“Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion”, which part don’t you understand? Companies encouraged different perspectives so they could reach a broader scope of people and make more money. No one’s hiring an inferior candidate to do worse work lol.
Now, using cheaper parts, subscription services for everything, customer lock-in, soldered-on, unrepairable parts, focusing only on short-term profits, removing survices while increasing prices… That race to the bottom all definitely contributes to this current “profit at all costs, screw the consumer” environment…
If DEI made companies more money it wouldn’t have to be legislated, would it. Anyone with a smidge of business sense would absolutely crush it by hiring all the people that racists routinely overlook.
But it…didn’t have to be legislated, and wasn’t. MAGA and racists and Republicans made inclusion policies the bogeyman scapegoat for everything. You know, like someone who would make a false statement such as “corporate America has spent the last 15 years hiring people based on their race instead of their qualifications”. That was never a thing.
Also, I said “they could reach a broader scope of people”, it’s not just about the money. Companies weren’t required to implement these policies, they simply benefitted from them. And not always in terms of metrics like profits you can easily prove are the direct result of these policies. Amplifying voices and perspectives to reach people your company might not otherwise is valuable, but you can certainly run a profitable company without doing it.
Last thing I’ll say is all your comments mischaracterize diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, either ignorantly or intentionally. Please stop watching Fox News…
Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.
If rationality is overrated and DEI is rational, isn’t this an argument to discard it? Conversely, if it isn’t, isn’t this an argument that DEI is irrational?
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.
Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.
Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.
The assumption of rational actors is standard practice in economics, basically every single theorem depends on that. When I pointed out that racism isn’t rational, the argument changed to “well, you can’t assume that everyone is rational”.
Yes. I know. I have a fucking degree in this field. Believe it or not, people have figured out how to deal with that problem a long time ago. Look up the Efficient Market Paradox, and you’ll see why rationality is still a sensible assumption to make.
“Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion”, which part don’t you understand? Companies encouraged different perspectives so they could reach a broader scope of people and make more money. No one’s hiring an inferior candidate to do worse work lol.
Now, using cheaper parts, subscription services for everything, customer lock-in, soldered-on, unrepairable parts, focusing only on short-term profits, removing survices while increasing prices… That race to the bottom all definitely contributes to this current “profit at all costs, screw the consumer” environment…
If DEI made companies more money it wouldn’t have to be legislated, would it. Anyone with a smidge of business sense would absolutely crush it by hiring all the people that racists routinely overlook.
But it…didn’t have to be legislated, and wasn’t. MAGA and racists and Republicans made inclusion policies the bogeyman scapegoat for everything. You know, like someone who would make a false statement such as “corporate America has spent the last 15 years hiring people based on their race instead of their qualifications”. That was never a thing.
Also, I said “they could reach a broader scope of people”, it’s not just about the money. Companies weren’t required to implement these policies, they simply benefitted from them. And not always in terms of metrics like profits you can easily prove are the direct result of these policies. Amplifying voices and perspectives to reach people your company might not otherwise is valuable, but you can certainly run a profitable company without doing it.
Last thing I’ll say is all your comments mischaracterize diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, either ignorantly or intentionally. Please stop watching Fox News…
Oh, weird. What’s this, then?
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/30/2021-14127/diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce
Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.
Putting Rational Actors in Their Place: Economics and Phenomenology
Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics
If rationality is overrated and DEI is rational, isn’t this an argument to discard it? Conversely, if it isn’t, isn’t this an argument that DEI is irrational?
Where did I claim that DEI is rational or irrational? DEI is an evidence-based practice.
Ed: Be sure to look at who you’re engaging with. I have not “changed my argument” as I have only just begun discussing this here.
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.
Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.
Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.
It was not claimed that rationality is overrated.
Yeah, no, that is exactly what was claimed.
The assumption of rational actors is standard practice in economics, basically every single theorem depends on that. When I pointed out that racism isn’t rational, the argument changed to “well, you can’t assume that everyone is rational”.
Yes. I know. I have a fucking degree in this field. Believe it or not, people have figured out how to deal with that problem a long time ago. Look up the Efficient Market Paradox, and you’ll see why rationality is still a sensible assumption to make.