The question on everybody’s lips is, if Joe Biden doesn’t run, could Kamala Harris win in 2024? In this essay, I look at diversity as an issue and attempt to argue that it requires a far broader definition than the narrow definition of race and gender which is commonly a given, with diversity and inclusion initiatives. I am heavily indebted to Quillette on this subject, with their thought provoking article: What Is Diversity? And Why Is It Valuable?
I won’t reference it, but there is pretty good evidence that a team of diverse members with above average abilities will outperform a team of high flyers which is not diverse, at most, but not all, problem-solving tasks. This may shock some defenders of meritocracy, but it probably won’t surprise those with a more than passing familiarity with the dismal science, economics. Heterogenous economics always trumps homogeneity in almost every area other than when we look at high levels of social trust and social capital which occurs in culturally homogenous communities and countries.
It’s about the strength of individuality. Take any group of people with a varying degree of abilities, and the broader the total range of their abilities, the more likely they are to succeed, providing we are not selecting for an extremely narrow and specific type of task, like some of the more theoretical STEM fields. Plus, homogeneity lends itself to intellectual uniformity, which in turn leads to that thing which can be truly catastrophic and that all senior managers dread- groupthink- the anathema of a situation where everyone in the room endorses a terrible idea, because they all think the same way, or simply because they don’t want people from their own social class and group to feel uncomfortable.
But when one delves into the literature of diversity and performance it becomes clear that, in the modern sense, diversity is too narrowly construed. Whilst variations in gender and race can be valuable, it is just as important to consider variations by age, social class, viewpoint, culture and life experience. A car mechanic is likely to provide valuable insights into a robotic AI project for the simple reason that he is more likely to possess a working knowledge of electrics and electronics, and have a high aptitude for physical engineering.
Another aspect of diversity which is seldom discussed is the extent to which selecting for one arbitrary group characteristic can necessarily select for another, as a second order effect. It has long been known that several of the core Democratic constituencies tend towards a higher degree of social conservatism. African Americans and Latinos are more likely to be religious and centre discussions on the importance of family within their own communities (although in some instances they are likely to avoid the topic with white liberals and in public more broadly).
Especially in situations where normal viewpoint diversity across the political spectrum is lacking, this reintroduction of viewpoint diversity by other means can be incredibly valuable. In a business setting or a political one, having someone who is socially conservative in the room can be incredibly valuable. Given a choice between an investment in authentic high-end wood windows and doors, and PVC windows, many investors may favour the former. But if you have a Black Guy or a Latina in the room, they are more likely to say ‘It costs how much?’ or ‘and the cheaper PVC ones are more difficult to break into, huh…’ Another example would be defund the police movements. It tends to surprise white liberals that even after George Floyd, the majority of African Americans still want roughly roughly the same levels of policing. What will be of less surprise is that the vast majority do support police reform.
The greater social conservatism of Latinos and African Americans stems from class distinctions, or along socio-economic. It’s because they are not as likely to be as W.E.I.R.D. as white people- which is an acronym for Western, Educated and from Industrial, Rich and Democratic countries. Moral Foundations are also incredible important in this sense, because much of the division between socially conservative and Left-liberal is to be found in socio-economic background, and especially in terms of parental education level and peer group socialisation.
And there’s the rub- because especially in certain academic fields there is an extent to which particular subjects select for people further up the socio-economic spectrum. If you come from a middle or upper middle economic background, you are far more likely to want to train or educate in a field which is personally fulfilling, rather than financial rewarding, and if you were born into lower or lower middle economic circumstances you are going to want to study a subject which provides a well-remunerated career. So social conservatives (regardless of political affiliation) within African American and Latino communities are far more likely to select for engineering, the law, medicine, business and other more lucrative fields, whilst their wealthier counterparts are going to want to study social science, psychology and political science.
This is crucial, because it removes the natural viewpoint diversity or heterodoxy which arises from class diversity as a second order effect. It likely helps account for many of the replication crises we are seeing in psychology or the social sciences. Similarly it robs Democrats of the ability to correct for many of the blind spots which they possess, politically. A focus on equity or inequality may play well on a college campus or in socially elite circles, but if you were going to pitch a concept which plays well to anyone who isn’t in the top 33% of household income it would probably be better to focus on fairness rather than equity, a rigged system and poverty- or especially on how to provide people with access to economic opportunity.
