Political Posts

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

The question then comes as to who's decision that is.  Tim Cook and Satya have both said that having diverse backgrounds, diverse cultures and diverse points of view are hugely beneficial to the organization as a whole to avoid group think. I fully agree quotas are stupid and counterproductive but having someone with a different opinion or viewpoint that shifts the discussion can make them much more valuable to the organization than having a marginally higher GPA.

No; the decision maker should be there due to merit as well.  This is not about GPA; its about any and all qualifications, whatever those may be in the eyes of the decision-maker.  This is such a ridiculous issue; would you hire any 2nd rate [name your profession or occupation] to work for you when there is someone out there more qualified for the same cost?

[Buckeye]

14 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

You jumped in with both feet without appreciating the overall context.  Over the past three years manufacturing in the West (US, Europe, Canada, UK) has been contracting save a quarter here or there.  Between flawed trade and energy policies, the West is facing serious challenges that the current leadership is arguably not properly addressing and that included the prior U.S. administration.

 

Like Trump or not, and I can see that you’re emotional about it, he recognizes the issue and is seeking to bring back important areas of manufacturing.  If, a big if, that is successful it will take time.

 

I’m just trying to stay grounded and objective.  Can you show me that you’re interested in a constructive conversation?

Thank you for your message @whiskybravo, I wish you would have led with this post.  Of course I'm interested in a constructive conversation, but thought we may have missed our shot, when you first responded with your "gotcha journalism."

 

Your summary above of the current state of affairs, with regards to US manufacturing, seems to reiterate and confirm many of the exact same points that were made in the article I posted.  But you seem to want to focus on one conflicting piece of information, mentioned in the article, as proof of why the entire article, and I, should be discredited?  I posted the article to show how bad of shape the manufacturing sector is in, that's all.  Your recent post seems to agree with that take.  But sure, I am the one who "jumped in with both feet, without appreciating the overall context." 

 

The second part of my original post was mostly a joke, but you seemed eager to offer up excuse #12 - Discredit original post or person who posted, with a little side order of #1 - Biden's fault, and a little sprinkle of #10 - You just hate Trump, maybe a little hint at a #13 - Trump's fault?  I'm fairly certain that 50% tariffs on all aluminum from Canada has nothing to do with Biden. 

 

If I seem emotional about this, it's because I am a US based manufacturer, who has been directly impacted by the tariffs and I care about these two topics.

 

Are you a US based manufacturer?  Or, have you been directly impacted by the new tariff policy?  If your answer is no to both of these questions, then I can understand how you are "trying to stay grounded and objective," as neither of these issues have had any effect on you whatsoever.  Maybe you can appreciate that not everyone is in your shoes, and not be so quick to discredit fellow board member's posts.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter  

Edited September 4, 2025 by Buckeye

[backtothebeach]

50 minutes ago, Parsad said:

You are comparing the effect on a few hundred people who were blocking main thoroughfares for weeks to millions of people just living day to day.  By that measure, what happened on January 6th was nearly equivalent to the Holocaust! 

 

Again, before anyone jumps on this...I'm indicating the lack of comparability...not that anything compares to the Holocaust.  Cheers!

 

Huh? That went to extreme analogies quickly.

 

Anyway, by bottom line is that the rule of law, constitutions, charters, whatever, are all great 99% of the time, but suddenly become flexible and can go out the window quickly when the ruling class decides so, be it the US, Canada, Europe, wherever.

[dwy000]

3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

No; the decision maker should be there due to merit as well.  This is not about GPA; its about any and all qualifications, whatever those may be in the eyes of the decision-maker.  This is such a ridiculous issue; would you hire any 2nd rate [name your profession or occupation] to work for you when there is someone out there more qualified for the same cost?

GPA was a throwaway to describe perceived qualifications.

 

The point is that "qualified" and "value add" is in the view of the organization and a diverse background or viewpoint can be more value add or a better qualification than a statistical comparison.  

 

To your point if youre hiring for a marketing role to sell to a broad swath of customers across various backgrounds and income, would you only hire old, white men because they had a couple of years more experience?  

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

GPA was a throwaway to describe perceived qualifications.

 

The point is that "qualified" and "value add" is in the view of the organization and a diverse background or viewpoint can be more value add or a better qualification than a statistical comparison.  

