DEI was just about cheap labor - and it failed

[George Lucas]

DEI had nothing to do with politics. Getting a pass from the wokies was just a nice side benefit but not the main point. The main purpose was to get an equal quality of work for less pay because white graduates demand more money than colored graduates. It’s that simple. The problem is that the DEI hires didn’t produce and equal quality of work. They produced a much worse quality that didn’t outweigh the savings made from cheaper labor (if it was even cheaper in the end at all). That’s why companies are dropping DEI.

 

[TruffleSpark]

I think there was a study (can't be bothered to find it) that said there was a direct inverse correlation between how racially diverse a workplace is and how likely the workers are to unionize. So there is an incentive for bosses to a) have as diverse a workplace as possible, and b) to make sure the different identity groups are as at each others throats as possible so they don't team up against management. I watched a youtube video by a lefty youtuber (Alice Chappelle if you are curious) who was talking about how corporations in France would bring migrants in as strikebreakers. And the conclusion she came to is that the white workers were in the wrong because they would get angry at the scabs instead of working together against the real enemy. Surely the people who decided to not work together against the real enemy are the people who decided to scab. Any lefty understands this logic when it is white coal miners in the UK in the 80s who are scabbing, but the moment the scabs have a different skin color this understanding goes out the window.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

USA corporation haven't tried to make a profit for a decade, they care more about politicking and DEI not only empowers the left, but it gives more spots to the laptop caste.

 

[Suel Forrester]

its the same thing they do when they wanna buy real estate. import niggers to the area, plummet the property values, blackrock or someone else buys it up for dirt cheap

theyre doing the same thing with businesses

 

[grump]

I don't think DEI specifically is about expanding the labor pool at least not as a primary goal. Because its more about passing over yt for lucrative positions rather than eliminating these positions altogether. Plus you also get a bloated expensive DEI bureaucracy to maintain it. Lehman Bros before it failed I heard had a bigger DEI division than risk management. I guess you could argue the Corps think a 'diverse' workplace would be easier to control and thus save money from.

But I think really the main reason for DEI twofold

The first is virtue signaling. Or what might have been called goldbricking in the past. It provides a new and easier way to look like you are accomplishing something without having to actually do your job. Quarterly production failing and you can't or don't feel like fixing it? Hire a couple of eskimos and write a memo to the upper management how you increased the diversity in your team by 10% and bam you're golden. The genius of it is they can't retailate or you'll be the star guest in a NYT or Vice documentary on how racists try to squash diversity in the workplace. Its such a good scam there are people who specialize in doing nothing but DEI virtue signaling both in official positions and in positions where they should be doing other work. IE women 'engineers' at Big Tech firms who spend all day on Twitter complaining about the patriarchy.

The second is Corps have actually drunk the koolaid either out of fear or because they are really true believers. DEI gained a foothold initially because they were chickenshit but over the years the 'schools' have churned out people who were indoctrinated with DEI for longer and longer periods of their life and these people got hired first in HR and then in the rest of the company slow pushing out the older generation either passively or especially in Hollywood and high positions in certain industries, actively through lawsuits and accusations etc. Now a large portion of the Western Corporate world has been raised in the DEI cult since they were children and its the most important priority for them. Even over making money.

I will agree though that one of the major reasons feminism and women's 'empowerment' has been pushed so hard is because Corps want a cheaper labor pool. With all the women flooding into the rat race instead of taking care of their families they have much more leverage at a long term cost they don't care about. Plus there is the consumerist angle where there are more customers to buy more shit.

 

[George Lucas]

USA corporation haven't tried to make a profit for a decade, they care more about politicking and DEI not only empowers the left, but it gives more spots to the laptop caste.

Well of course. If you’re taking a profit, you’re throwing money away. Corporations reinvesting income into growth to build new factories, hire new workers, and make more products is a slam dunk choice compared to paying out to investors and Uncle Sam, especially for workers. Only huge behemoths that have nowhere left to reinvest should payout a dividend. In an ideal scenario a business should make $0 profit.

 

[Cactus Concerto]

I think for some there was a genuine interest in seeing people with the necessary skills (or at least the willingness to learn and improve) being given opportunities to try. I also think in some areas, particularly the arts, there was a desire to see more 'original content' and get more stories of different types and perspectives told. This is likely why the movement started gaining momentum, like most LGBT incentives, and why people are now left with a sour taste in their mouths: their desire did not transpire and has been shaped into something horrific and unfamiliar.

