51–60 of 208 posts
I guess we’ve stopped hiring the best people for the job. Moves like this put the US at a competitive disadvantage. We can solve our inequality problems without making us weak. The US army took equal opportunity seriously long ago, their model works and can be replicated.
Pure spectacle. We need workplace democracy and social services for everyone! Healthcare, housing, and integration on a local level. That's what it means to change society, not changing the paint on a machine that grinds people up and spits them out.
The country got worse thanks to Obama's presidency because he refused to even chip away at pure financial capitalism and let people get crushed in the financial crisis. His refusal to help people created the "liquidity trap" that strangles the economy because people have no money to spend in an economic system that requires a buyer and a seller.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what you are saying is that women and people of color are not capable of competing on merit? they have to be installed by decree? i am insulted.
It's not that they're incapable of competing on merit; it's that the established institutions are unwilling to recognize based on merit, and a coercive outside force is required to counterbalance the entrenched racism & sexism until we're at a point where society can function on a truly meritocratic basis on its own.
Example?
Y'know, back in my day we had a word for this... I think it was "racism" but I'm not entirely sure
The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about equity, not equality, and it's increasingly clear that a lot of people don't know the difference.
Punishing someone based on “wrong” color/gender is evil.
Nothing will really change here in practice.
The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…
If a board rejects a (very) competent person based on the person’s gender, race, sexuality, age, then… they lost a very competent person. That person will do great work outside of that board. Can we agree on this? Also, is that some sort of Nash equilibrium?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?
The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what you are saying is that women and people of color are not capable of competing on merit? they have to be installed by decree? i am insulted.
It's not that they're incapable of competing on merit; it's that the established institutions are unwilling to recognize based on merit, and a coercive outside force is required to counterbalance the entrenched racism & sexism until we're at a point where society can function on a truly meritocratic basis on its own.