to buy game consoles.
you want the game console market to grow beyond 200M, but you don't want women to buy game consoles.
you want the game console market to grow beyond 200M, but you don't want women to buy game consoles.
1 word: Disney.
1 question: Why are you going to succeed when they have objectively failed since pivoting hard towards DEI ?