This was rapidly coopted by the same types that tend to destroy everything. Opportunists, money chasers, and groundless nepotistic hires ran rampant. Hateful sods took it as an opportunity to be exclusionary rather than inclusive. People with actual talent and promise were abandoned in favor of colors and pronouns and sexual preferences.

I think several other factors also bled into this - as is often the case - like businesses taking the wrong cues and lessons when one thing worked and another didn't, or likeminded heads in certain industries forcibly injecting their thoughts and opinions on what humanity should be onto humanity instead of just offering goods and services. I'm sure some businesses have absolutely taken this as an excuse to hire cheap labour in some fashion but funnily enough, in places like Hollywood, the arts and entertainment, and politics (where I think some of the most vocal reside), the DEI hires are money-hungry hacks with a student debt for a non-major that needs to be paid off and a belief that they're God's gift to the world and should be adored for merely breathing.

 

[Farsided]

It does not matter that they get rid DEI - ESG - BRIDGE or whatever else, Fink & Co's work is done.
Get any industry, Blackrock/VG/State Street got their tendrils all the way up it.
Competence crisis is well underway as well as an unwillingness to maintain what was built.

 

[fresh pair of socks]

Donald Glover talked about how Tina Fey said he got hired on as a writer, because he was free thanks to diversity initiatives. Talent had nothing to do with it; he was purely there to fulfill a quota.

 

[OutInTheRain]

It's not just about that, it's about kicking the ladder out from underneath you. All of these massive funds, massive companies are run by septuagenarians and older. Now I know the boomers don't want to give up power ever, but how much of this is just to keep their ass in the chair for just one day longer? If you prevent the ascension of competent people by enforcing quotas, you can stymie a career.

Even those who are competent and do benefit from DEI policies, will forever have their competence questioned. Leading to mistrust from subordinates, and making things much more difficult and negatively affecting a career.

 

[Nitro!]

DEI has an insidious effect when applied to entire industries. Using Internet-adjacent industries as an example, diversity quotas are a very effective way to slow the velocity of companies that can't absorb the blow, making sure that innovation is never realized anywhere but FAGMAN (Facebook Apple Google Microsoft Amazon Netflix).

Hit one of these billion/trillion dollar companies with a thousand diversity hires? No problem. Cloud services pay for a hundred thousand workshy employees every month. Hit a small company with a single tranny or pooner, it'd be lucky to survive a few years when he/she gets situated and starts doing some damage. Even in the worst of times, Google can afford to have a 1/10th of its employees tank morale all through June. A smaller company? No chance.

The net effect is that the big companies are very secure with this scheme. Apply social pressure to smaller threatening company, overwhelm with non-whites and gays, allow company resources to be wasted and drained from the inside out, acquire company and absorb or destroy useful technology. Rinse & repeat.

 

[snowdunes]

I think there was a study (can't be bothered to find it) that said there was a direct inverse correlation between how racially diverse a workplace is and how likely the workers are to unionize. So there is an incentive for bosses to a) have as diverse a workplace as possible, and b) to make sure the different identity groups are as at each others throats as possible so they don't team up against management. I watched a youtube video by a lefty youtuber (Alice Chappelle if you are curious) who was talking about how corporations in France would bring migrants in as strikebreakers. And the conclusion she came to is that the white workers were in the wrong because they would get angry at the scabs instead of working together against the real enemy. Surely the people who decided to not work together against the real enemy are the people who decided to scab. Any lefty understands this logic when it is white coal miners in the UK in the 80s who are scabbing, but the moment the scabs have a different skin color this understanding goes out the window.

That was from an Amazon leak if I remember correctly, they even had in-house software to trace this. Funny thing is that the left always use that as evidence for "DEI is more profitable, hence DEI is good" and use explanation "more diversity gives birth to new ideas that leads to more profits" (I'm not joking, I heard this from HR university lectures saying this). Nigger WHAT!? What ideas!? You are packing boxes and frying food. You think that your "ideas" are going to help the company? Amazon want retarded working cattles, not "thinkers".

• If your job has DEI lectures and are hiring niggers and MENA mutts, then your working space is a busy work project made to keep the fake economy rolling and to humiliate Europeans.
• If your workspace only has Europeans and Asians, then the DEI is for picrelated.