This has particularly provide implications in terms of the selection of political candidates. Amongst white liberals, especially suburban moms, Kamala Harris enjoyed enormous support, but amongst African Americans she had far less support than many other candidates in the Democratic primaries. As the presumptive nominee to replace Joe Biden as a presidential candidate Kamala Harris needs to create distance between herself and certain culturally progressive Democratic policies. In particular it appears that Democrats are losing the battle for hearts and minds in relation to CRT in schools, especially amongst Latino and Asian voters.
For Democrats, the message is clear- if they want to retain or regain votes in their core constituencies, they need to cut the cultural progressivism which is so popular in educated cosmopolitan liberal circles, and instead focus on popular areas like the minimum wage, childcare/child tax credits and universal pre-k.
For Republicans the message is equally clear, they need to hammer home of CRT in schools which have evidenced segregation by race. Whilst continuing to support charters, they also need to propose legislation which allows parents the chance to apply to the schools of their choice regardless of whether their local public schools are charters or public, and also bars schools from selecting students on the basis of locality. Instead selection could be based upon all manner of metrics from discipline and attendance, to behaviour and specific academic or non-academic abilities, or any number of other criteria- people further down the socio-economic spectrum care less more about ability and kids being rewarded for hard work by better schools, than the equality of outcome which so may Leftists seem keen to want to enforce. Perhaps the most important emphasis should be upon personal economics- did you and your friends enjoy greater economic opportunity under Trump or Joe Biden. Which parts of the country have grown economically, and which have suffered?
In general, Democrats need to listen less to the top 20% of the socio-economic spectrum who represent their thought leaders, commentariat and policy makers and listen more to the other 80% of Americans. The same is true of Republican but in another way, they need to stop being a party which represents donors and become one which represents people. Of course, the same is true of Democrats these days- especially within the corporate centre-Left- but it is just less readily apparent, given their suite of policy platforms.
Diversity matter, but in America it’s becoming more about socio-economic and the attitudes which emerge by class as a result, than it is about race and gender- at least underneath the patina of conventional politics. Most Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that they have a class system, but the social stratification which has been occurring for the last thirty years, is becoming more ossified by the day.
Diversity is a wonderful thing. The race based discrimination promoted by Democrats is horrific. In this they are consistent with their 200+ years of history. The sad fact is that once they assume complete power, their useful idiots will be thrown overboard as has happened in every other National Socialist regime once power was consolidated.
Tyranny has never been a friend of diversity, nor can it be.
The worst aspects of their approach are to be found in K-12. The lack of choice and the various systems which characterise socially conservative education have exacerbated what would otherwise be relatively small attainment and test disparities. The history of recent American inequality can be accurately measured by the extent to which particular communities have been subject to Leftist social experiments. HUD, welfare dissolution of the family and the denigration of learning knowledge in education- all of these things have come from the purported champions of minorities.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
"equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake"
OK. But where from and why has it become a more socially ordained construct? Has it really achieved this?
For it seems that diversity in a word is not clearly definable. It means something very different to each and all of us and a lot of this depends upon what we gain or lose from the loosely termed definitions of its directive. So we're best perhaps to see it as conducive toward a multicultural globalised world. In this respect it seems about conforming to a set of evolving changes directed long term toward a world society that is somewhat colourless, sexless and classless. If diversity is to be fully accepting of all as one and normalising all differences to a point of not seeing or of not feeling differences then the forward projection seems a goal set in sameness rather than one of loving others for their differences. That is not a fine line difference; that is a gulf.
In a certain context I'm pretty much a lived experience of diversity in that I'm from mixed parents and have a child of mixed race. An Asian wife. I have a business and I'm a self-employed freelancer and I employ and mix with different classes of people. I've spent almost 7 out of my 52 years abroad in adventure travel. But I chose to do all this before such social terms as diversity became specific ideal preferences of individual outcome. In that context I feel free to describe that lived experience as free association without design other than the liberty to explore, accept, evolve and participate. But never because it was specifically expected of people.
There is just this feeling of force in the popularised updated and promulgated version of a word that beforehand used to have a very extended diverse meaning within it. A natural diversity let's say. Now it's an order to accept minorities and sacrifice adaption from tradition to yield a new societal order that is inclusive of opening borders to accommodate and accelerate such a transformation. So in many respects we had a rich diversity in existence before it gave way to a titled and designed construct. It all depends upon context.