 

To your point if youre hiring for a marketing role to sell to a broad swath of customers across various backgrounds and income, would you only hire old, white men because they had a couple of years more experience?  

You continue to miss the point.  Diversity is in itself a qualification to be considered for certain jobs, such as broad based marketing - no one suggested otherwise.  But it is not the end-all nor should it even be an objective when diversity is a non-factor or if there are more qualified alternatives.

Edited September 4, 2025 by 73 Reds
word

[dwy000]

6 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

You continue to miss the point.  Diversity is in itself a qualification to be considered for certain jobs, such as broad based marketing - no one suggested otherwise.  But it is not the end-all nor should it even be an objective when diversity is a non-factor or if there are more qualified alternatives.

Which is why I agree that quotas are wrong. But your point above is exactly why companies had (either stated or unwritten) DEI policies.  Because a diversity of backgrounds and opinions was deemed more valuable to the organization as a whole than qualifications alone.

 

Agree any job where diversity is not a factor should be merit based but those jobs tend to be ones where opinions and critical thinking dont come into play.

 

Point being that "most qualified" can often include diversity in what makes them them most qualified. 

Edited September 4, 2025 by dwy000

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Which is why I agree that quotas are wrong. But your point above is exactly why companies had (either stated or unwritten) DEI policies.  Because a diversity of backgrounds and opinions was deemed more valuable than qualifications alone.

 

Agree any job where diversity is not a factor should be merit based but those jobs tend to be ones where opinions and critical thinking dont come into play.

Whether diversity adds anything depends on the company and its business/end markets.  With regard to most professions it adds little or nothing unless you are targeting a specific clientele, whereby being a member or knowing your clientele is obviously important.  But that is not "diversity", it is simply prudent business practice.

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

Whether diversity adds anything depends on the company and its business/end markets.  With regard to most professions it adds little or nothing unless you are targeting a specific clientele, whereby being a member or knowing your clientele is obviously important.  But that is not "diversity", it is simply prudent business practice.

Not sure that's the case for most professions.  Certainly when you get up to management levels and decision making.  The qualifications for an entry level position are different from a management position. But if you if you have no diversity at the bottom rungs you have fewer options for the diversity youre hoping for (and that adds value) as they move up the chain. 

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Not sure that's the case for most professions.  Certainly when you get up to management levels and decision making.  The qualifications for an entry level position are different from a management position. But if you if you have no diversity at the bottom rungs you have fewer options for the diversity youre hoping for (and that adds value) as they move up the chain. 

The only issue that matters is "what is best for the business?".  If diversity somehow enters into the equation its all fine and good, but again not at the expense of someone better in the eyes of the decision-maker when all relevant factors are considered.  If diversity is a non-factor, who cares other than one political party?

[SharperDingaan]

3 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

The question then comes as to who's decision that is.  Tim Cook and Satya have both said that having diverse backgrounds, diverse cultures and diverse points of view are hugely beneficial to the organization as a whole to avoid group think. I fully agree quotas are stupid and counterproductive but having someone with a different opinion or viewpoint that shifts the discussion can make them much more valuable to the organization than having a marginally higher GPA.

 

DEI has existed across multiple cultures and for centuries, but the reality is that it isn't scaleable. Typically, the privileged found the best & brightest amongst the commoners (the few), sent them to the best schools (class bullying the norm), and parachuted the survivors into senior administrative positions running the 'empire'. Mostly the same process ... whether you were Chinese, Egyptian, or a more modern day colonialist via the Rhodes or Fulbright Scholar route. When very independent, smart hard asses, far out of sight, with chips on their shoulders are running your outposts  ...... 

 

Compare that to the scaled mass volume DEI of today; quite a difference. Just 'cause one is different isn't enough, one still has to build/hold a reputation upon a pile of skulls, via a culling process that limits the numbers. Look no further than the black markets.

 

SD

 

 

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

The only issue that matters is "what is best for the business?".  If diversity somehow enters into the equation its all fine and good, but again not at the expense of someone better in the eyes of the decision-maker when all relevant factors are considered.  If diversity is a non-factor, who cares other than one political party?

Malcolm Gladwell describes the issue really well in Revenge of the Tipping Point.

