Get a Mazda, they arent perfect (they dmca’d the Homeassistant integration), but at least they have immediately started to help Californias and as far as I was able to find out, they didn’t crawl in to Trump’s pocket…at least, until now… Only downside is, the CX-50 is made in the same plant as the Toyota Corolla Cross.

Cool, new reply to Amazon & Meta recruiters.

DEI was just blockchain but for HR.

It’s almost like… They never cared in the first place. I don’t know why so many people are shocked. They only ever cared about money. The millisecond they were no longer at risk of losing capitol for not having a thing of course they were all gonna drop it.

It’s all money. They change their policies to suit their shareholders. The shareholders could not care less that they are discriminating against minority groups.

Fuck all of this. I hope every CEO gets what is coming to them-Painfully, broadcasted live.

It is weird along with the whole tail end of the election and the confidence Trump and Musk displayed knowing they were going to retake control. I wonder if they have something secret in their back pocket that they’re using as leverage which we’ll all see at some later date.

maybe it has something to do with the plans to gut the federal government

The nationwide poll (aka, the election) was a pretty good data point for current feelings on the topic. It’s not nearly as cool today to hire people based on their race.

Because the people who are ‘correct’ for the job always end up being white guys who are direct relatives of someone in management

Fully agree in an ideal world.

But in practice, if men, for example, are the only people hired, they tend to be the only people who get experience, making them always the most qualified for the job.

Extra Facts: For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry. Not all industries are equal so your through fits really well in some places and less so in others.

DEI didn’t force anyone to hire anybody

If a corporation wants free money then they can staff a diverse workforce. It’s literally always been a choice.

Only the idiots are convinced this is a real issue at all. It’s a distraction from actual problems in the world that negativity effect people.

DEI laws were required to be created during integration because non whites were being denied loans, jobs, and houses based on race, those are the real DEI laws they want to repeal along side diversity subsidies.

BTW incentivizing diversity measurably improves the wealth/income gap between whites/non whites today and helps upward mobility, which is why they still exist.

As long as you’re on board with systemic racism, sure. DEI programs were created to address historic discrimination against minorities.

yes that would be the logic behind dropping DEI programs

While not exactly the same thing as DEI programs, affirmative action programs have a history of efficacy studies that demonstrate positive (if only moderately so) results. However, there’s also solid research that points to backlash effects and criticisms of “positive discrimination.” In other words, while affirmative action programs do somewhat accomplish their goals of helping minority groups achieve, they come at the cost of intentionally discriminating against majority groups (mainly Whites), which understandably creates antipathy towards them from the majority groups. Also, despite some people’s claims that these programs don’t give slots to minority candidates with weaker test scores, resumes, etc, actual examinations of them have shown that this is not actually the case in practice, and that companies and schools have given preference for weaker scoring minority candidates in order to create the public image of being more diverse.

Basically, affirmative action is a mixed bag and I suspect DEI programs are similarly so. The overall net effect may still be positive though, if only slightly.

Personally, I think a better strategy would be to improve education systems for poor communities. Instead of focusing on race directly, focus on improving outcomes for the poor. Due to overlaps in racial and economic variables, you’ll wind up helping racial minorities while avoiding the criticism of engaging in “positive discrimination.” Plus, fixing the pipeline problem early on is a more efficient approach, since it focuses on preventing people from failing early on rather than trying to fix their failures later on.

As a trans person, I can tell you that it’s generally pretty huge to see it in the mission statement, but followthrough and clearly outlined internal policy is priceless.

DEI policy costs corporation = ~3% of its training budget. The reality of a woman being hired for a position she would have never been considered for before DEI = priceless.

They had effects on Boeing.

Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I’m not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don’t think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they’re going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.

Tim Apple donated to the guy who wants to make DEI illegal though, so if Apple does stay the course, I just hope it ends up being under someone else’s leadership.

I don’t think consumers really cared until the rightwing brainwashing machine told them it was the most pressing topic in existence right now.

I see people online screaming that they’re going to cancel their costco membership because they decided to keep the program. I have yet to see a single person explain how Costco’s hiring decisions affect them in any way.

I would wager the vast majority of consumers don’t give a damn about things like this. And in cases that they do, it’s much more likely that they’ll care about the absence of such programs than the reverse.

Why?