Good comment. It seems by focusing on very specific and narrow definitions of diversity, we are missing what actually constitutes inherent value in terms of diversity- often it is class which brings value from ethnic diversity, because people from different socio-economic roots bring a different perspectives, outlooks and experiences to the table.
"Class" is only funny because many places refuse to believe they have classes. But viewpoint diversity surely can help, but then only if the views are consistent. Like do you want people who hate or have no experience with football/soccer to make the rules for how that game is played? Do you want the deaf to help with pop music? The blind for the visual arts? The ignorant for running schools? The poor/indebted on how to run a profitable business?
It's also worth noting that the nepotism of circumstances also creates a strong bias towards the more superficial form of diversity and inclusion policies. Only 6% of kids in the UK attend private schools, but they are massively overrepresented at the BBC. If they simply abandoned preferential hiring from private schools, then most of their problems with a lack of diversity in behind the scenes management would simply evaporate overnight.
But what would their children do then? Instead, they spend over a £100 million of license payers money on diverse content, when the BBC's content is already more 'diverse' than the population by almost every metric, with the possible exception of Asians.
The other thing to bear in mind is why do you think government is so crap at designing programs that actually help people? I can guarantee that a large part of it is due to middle class college types not knowing the first thing about the lives of the people they purport to want to help. Yes, they make recruit occasionally from within the classes of the people they want to help, but this client class isn't necessarily going to tell their bosses when their ideas are shit, because they don't want to lost their jobs.
The few programs which government does get right (such as meals on wheels, which is actually popular), usually happen because either someone forthright who made good actually had a say, or because some experiences are universal.
This is also probably why the Chinese have spent such a large portion of their revenue on increasing economic opportunities rather than social programs- it turns out all those surveys they routinely ask their citizens to fill out were good for something.
It's more that a range of different ages, classes and life experiences (as well as other diversity aspects) are going to be better than a homogenous group at problem-solving. Think of it in terms of vertical marketing. If your business is PVC doors and windows, then the Black guy who has lived in a high crime area in the past is going to care about the low price and the fact that they are far more difficult to break into than other types of products.
Meanwhile, the older guy in a rural or suburban low crime area is going to probably care about the security, but also the fire escape windows and also the fact that the fitters are going to clean up after themselves. When you're older finding tacks/nails for fascia boards is going to be an annoyance- especially if they are found anywhere near your drive.
The thing about vertical marketing is that everyone spots the obvious candidates for sales, but it takes specific knowledge to think of new markets to tap, and which features and benefits are going to make the sale. If we look at most mid to low tech inventions that were successful, then they were usually 'discovered' because someone spotted a specific need.
Indeed, I think statistical diversity makes the most sense for the political ruling class. I'm slowly losing respect for representative democracy because of its poor performance outside of local government (and even then it's sometimes pretty bizarre) and am beginning to prefer that we can put our name in a pool for any given office and then just choose them randomly. That would be closer to representative democracy than what we have.
The problem is that most politicians are cosmopolitan liberals or reformed liberals, regardless of what particular ethos they espouse. It creates huge blind spots in knowing what their people actually want. It certainly also doesn't help that with PC, people in many cases aren't even able to say what they want anymore, for fear of offending.
“ a team of diverse members with above average abilities will outperform a team of high flyers which is not diverse, at most, but not all, problem-solving tasks.”
Maybe that’s why most of the intentionally-constructed famous rock and roll supergroups never panned out.
“ A car mechanic is likely to provide valuable insights into a robotic AI project for the simple reason that he is more likely to possess a working knowledge of electrics and electronics, and have a high aptitude for physical engineering.”
This is very true. It’s important for engineers to get the input of the technicians and line workers who have to implement their designs. Some of the biggest engineering failures come from a lack of practical experience.
I once had the production engineering director out on site to interrogate how some line workers used the wheelchair access sub-assembly report I had written and ran weekly- the door line supervisor and I had puzzled the then new design out using the PDF's over the course of an afternoon (it was tricky because although the threshold strip wasn't specifically stated in the data, you could work it out from the nylon block length, if memory serves).
Anyway, he spent an afternoon quizzing the poor line workers and came away scratching his head and said 'I've just learned I need to learn a lot more more'. Neither myself nor the door line supervisor liked him- although we both got on like a house on fire with the other production engineers- so we weren't necessarily going to go out of our way to correct him over who actually puzzled out the production process, especially given it would mean another afternoon's headache retracing how we had managed it in the first place.
