Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 231 posts

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#151

Post by [deleted] »

oneoff786 wrote: post #143
gurkendoktor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly: Most studies that I've been referred to are shiny McKinsey pages that boil down to big companies having more diverse boards on average. Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers. And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rig…

I’ve done some work adjacent to those shiny mckinsey pages. The mergers wouldn’t explain it. It’s not looking at size, it’s looking at growth and success relative to where they were some period of time ago. It’s probably a bit tautological. The only effective way to make your company more diverse is to grow and hire diverse candidates. This is not the case for top level leadership though. Boards as well. Growing comp…

[deleted]

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#152

Post by [deleted] »

armchairhacker wrote: post #123
Animats wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...

I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.

[deleted]

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#153

Post by slibhb »

88913527 wrote: post #2

This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's importa…

> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders.

If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#154

Post by ohCh6zos »

lanstin wrote: post #90
burnished wrote: post #43

Good, sort of a ridiculous law. I'm ignorant so excuse me if this sounds ridiculous, but shouldn't the politicians and law makers be working with communities to create improved outcomes directly instead of signing in laws at random?

Sending teams to white, heteronormative neighborhoods to encourage people to really see the people around them as fully human with differing life experiences?

I'm not sure I've seen evidence that they don't see them as fully human?

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#155

Post by anamax »

temp8964 wrote: post #118
inetknght wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or…

Why do you need those reasons? It doesn't like pro-abortion, it's anti-abortion by limiting its use cases. If you are pro-abortion, you would happily suggest any pregnant women to abort their babies.

There are multiple groups who advocate abortion for "those people." (Different groups have different definitions of "those people.")

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#156

Post by [deleted] »

rectang wrote: post #68
atty wrote: post #30

While I think this is probably the right decision (I’m no constitutional scholar or lawyer though, to be fair), it does bring up the question of why boards and C-suites are still pretty homogeneous, when most research supports the idea that diverse boards and executive teams perform better in the market. And that’s not even considering the fact that I believe our society (including our companies) has a moral imperati…

You don't need to look far for an explanation, it's right here in this discussion. Others do not see diversity of representation as an imperative. What you or I might consider massive iniquity in perpetuity isn't considered something that needs a remedy, or even something that should be acknowledged as meaningful.

[deleted]

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#157

Post by car_analogy »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #65
car_analogy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to attribute different outcomes to differences in behavior by race? In this case, you're saying that Jewish students are 11x more hard-working than Hispanic ones, and Asian students are 6x more hard-working than Black ones? Which other racial disparities do you attribute to differences in behavior?

>In this case, you're saying that Jewish students are 11x more hard-working than Hispanic ones, and Asian students are 6x more hard-working than Black ones? Does Michael Phelps (23 Olympic gold medals) swim 23x faster than Mack Horton (1 Olympic gold medal)?

Fine. N-times more likely to be hard-working enough for the Ivy League.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#158

Post by jdrc »

fatbird wrote: post #53
jdrc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others

"The sum of its parts" is a very opaque phrase here. But even without defining it, anyone with work experience has some understanding of the effect of workplace dynamics, environmental factors, office morale, and other intangible influences on one's productivity and hence, the business's success. In other words, there are emergent properties in the calculus of success, and pursuing diversity is one way of trying to c…

Sorry, you put a lot of buzzwords there, but buzzwords do not constitute any proof. It's certainly true in low-skill businesses like , i dunno, agriculture that production scales linearly. If nonlinear interactions occur it would be interesting to name them, instead of attributing it to some kind of magic ether. I dont like this completely vague explanation because it's exactly the rhetoric that people mock when they want to attack diversity

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#159

Post by jdrc »

jchw wrote: post #131
jdrc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others

Great; I definitely do not accept that, and in fact it’s pretty trivially false even if you can’t really prove it.

to begin with, that's logically false [unless u mean it's undecideable which is a vanishingly small probability]

i also have no interest in replying to flame bait

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#160

Post by temp8964 »

fishywang wrote: post #100
temp8964 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anybody pro abortion?

Gender equality. In most cases it takes a man and a woman to conceive a fetus. But if the fetus is finally born into a baby, the consequence of that is rarely divided evenly between the man and the woman. In extreme but not really uncommon cases, the division can be 100%-0%: that the man bears no consequences at all and the woman bears all the consequences. Abortion makes the consequence close to 0, so that it's more…

I don't see how you said links to pro abortion.
Post reply on HN