 

Some university in California decided they would not take race, income, background etc into account at all in admissions and just pick those with the highest SAT's, GPA's and extracurriculars.  Well after a couple of years they found that over 50% of the school was Asian. And once they crossed that tipping point, most non-Asians stopped applying because they saw it as an "Asian school" and more Asians applied for the same reason.  So they stopped getting the best applicants and only got the ones that thought they could get in.  The school had to change their admissions after that. 

[cubsfan]

16 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Whether diversity adds anything depends on the company and its business/end markets.  With regard to most professions it adds little or nothing unless you are targeting a specific clientele, whereby being a member or knowing your clientele is obviously important.  But that is not "diversity", it is simply prudent business practice.

 

Let's not kid ourselves - the biggest abusers of DEI are academics & tech.

There is no way they embrace "diverse" thinking - in fact the opposite.

They use DEI as a club for selection.

 

You can look at these academics & tech companies and find they are 90%+ liberal and do everything in their power to get rid of conservative minded individuals.

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Malcolm Gladwell describes the issue really well in Revenge of the Tipping Point.

 

Some university in California decided they would not take race, income, background etc into account at all in admissions and just pick those with the highest SAT's, GPA's and extracurriculars.  Well after a couple of years they found that over 50% of the school was Asian. And once they crossed that tipping point, most non-Asians stopped applying because they saw it as an "Asian school" and more Asians applied for the same reason.  So they stopped getting the best applicants and only got the ones that thought they could get in.  The school had to change their admissions after that. 

In your example the problem lies with the ignorance of applicants who were otherwise qualified and did not apply.  If they were indeed significantly qualified they would have been admitted over Asians with lesser qualifications.  In the end, if the school had to lower its admission standards it admitted lesser qualified applicants.  A good lesson for business not to follow.

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, cubsfan said:

 

Let's not kid ourselves - the biggest abusers of DEI are academics & tech.

There is no way they embrace "diverse" thinking - in fact the opposite.

They use DEI as a club for selection.

 

You can look at these academics & tech companies and find they are 90%+ liberal and do everything in their power to get rid of conservative minded individuals.

That's a separate issue - faux diversity for purposes of a non-worthy agenda.

[Castanza]

18 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Which is why I agree that quotas are wrong. But your point above is exactly why companies had (either stated or unwritten) DEI policies.  Because a diversity of backgrounds and opinions was deemed more valuable to the organization as a whole than qualifications alone.

 

Agree any job where diversity is not a factor should be merit based but those jobs tend to be ones where opinions and critical thinking dont come into play.

 

Point being that "most qualified" can often include diversity in what makes them them most qualified. 

 

I think the problem is some of the "requirements or quotas" are trying to over adjust for cultural changes that are already happening naturally over the last three decades. I'm an engineer who paid my way through school working full time and studying at night...no scholarships, no silver spoon money, nothing. I grew up middle to low income with a Dad who was a carpenter and a stay at home mom. Never went to Disney or the beach as a kid...I was told by my old boss (current job) that if a woman would have applied for my position she would have gotten it regardless of difference in qualifications (certs, experience etc.) because that is what the company was looking for quota wise...Is that right? I do recognize there are barriers to entry that minorities and women do have that I don't...but this simple DEI approach based on skin color is silly. There are MANY minorities and women who came from far more advantaged background that I. So if it's done, it should be done in a less "quote" manner imo. 

[cubsfan]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

That's a separate issue - faux diversity for purposes of a non-worthy agenda.

 

Yeah, the issue is that the DEI movement was totally corrupted from the start and is dying a very well deserved death.  Americans are sick of these stupid "victim groups" and "victim hierarchies".  

 

It's nothing but institutional racism and everyone knows it.

[whiskybravo]

21 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Thank you for your message @whiskybravo, I wish you would have led with this post.  Of course I'm interested in a constructive conversation, but thought we may have missed our shot, when you first responded with your "gotcha journalism."

 

Your summary above of the current state of affairs, with regards to US manufacturing, seems to reiterate and confirm many of the exact same points that were made in the article I posted.  But you seem to want to focus on one conflicting piece of information, mentioned in the article, as proof of why the entire article, and I, should be discredited?  I posted the article to show how bad of shape the manufacturing sector is in, that's all.  Your recent post seems to agree with that take.  But sure, I am the one who "jumped in with both feet, without appreciating the overall context." 