I enjoyed a lot of the production engineering type work- better than industrial engineering, other than the method study. One of the more interesting problems I came across was the optimisation trade-off- you can save most materials wastage through rational optimisation, but if you optimise across too broad a range, you lose more in added labour than you save in material- represented by a saws operator walking further between cuts to put the lengths in their place. It also screws with your machine capacities with unproductive time, and can create a problem with in-line storage.
Sounds simple- but you would be surprised by the number of production managers, senior managers and production engineers who miss the problem. It is what comes with the single-minded pursuit of one goal without considering other factors.
I'm afraid you'll get pre-K so government can "educate and socialize" your child without parental involvement, but we'll see less choice. Some people seem to think it wise to require two incomes instead of one just to live, while allowing government to raise children instead of parents.
If diversity improves performance, it is natural that it will take place without any force required to make it happen, as if people prefer one size fits none or groupthink to better outcomes.
A lot of this is due to feminist dogma, as well. There is a particular brand of feminism which doesn't like women making free choices to stay home or go part-time, because to their mind this is social construction, and women should all decide to pursue their careers relentlessly, so that women can be equal by every metric, even if said career is cleaning toilets for sixty hours a week, and every two hours working only pays for half the time, in terms of childcare.
'If diversity improves performance, it is natural that it will take place without any force required to make it happen'- if only this were so. Unfortunately capable people from further down the socio-economic spectrum don't tend to push hard enough in corporate environments, even though they may have the talent, because they tend to be more grateful. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of idiot sons and daughters of the upper middle classes who want a promotion or pay raise for just turning up. Of course, the latter will wait a long time, if they are unwilling to do the work to justify advancement- but they do tend to be better at setting conditions and negotiating.
Back in the old days when supermarket management in the UK was more meritocratic and the product of social mobility, there was a clear delineation between CEO's who came up through operations, retail and logistics, and the more upper crust Chairmen who came in from the graduate route and were better at the more esoteric and corporate networking side of the business. In a retail bank I used to work for, the were ADP's and MDP's- with one for the graduate route, and the other for the rank and file. Sadly those days are gone- universities train analytics at the expense of operational elan.
Isn't hiring for the purpose of diversity about the same as hiring for the purpose of nepotism? And nepotism will disappear around the same time we lose our sense of greed or family/tribe preferences.
As I said, It depends upon what type of diversity we are talking about. Arbitrary diversity based upon racial or gender categories is less valuable than trying to avoid selecting for homogeneity. Obviously there is the exception of highly demanding STEM fields focused upon pure research, but usually heterodox economics beats homogeneity every time, and this applies at the micro level through teams.
It's why viewpoint diversity is so important in the sciences, because once you have people who all conform to one worldview, they stop challenging each others idea, because they possess the same biases. This is even more important in the commercial sense, because people from different backgrounds bring completely different views of the market into play.
Of course, homogeneity can work very well for niche businesses. 'Magic of...' travel services worked because they mapped out the value adding that higher niche money-rich, time-poor customers wanted. And if I was buying a gaming PC off-the-shelf, rather than building my own, then I would want a bunch of gamers designing the specs.
Nepotism tends to work less directly these days. In the home counties, they used to joke that your daughter probably wouldn't end up working for your business, but there was every chance she might find herself working for your neighbour's Estate Agency firm. In many ways, selecting for more heterodox candidates, tends to work against this nepotism of circumstances. The last thing you want is your company run by a management team drawn from the same informal network surrounding a particular private school.
Now that is controversial - the American class system - but true. Politically though, I would say it all balances out. However, neither party is focusing on the decision makers in America and by playing to the gallery they are not impressing the centre. This is where American elections are won and lost.
Well, independents are seriously fed up with Joe Biden, and they are far closer to Republicans on how the economy is performing. Here in the UK, economic growth is higher and inflation lower- but, man is Boris Johnson getting canned on driver shortages and fuel shortages at the pumps. Conditions may be close to identical in Europe don't care when they have to queue for petrol for ages, if there is an at all.
Pay, hours and working conditions have been far too shoddy, for far too long.
Neither party in the US really appeals to the independents at the moment. One can forsee another Hilary/Trump contest where you vote for the option that makes you vomit least.
