“Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion”, which part don’t you understand? Companies encouraged different perspectives so they could reach a broader scope of people and make more money. No one’s hiring an inferior candidate to do worse work lol.
Now, using cheaper parts, subscription services for everything, customer lock-in, soldered-on, unrepairable parts, focusing only on short-term profits, removing survices while increasing prices… That race to the bottom all definitely contributes to this current “profit at all costs, screw the consumer” environment…
If DEI made companies more money it wouldn’t have to be legislated, would it. Anyone with a smidge of business sense would absolutely crush it by hiring all the people that racists routinely overlook.
Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.
If rationality is overrated and DEI is rational, isn’t this an argument to discard it? Conversely, if it isn’t, isn’t this an argument that DEI is irrational?
The assumption of rational actors is standard practice in economics, basically every single theorem depends on that. When I pointed out that racism isn’t rational, the argument changed to “well, you can’t assume that everyone is rational”.
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
“Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion”, which part don’t you understand? Companies encouraged different perspectives so they could reach a broader scope of people and make more money. No one’s hiring an inferior candidate to do worse work lol.
Now, using cheaper parts, subscription services for everything, customer lock-in, soldered-on, unrepairable parts, focusing only on short-term profits, removing survices while increasing prices… That race to the bottom all definitely contributes to this current “profit at all costs, screw the consumer” environment…
If DEI made companies more money it wouldn’t have to be legislated, would it. Anyone with a smidge of business sense would absolutely crush it by hiring all the people that racists routinely overlook.
Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.
Putting Rational Actors in Their Place: Economics and Phenomenology
Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics
If rationality is overrated and DEI is rational, isn’t this an argument to discard it? Conversely, if it isn’t, isn’t this an argument that DEI is irrational?
It was not claimed that rationality is overrated.
Yeah, no, that is exactly what was claimed.
The assumption of rational actors is standard practice in economics, basically every single theorem depends on that. When I pointed out that racism isn’t rational, the argument changed to “well, you can’t assume that everyone is rational”.
Where did I claim that DEI is rational or irrational? DEI is an evidence-based practice.
Ed: Be sure to look at who you’re engaging with. I have not “changed my argument” as I have only just begun discussing this here.
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.