I saw some people think that it was a new thing on the other post two days ago talking about how Nasdaq's ceo threatening to delist companies that dont meet a certain "diversity quota" on their board, but i was surprised no one else brought up that this is something that happened earlier in the year with Goldman Sachs https://archive.is/dizhR
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
The studies usually shows companies that were very profitable without being diverse and later became diverse as the company grew. Most IT companies are like this. Most IT companies are automatically diverse by simply having branches in India, Europe and Latin America. I doubt there is any actual proof that enforcing diversity helps. There was some evidence of the contrary with small startups that prioritize diversity tend to flop.
The new studies will be much more conclusve because white companies will be barred from receiving any money ever.
They'll probably delare that studdies that show that "non-diverse" companies have been rendered unprofitable due to external corruption are hate speech.
No different than sweden deciding not to report the race of criminal offenders. Or the FBI counting Hispanics as whites when calculating criminal offenders.
A meta study (done by a woman from Wharton) of all the studies that claim to prove diversity leads to better results found that they were full of shit. The results were manipulated to get the result that they desired, but when you cut through the bullshit there was nothing there.
There almost never is. They start from the conclusion. That's why they hate the hard sciences, objectivity, merit et al so much.
Natural diversity/homogeny has zero effect on a company.
Forced diversity is pretty much garanteed to damage a company, though you might be able to get away with forced homogeny in certian curcumstances.