I've not really been following the events in the UK living in Japan as I do but I did see Max Hastings saying it was time for him to go.
It's a corrupt corporate duopoly, without bad actors (for the main part) at its centre. All are powerless before the system, for the simple reason that with overarching ideologies the details get missed- and when two ideologies compete they cancel each other out and leave some of the worst aspects of both systems still in place.
Dissenters of all stripes have something to offer, whether it's the civic aspects of libertarianism, the market of the Right, or certain aspects of stronger worker protections on the Left (specifically the statutory redundancy pay found in some countries which prevents 50 year old men being thrown into a market in which they cannot compete). But the problem is they will never unite, because the central tenet of established power is divide et impera.
Well we have a new prime minister as the previous one (Suga - who always looked like he was dead) has just been re-interred. Otherwise Japan continues to lumber on without any idea of where it's going. Our big concern is China.
Diversity is a wonderful thing. The race based discrimination promoted by Democrats is horrific. In this they are consistent with their 200+ years of history. The sad fact is that once they assume complete power, their useful idiots will be thrown overboard as has happened in every other National Socialist regime once power was consolidated.
Tyranny has never been a friend of diversity, nor can it be.
The worst aspects of their approach are to be found in K-12. The lack of choice and the various systems which characterise socially conservative education have exacerbated what would otherwise be relatively small attainment and test disparities. The history of recent American inequality can be accurately measured by the extent to which particular communities have been subject to Leftist social experiments. HUD, welfare dissolution of the family and the denigration of learning knowledge in education- all of these things have come from the purported champions of minorities.
diversity
/dʌɪˈvəːsɪti,dɪˈvəːsɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the state of being diverse; variety.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
"equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake"
OK. But where from and why has it become a more socially ordained construct? Has it really achieved this?
For it seems that diversity in a word is not clearly definable. It means something very different to each and all of us and a lot of this depends upon what we gain or lose from the loosely termed definitions of its directive. So we're best perhaps to see it as conducive toward a multicultural globalised world. In this respect it seems about conforming to a set of evolving changes directed long term toward a world society that is somewhat colourless, sexless and classless. If diversity is to be fully accepting of all as one and normalising all differences to a point of not seeing or of not feeling differences then the forward projection seems a goal set in sameness rather than one of loving others for their differences. That is not a fine line difference; that is a gulf.
In a certain context I'm pretty much a lived experience of diversity in that I'm from mixed parents and have a child of mixed race. An Asian wife. I have a business and I'm a self-employed freelancer and I employ and mix with different classes of people. I've spent almost 7 out of my 52 years abroad in adventure travel. But I chose to do all this before such social terms as diversity became specific ideal preferences of individual outcome. In that context I feel free to describe that lived experience as free association without design other than the liberty to explore, accept, evolve and participate. But never because it was specifically expected of people.
There is just this feeling of force in the popularised updated and promulgated version of a word that beforehand used to have a very extended diverse meaning within it. A natural diversity let's say. Now it's an order to accept minorities and sacrifice adaption from tradition to yield a new societal order that is inclusive of opening borders to accommodate and accelerate such a transformation. So in many respects we had a rich diversity in existence before it gave way to a titled and designed construct. It all depends upon context.
Good comment. It seems by focusing on very specific and narrow definitions of diversity, we are missing what actually constitutes inherent value in terms of diversity- often it is class which brings value from ethnic diversity, because people from different socio-economic roots bring a different perspectives, outlooks and experiences to the table.
"Class" is only funny because many places refuse to believe they have classes. But viewpoint diversity surely can help, but then only if the views are consistent. Like do you want people who hate or have no experience with football/soccer to make the rules for how that game is played? Do you want the deaf to help with pop music? The blind for the visual arts? The ignorant for running schools? The poor/indebted on how to run a profitable business?
It's also worth noting that the nepotism of circumstances also creates a strong bias towards the more superficial form of diversity and inclusion policies. Only 6% of kids in the UK attend private schools, but they are massively overrepresented at the BBC. If they simply abandoned preferential hiring from private schools, then most of their problems with a lack of diversity in behind the scenes management would simply evaporate overnight.
But what would their children do then? Instead, they spend over a £100 million of license payers money on diverse content, when the BBC's content is already more 'diverse' than the population by almost every metric, with the possible exception of Asians.