 

The second part of my original post was mostly a joke, but you seemed eager to offer up excuse #12 - Discredit original post or person who posted, with a little side order of #1 - Biden's fault, and a little sprinkle of #10 - You just hate Trump, maybe a little hint at a #13 - Trump's fault?  I'm fairly certain that 50% tariffs on all aluminum from Canada has nothing to do with Biden. 

 

If I seem emotional about this, it's because I am a US based manufacturer, who has been directly impacted by the tariffs and I care about these two topics.

 

Are you a US based manufacturer?  Or, have you been directly impacted by the new tariff policy?  If your answer is no to both of the questions, then I can understand how you are "trying to stay grounded and objective," as neither of these issues have had any effect on you whatsoever.  Maybe you can appreciate that not everyone is in your shoes, and not be so quick to discredit fellow board member's posts.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter  

 

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I didn’t know you were in manufacturing directly.  That definitely adds perspective I hadn’t accounted for, and I respect that you’re speaking from firsthand experience. That context does shift how I read your original post.

 

My initial response probably came off more combative than I intended. I wasn’t trying to do a gotcha, just pointing out that the article included a more mixed view than your headline suggested. But I see now how that might have felt like I was dismissing the whole point.  I wasn’t trying to invalidate your broader argument.

 

For context, I’m not in manufacturing myself. I’m a retired physician, so I don’t have skin in the game the way you do. That’s probably why I approach some of these issues more analytically or cautiously, especially around tariffs. I’ve traditionally leaned free-trade, but I’m increasingly open to the idea that, used strategically, tariffs might help bring back parts of the industrial base.

 

I also don’t like it when I find myself talking past someone on a message board.  It’s too easy to misread tone or assume the worst. I appreciate that we were able to move past that and get to a more substantive exchange. Even when perspectives differ, it’s always better to land on mutual understanding than endless back and forth.

[dwy000]

11 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

In your example the problem lies with the ignorance of applicants who were otherwise qualified and did not apply.  If they were indeed significantly qualified they would have been admitted over Asians with lesser qualifications.  In the end, if the school had to lower its admission standards it admitted lesser qualified applicants.  A good lesson for business not to follow.

 

Yes, they would have been admitted over the Asians but chose not to apply because they presumed that they either wouldnt get in because they weren't Asian or they would end up a token minority.  In the end it hurt the school because their "only the best qualified" ended up reducing the number of best qualified and the overall quality of the school declined. 

 

You can blame the non-Asians for not applying but in the end the lack of diversity hurt the school and forced a change 

Edited September 4, 2025 by dwy000

[SharperDingaan]

5 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

In your example the problem lies with the ignorance of applicants who were otherwise qualified and did not apply.  If they were indeed significantly qualified they would have been admitted over Asians with lesser qualifications.  In the end, if the school had to lower its admission standards it admitted lesser qualified applicants.  A good lesson for business not to follow.

 

The otherwise qualified who did not apply just got better deals elsewhere ....... so much so that over time it wasn't worth the time or application fee to even bother applying to this school. The school had to lower its admission standards 'cause it just wasn't competitive; market response.

 

When I'm the top-tier student, it's all about how much are you going to pay me (guaranteed funding) to attend your school; it ain't be f****** grateful, that we've made you an offer to attend our prestigious institution! Similarly when I graduate, if the prospective employer ain't top tier (& associated comp), it'll be a short discussion; market response.

 

SD 

 

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

 

Yes, they would have been admitted over the Asians but chose not to apply because they presumed that they either wouldnt get in because they weren't Asian or they would end up a token minority.  In the end it hurt the school because their "only the best qualified" ended up reducing the number of best qualified and the overall quality of the school declined. 

 

You can blame the non-Asians for not applying but in the end the lack of diversity hurt the school and forced a change 

No, the school hurt itself.  It could have RAISED the standard to get in, thereby eliminating some of the lesser qualified Asians.  And what if 50%+ Asians were indeed the best qualified candidates?  So what?  Why is that a problem?  If a company was comprised of 50%+ Asians and was not an Asian-specific business, why would this preclude Non-Asians from applying for open positions?  Back to your example;  could it be that the School's Admissions Committee was made up primarily of Asians with a natural predisposition toward their own?  Could there have been other factors the Committee overlooked with Non-Asian candidates or that favored Asians?  The example itself really does not demonstrate anything useful with regard to business and hiring practices because anyone can be a satisfactory student with intelligence and a GPA but not everyone is cut out for every job or career path.  Two entirely different standards and required skill-sets.   