 

[WickyWickyWoW]

I think there was a study (can't be bothered to find it) that said there was a direct inverse correlation between how racially diverse a workplace is and how likely the workers are to unionize. So there is an incentive for bosses to a) have as diverse a workplace as possible, and b) to make sure the different identity groups are as at each others throats as possible so they don't team up against management. I watched a youtube video by a lefty youtuber (Alice Chappelle if you are curious) who was talking about how corporations in France would bring migrants in as strikebreakers. And the conclusion she came to is that the white workers were in the wrong because they would get angry at the scabs instead of working together against the real enemy. Surely the people who decided to not work together against the real enemy are the people who decided to scab. Any lefty understands this logic when it is white coal miners in the UK in the 80s who are scabbing, but the moment the scabs have a different skin color this understanding goes out the window.

do you mean this one? https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403

And as for the leftist you talked about, that is a common trait among the modern left where they are willing to throw any established pro worker belief out the window if it conflicts with letting in more darkies, twisting their economic theories around to sound like neoconservatives and throwing workers under the bus for the primary objective of bringing in more blacks and browns, the real disgusting part is how they continue to believe they are helping the worker by doing this

 

[TruffleSpark]

do you mean this one? https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403

And as for the leftist you talked about, that is a common trait among the modern left where they are willing to throw any established pro worker belief out the window if it conflicts with letting in more darkies, twisting their economic theories around to sound like neoconservatives and throwing workers under the bus for the primary objective of bringing in more blacks and browns, the real disgusting part is how they continue to believe they are helping the worker by doing this

Capitalists are heckin' evil because they deliberately maintain a caste of unemployed people who serve as a reserve army of labor that keeps wages low. Anyway that's why we need a million immigrants even though there aren't a million job openings for them to fill.

 

[Hassou Tobi]

I think there was a study (can't be bothered to find it) that said there was a direct inverse correlation between how racially diverse a workplace is and how likely the workers are to unionize. So there is an incentive for bosses to a) have as diverse a workplace as possible, and b) to make sure the different identity groups are as at each others throats as possible so they don't team up against management. I watched a youtube video by a lefty youtuber (Alice Chappelle if you are curious) who was talking about how corporations in France would bring migrants in as strikebreakers. And the conclusion she came to is that the white workers were in the wrong because they would get angry at the scabs instead of working together against the real enemy. Surely the people who decided to not work together against the real enemy are the people who decided to scab. Any lefty understands this logic when it is white coal miners in the UK in the 80s who are scabbing, but the moment the scabs have a different skin color this understanding goes out the window.

This is a good point. Plus I used to hold a similar view until I looked at things like nurses with inadequate language skills and less education coming into the country from the Philippines, basically causing a deskilling. Seems like in this case the American nurses had a reason to not want migrants driving their wages and prestige down? I imagine similar things are happening in other professional fields with a lot of migrants.

We still see these arguments in Jacobin https://jacobin.com/2024/06/sahra-wagenknecht-left-xenophobia

"While there is a clear division between migrant workers in the informal economy and native workers in the formal economy, in some areas there is a competition between the informal and the formal economic sectors as such. Quite often, employers in the care or construction sectors, for example, will favor informal over formal employment because this decreases their labor costs as they save spending on social security and other taxes. However, this is not a problem caused by the presence of migrant workers, but by employers’ thirst for profit and the failure to control them. Here, Wagenknecht and her allies confuse cause and effect. What would be needed, instead of raging against migrants, is to fight for labor rights compliance. Blaming migrant workers for being exploited in the informal economy misses the point."

I mean, I guess? Problem is there always seems to be ways to get around whatever checks are in place and worst case ends up with cases like Canada where hundreds of thousands +of pajeets are flooding in to work at Tim Hortons every year. What benefit does that have to anyone but a few people at the top? Also these left arguments seem to conveniently ignore the negative social impacts that migrants bring, like colleges in Canada with a lot of pajeets have had to start banning cell phones in classes because the pajeets will shamelessly take creepshots of the white women. And that is a tame example.

 

[Randall Fragg]

What would be needed, instead of raging against migrants, is to fight for labor rights compliance. Blaming migrant workers for being exploited in the informal economy misses the point.

This is the problem with the dried, hollow husk of modern 'leftism'. They don't know how to strategize and they want to have their cake and eat it too.
How are you going to force the political and economic system to change if you don't have any kind of credible threat? You can scream about how those labor laws should be enforced all you want, but as long as businesses and politicians are incentivized to not enforce them, then you have no way of accomplishing that. Mass immigration incentivizes non compliance with labor laws and makes it more difficult to change things. As long as there's a vast amount of people used to horrible conditions willing to work for terrible pay, you are never going to have a strong labor movement.

 

[The Gene Genie]

It’s about the elimination of Whites from all facets of society until they’re rendered a minority underclass. What we’re seeing now is just the beginning. Assuming (and this is a huge assumption, because things are already falling off the cart) things continue as they are, Whites will be eliminated within a generation or two from all positions of authority and control that actually matter in the private and public sector. This is all by design.