The other thing to bear in mind is why do you think government is so crap at designing programs that actually help people? I can guarantee that a large part of it is due to middle class college types not knowing the first thing about the lives of the people they purport to want to help. Yes, they make recruit occasionally from within the classes of the people they want to help, but this client class isn't necessarily going to tell their bosses when their ideas are shit, because they don't want to lost their jobs.
The few programs which government does get right (such as meals on wheels, which is actually popular), usually happen because either someone forthright who made good actually had a say, or because some experiences are universal.
This is also probably why the Chinese have spent such a large portion of their revenue on increasing economic opportunities rather than social programs- it turns out all those surveys they routinely ask their citizens to fill out were good for something.
It's more that a range of different ages, classes and life experiences (as well as other diversity aspects) are going to be better than a homogenous group at problem-solving. Think of it in terms of vertical marketing. If your business is PVC doors and windows, then the Black guy who has lived in a high crime area in the past is going to care about the low price and the fact that they are far more difficult to break into than other types of products.
Meanwhile, the older guy in a rural or suburban low crime area is going to probably care about the security, but also the fire escape windows and also the fact that the fitters are going to clean up after themselves. When you're older finding tacks/nails for fascia boards is going to be an annoyance- especially if they are found anywhere near your drive.
The thing about vertical marketing is that everyone spots the obvious candidates for sales, but it takes specific knowledge to think of new markets to tap, and which features and benefits are going to make the sale. If we look at most mid to low tech inventions that were successful, then they were usually 'discovered' because someone spotted a specific need.
Perhaps, but the "outsider" may also just hold a grudge, or not be innovative, or think progress is a gay Superman.
Progressives tend to create some of the most homogenous groups going- why do you think Alphabet is at such a loss for what to invest in?
Indeed, I think statistical diversity makes the most sense for the political ruling class. I'm slowly losing respect for representative democracy because of its poor performance outside of local government (and even then it's sometimes pretty bizarre) and am beginning to prefer that we can put our name in a pool for any given office and then just choose them randomly. That would be closer to representative democracy than what we have.
The problem is that most politicians are cosmopolitan liberals or reformed liberals, regardless of what particular ethos they espouse. It creates huge blind spots in knowing what their people actually want. It certainly also doesn't help that with PC, people in many cases aren't even able to say what they want anymore, for fear of offending.
“ a team of diverse members with above average abilities will outperform a team of high flyers which is not diverse, at most, but not all, problem-solving tasks.”
Maybe that’s why most of the intentionally-constructed famous rock and roll supergroups never panned out.
“ A car mechanic is likely to provide valuable insights into a robotic AI project for the simple reason that he is more likely to possess a working knowledge of electrics and electronics, and have a high aptitude for physical engineering.”
This is very true. It’s important for engineers to get the input of the technicians and line workers who have to implement their designs. Some of the biggest engineering failures come from a lack of practical experience.
I once had the production engineering director out on site to interrogate how some line workers used the wheelchair access sub-assembly report I had written and ran weekly- the door line supervisor and I had puzzled the then new design out using the PDF's over the course of an afternoon (it was tricky because although the threshold strip wasn't specifically stated in the data, you could work it out from the nylon block length, if memory serves).
Anyway, he spent an afternoon quizzing the poor line workers and came away scratching his head and said 'I've just learned I need to learn a lot more more'. Neither myself nor the door line supervisor liked him- although we both got on like a house on fire with the other production engineers- so we weren't necessarily going to go out of our way to correct him over who actually puzzled out the production process, especially given it would mean another afternoon's headache retracing how we had managed it in the first place.
I enjoyed a lot of the production engineering type work- better than industrial engineering, other than the method study. One of the more interesting problems I came across was the optimisation trade-off- you can save most materials wastage through rational optimisation, but if you optimise across too broad a range, you lose more in added labour than you save in material- represented by a saws operator walking further between cuts to put the lengths in their place. It also screws with your machine capacities with unproductive time, and can create a problem with in-line storage.
Sounds simple- but you would be surprised by the number of production managers, senior managers and production engineers who miss the problem. It is what comes with the single-minded pursuit of one goal without considering other factors.
I'm afraid you'll get pre-K so government can "educate and socialize" your child without parental involvement, but we'll see less choice. Some people seem to think it wise to require two incomes instead of one just to live, while allowing government to raise children instead of parents.