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

The otherwise qualified who did not apply just got better deals elsewhere ....... so much so that over time it wasn't worth the time or application fee to even bother applying to this school. The school had to lower its admission standards 'cause it just wasn't competitive; market response.

 

When I'm the top-tier student, it's all about how much are you going to pay me (guaranteed funding) to attend your school; it ain't be f****** grateful, that we've made you an offer to attend our prestigious institution! Similarly when I graduate, if the prospective employer ain't top tier (& associated comp), it'll be a short discussion; market response.

 

SD 

 

You're only referring to a tiny subset of higher education and student applicants.  The rest of the World doesn't have to follow that path to be equally or more successful.  And again, it is unclear how this applies at all to business hiring practices.

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

No, the school hurt itself.  It could have RAISED the standard to get in, thereby eliminating some of the lesser qualified Asians.  And what if 50%+ Asians were indeed the best qualified candidates?  So what?  Why is that a problem?  If a company was comprised of 50%+ Asians and was not an Asian-specific business, why would this preclude Non-Asians from applying for open positions?  Back to your example;  could it be that the School's Admissions Committee was made up primarily of Asians with a natural predisposition toward their own?  Could there have been other factors the Committee overlooked with Non-Asian candidates or that favored Asians?  The example itself really does not demonstrate anything useful with regard to business and hiring practices because anyone can be a satisfactory student with intelligence and a GPA but not everyone is cut out for every job or career path.  Two entirely different standards and required skill-sets.   

??  The schools admission was based solely on non-judgement criteria entirely so no bias could be implied.  

 

And raising the standard to get in would likely have resulted in it hitting that tipping point even faster.  

 

And they at first didnt care that it resulted in a high proportion of Asians because they didnt care about background. It was the unintended response of applicants that got them to change because it ultimately backfired and reduced the quality of applicants vs what they got at the outset. 

[vinod1]

45 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Which is why I agree that quotas are wrong. But your point above is exactly why companies had (either stated or unwritten) DEI policies.  Because a diversity of backgrounds and opinions was deemed more valuable to the organization as a whole than qualifications alone.

 

Agree any job where diversity is not a factor should be merit based but those jobs tend to be ones where opinions and critical thinking dont come into play.

 

Point being that "most qualified" can often include diversity in what makes them them most qualified. 

 

I fail to understand where diversity for diversity's sake is good:

 

1. Say you are building a missile defense system against hypersonic missiles, what you need is skill in physics, fluid dynamics, metallurgy, etc. 

 

2. If a neurosurgeon is needed, I want their expertise to be in neurosurgery.

 

3. A pilot to be skilled in flying.

 

4. A teacher who is good at teaching.

 

If you qualify for any of the above with any filter other than the specific expertise, you end up with poorer outcomes. All the above are real world examples of recruitment policies that DEI had an adverse impact on that I came across.

 

Vinod

 

 

 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

??  The schools admission was based solely on non-judgement criteria entirely so no bias could be implied.  

 

And raising the standard to get in would likely have resulted in it hitting that tipping point even faster.  

 

And they at first didnt care that it resulted in a high proportion of Asians because they didnt care about background. It was the unintended response of applicants that got them to change because it ultimately backfired and reduced the quality of applicants vs what they got at the outset. 

I don't follow why it backfired?  Because the school did not get enough qualified applicants?  So?  Other than money, why does that even matter?  If the school is not getting enough qualified applicants, perhaps it has a marketing, or message problem.  Another important lesson for business.  Instead, the school seems to have chosen the easy way out by admitting non-qualified applicants.  I blame the school.

[dwy000]

3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

You're only referring to a tiny subset of higher education and student applicants.  The rest of the World doesn't have to follow that path to be equally or more successful.  And again, it is unclear how this applies at all to business hiring practices.

It was an example intended to show that best intentions can have unintended consequences. 

 

The fact is that most jobs where a diversity of thinking and backgrounds doesnt matter and its solely about outcome tend to be ones that are based on physical effort. Nobody needs to push DEI in the NFL or on an assembly line.  Its management roles and where breadth of experience is important and come into the question of "most qualified"