DEI is about improving diversity and preventing racial bias in the hiring process (which very much exists because people are people). It’s not about helping poor people.
Regardless of its positive benefits, don’t kid yourself. Companies implement DEI because it keeps their workspace more fluid and open to staff turnovers, specially from international hires. Not only will more hires go into a company they see won’t have racial barriers for progression, but companies are less likely to have close-knit groups of locals unionizing to deal with when they make sure they aren’t the sort of groups that typically interconnect socially. The change in the job dynamic also feeds into the growth of the alt-right and the clashing of the social bubbles of those comprised by locals versus those comprised by immigrants. Take the Netherlands, a DEI success story with a population that is veering far to the right.
DEI is good, but CEOs couldn’t care less. It’s good to keep this in mind when answering questions like “Are the jobs AI is automating by the dozen adding diversity, or are they going to enable companies to become more regressive to the whims and fancies of their CEOs?”
companies are less likely to have close-knit groups of locals unionizing to deal with when they make sure they aren’t the sort of groups that typically interconnect socially. The change in the job dynamic also feeds into the growth of the alt-right and the clashing of the social bubbles of those comprised by locals versus those comprised by immigrants.
Yeah, it’s kind of the elephant in the room. After working in a team with overwhelming number of immigrants, I kind of see why many locals would feel alienated. Never mind bemoaning about “diluting culture” (what culture doesn’t evolve?), but job dynamics as you say changes for the worse. Many immigrants I know don’t really question the low pay in spite of the rising inflation. Many want to even work seven days straight if they could. It’s because many immigrants typically come from hierarchical, conservative and collectivist culture, where social validation and approval from seniors is more valued. This causes employers and government not to feel pressure to increase wages. This causes to weaken the power of unions.
Also, not all countries have affirmative action/DEI policies. Where I live, it’s not mandatory but it’s good practice for most companies to do so to avoid litigation and bad PR. However, the company I worked don’t actively pursue it and my former line manager, a Somali, overwhelmingly hire other Somalis. Another team has a Romanian team leader but also seem to favour fellow Romanian for job positions. I don’t believe this is done intentionally, but the thing is not all countries have the same education and culture, and my Somali and Romanian managers probably would not have been taught about unconscious biases.
That being said, it’s more important that there is mutual understanding and similar mindset than where the person is from. An Egyptian born and raised in US would likely agree with local citizens than with fresh off the boat immigrants.
DEI isn’t inclusive though, it’s inherently exclusive. It should be means tested so it benefits those who really need it.
DEI is about improving diversity and preventing racial bias in the hiring process (which very much exists because people are people). It’s not about helping poor people.
Regardless of its positive benefits, don’t kid yourself. Companies implement DEI because it keeps their workspace more fluid and open to staff turnovers, specially from international hires. Not only will more hires go into a company they see won’t have racial barriers for progression, but companies are less likely to have close-knit groups of locals unionizing to deal with when they make sure they aren’t the sort of groups that typically interconnect socially. The change in the job dynamic also feeds into the growth of the alt-right and the clashing of the social bubbles of those comprised by locals versus those comprised by immigrants. Take the Netherlands, a DEI success story with a population that is veering far to the right.
DEI is good, but CEOs couldn’t care less. It’s good to keep this in mind when answering questions like “Are the jobs AI is automating by the dozen adding diversity, or are they going to enable companies to become more regressive to the whims and fancies of their CEOs?”
Yeah, it’s kind of the elephant in the room. After working in a team with overwhelming number of immigrants, I kind of see why many locals would feel alienated. Never mind bemoaning about “diluting culture” (what culture doesn’t evolve?), but job dynamics as you say changes for the worse. Many immigrants I know don’t really question the low pay in spite of the rising inflation. Many want to even work seven days straight if they could. It’s because many immigrants typically come from hierarchical, conservative and collectivist culture, where social validation and approval from seniors is more valued. This causes employers and government not to feel pressure to increase wages. This causes to weaken the power of unions.
Also, not all countries have affirmative action/DEI policies. Where I live, it’s not mandatory but it’s good practice for most companies to do so to avoid litigation and bad PR. However, the company I worked don’t actively pursue it and my former line manager, a Somali, overwhelmingly hire other Somalis. Another team has a Romanian team leader but also seem to favour fellow Romanian for job positions. I don’t believe this is done intentionally, but the thing is not all countries have the same education and culture, and my Somali and Romanian managers probably would not have been taught about unconscious biases.
That being said, it’s more important that there is mutual understanding and similar mindset than where the person is from. An Egyptian born and raised in US would likely agree with local citizens than with fresh off the boat immigrants.
Yes. However your response still highlights the inclusivity of the program which is in direct opposition of
Accurate username.