If diversity improves performance, it is natural that it will take place without any force required to make it happen, as if people prefer one size fits none or groupthink to better outcomes.
A lot of this is due to feminist dogma, as well. There is a particular brand of feminism which doesn't like women making free choices to stay home or go part-time, because to their mind this is social construction, and women should all decide to pursue their careers relentlessly, so that women can be equal by every metric, even if said career is cleaning toilets for sixty hours a week, and every two hours working only pays for half the time, in terms of childcare.
'If diversity improves performance, it is natural that it will take place without any force required to make it happen'- if only this were so. Unfortunately capable people from further down the socio-economic spectrum don't tend to push hard enough in corporate environments, even though they may have the talent, because they tend to be more grateful. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of idiot sons and daughters of the upper middle classes who want a promotion or pay raise for just turning up. Of course, the latter will wait a long time, if they are unwilling to do the work to justify advancement- but they do tend to be better at setting conditions and negotiating.
Back in the old days when supermarket management in the UK was more meritocratic and the product of social mobility, there was a clear delineation between CEO's who came up through operations, retail and logistics, and the more upper crust Chairmen who came in from the graduate route and were better at the more esoteric and corporate networking side of the business. In a retail bank I used to work for, the were ADP's and MDP's- with one for the graduate route, and the other for the rank and file. Sadly those days are gone- universities train analytics at the expense of operational elan.
Isn't hiring for the purpose of diversity about the same as hiring for the purpose of nepotism? And nepotism will disappear around the same time we lose our sense of greed or family/tribe preferences.
As I said, It depends upon what type of diversity we are talking about. Arbitrary diversity based upon racial or gender categories is less valuable than trying to avoid selecting for homogeneity. Obviously there is the exception of highly demanding STEM fields focused upon pure research, but usually heterodox economics beats homogeneity every time, and this applies at the micro level through teams.
It's why viewpoint diversity is so important in the sciences, because once you have people who all conform to one worldview, they stop challenging each others idea, because they possess the same biases. This is even more important in the commercial sense, because people from different backgrounds bring completely different views of the market into play.
Of course, homogeneity can work very well for niche businesses. 'Magic of...' travel services worked because they mapped out the value adding that higher niche money-rich, time-poor customers wanted. And if I was buying a gaming PC off-the-shelf, rather than building my own, then I would want a bunch of gamers designing the specs.
Nepotism tends to work less directly these days. In the home counties, they used to joke that your daughter probably wouldn't end up working for your business, but there was every chance she might find herself working for your neighbour's Estate Agency firm. In many ways, selecting for more heterodox candidates, tends to work against this nepotism of circumstances. The last thing you want is your company run by a management team drawn from the same informal network surrounding a particular private school.
Now that is controversial - the American class system - but true. Politically though, I would say it all balances out. However, neither party is focusing on the decision makers in America and by playing to the gallery they are not impressing the centre. This is where American elections are won and lost.
Well, independents are seriously fed up with Joe Biden, and they are far closer to Republicans on how the economy is performing. Here in the UK, economic growth is higher and inflation lower- but, man is Boris Johnson getting canned on driver shortages and fuel shortages at the pumps. Conditions may be close to identical in Europe don't care when they have to queue for petrol for ages, if there is an at all.
Pay, hours and working conditions have been far too shoddy, for far too long.
Neither party in the US really appeals to the independents at the moment. One can forsee another Hilary/Trump contest where you vote for the option that makes you vomit least.
I've not really been following the events in the UK living in Japan as I do but I did see Max Hastings saying it was time for him to go.
"...where you vote for the option that makes you vomit least."
My God, you're right. Has it come to that in the US?
It's a corrupt corporate duopoly, without bad actors (for the main part) at its centre. All are powerless before the system, for the simple reason that with overarching ideologies the details get missed- and when two ideologies compete they cancel each other out and leave some of the worst aspects of both systems still in place.
Dissenters of all stripes have something to offer, whether it's the civic aspects of libertarianism, the market of the Right, or certain aspects of stronger worker protections on the Left (specifically the statutory redundancy pay found in some countries which prevents 50 year old men being thrown into a market in which they cannot compete). But the problem is they will never unite, because the central tenet of established power is divide et impera.
How are things over there?
Well we have a new prime minister as the previous one (Suga - who always looked like he was dead) has just been re-interred. Otherwise Japan continues to lumber on without any idea of where it's going. Our big concern is China.