The DEI thread

[Valmy]

The reporter tried to point out that's the point of EDI but she just went on like a broken record.

I thought the point of DEI was to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

They do this by trying to remove bias from work places

Remember affirmative action and quotas are illegal. So you can't just make it diverse in a brute force way. But you remove the blocks to achieving diversity organically.

[Razgovory]

Does it work?

[Admiral Yi]

To ensure a meritocracy.

What Raz said.

[Valmy]

Does it work?

It might. Figuring that out sounds like a lot of work.

What if it did?

[Razgovory]

Does it work?

It might. Figuring that out sounds like a lot of work.

What if it did?

That would be good.

[Josquius]

To ensure a meritocracy.

What Raz said.

Profit focussed companies wouldn't be doing it if it didn't.

It does seem to have other evidence too. E. G.
https://raeng.org.uk/business-case-for-good-edi-practices
https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/why-edi-is-important-for-employers-and-how-it-benefits-you/

I will say from my experience having a diverse team definitely helps with innovation.

[Razgovory]

That's not great reasoning.  They may do it because they were pressured to do so, or because they want to appeal to certain demographics, or they may do it and it doesn't work but they keep on anyway because of inertia.

[Josquius]

That's not great reasoning.  They may do it because they were pressured to do so, or because they want to appeal to certain demographics, or they may do it and it doesn't work but they keep on anyway because of inertia.

Its perfect reasoning. Profit focussed companies won't do something en masse if it doesn't help their bottom line.

And appealing to "certain demographics" is part of why it's a good idea, not an argument against it.

Also nice that you ignore there's actual evidence too.

[HVC]

That's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

[Josquius]

That's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Yet still most companies at least give lip service to sustainability.
Yes there are laws controlling how polluting they can be but usually they go further than this.
Because crunch the numbers and it's good for business. Marketing and image is important.

Then as mentioned there's the more immediate gains from recruiting from a larger pool and having more diverse ideas.

[Admiral Yi]

Profit focussed companies wouldn't be doing it if it didn't.

So when some stopped doing it, presumably it didn't work for them.

It does seem to have other evidence too. E. G.
https://raeng.org.uk/business-case-for-good-edi-practices
https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/why-edi-is-important-for-employers-and-how-it-benefits-you/

I will say from my experience having a diverse team definitely helps with innovation.

The second link doesn't provide a shred of evidence.  The first link provides exactly one piece of evidence.

[HVC]

That's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Yet still most companies at least give lip service to sustainability.
Yes there are laws controlling how polluting they can be but usually they go further than this.
Because crunch the numbers and it's good for business. Marketing and image is important.

Then as mentioned there's the more immediate gains from recruiting from a larger pool and having more diverse ideas.

Your theory doesn't flow. If a company is purely profit driven then they'd hire the best candidate regardless of race gender or creed. Therefore DEI actually limits the hiring pool by removing a class from contention. You can't have it both ways.

[crazy canuck]

That's not great reasoning.  They may do it because they were pressured to do so, or because they want to appeal to certain demographics, or they may do it and it doesn't work but they keep on anyway because of inertia.

Its perfect reasoning. Profit focussed companies won't do something en masse if it doesn't help their bottom line.

And appealing to "certain demographics" is part of why it's a good idea, not an argument against it.

Also nice that you ignore there's actual evidence too.

If profit motive was the only reason, we would not need Human Rights Laws. Companies would not discriminate because it is in their self interest.  It turns out though that Human Rights Tribunals are full up with work as it seems a lot of companies did not get the memo.

[Josquius]

Sure.
But what we are talking about here is a policy companies do follow due to the profit motive. What laws there are tend to be more about banning discrimination than encouraging diversity

So when some stopped doing it, presumably it didn't work for them.

Sure.
Or at least they believed so.
Though if you compare for instance the recent performance of Musks companies vs e.g. Costco...
Early days so this is purely based on the vibes (go woke go broke). It'll take time to show how limiting your recruitment pool can be damaging.

That's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Yet still most companies at least give lip service to sustainability.
Yes there are laws controlling how polluting they can be but usually they go further than this.
Because crunch the numbers and it's good for business. Marketing and image is important.

Then as mentioned there's the more immediate gains from recruiting from a larger pool and having more diverse ideas.

Your theory doesn't flow. If a company is purely profit driven then they'd hire the best candidate regardless of race gender or creed. Therefore DEI actually limits the hiring pool by removing a class from contention. You can't have it both ways.

EDI is about hiring the best candidates regardless of race, gender, or creed.
That's the reason it exists.
That's where the Muskites are so dumb when they claim to hate DEI because they're meritocrats.

The fact that when you start doing this you no longer have 100% straight white guys is good for marketing is a nice bonus.

[HVC]

Again, if a company is profit driven then they'd just hire the best candidate. Why would they need DEI (i guess EDI over there?) ? DEI must have some mechanism of enforcement beyond profit considerations then.

I'm not championing or condemning DEI* I just take issue with your reasoning. One can argue that DEI is a social good fine. But to argue that it's there because it aids a companies bottom line is, to borrow a brit phrase, daft.

*actually I will condemn one aspect, but mainly as a means of countering a point that you made that that it helps the bottom line by expanding the hiring pool.  Take engineering as an example because it's easy and I work with both good and bad ones.  Having a DEI target of 50/50 screws a company over. Men vastly number women in the field. Let say for simple math 75/25. Not only is filling the DEI quota hard, thus having vacancies, you'd have to hire women who are inferior in skills to men. The math gets even more damning when mixing in race. Again  social pressure can make it happen, and it can even be a social benefit, but it's not a profit benefit to a company.