Barely a week can go by without yet another corporation announcing, essentially, that they will fully embrace social justice ideology, identity politics and discrimination in hiring. Corporation after corporation is announcing how they are planning to change their policies, how they will enact "anti-bias training" (which seems to be a really popular buzzword these days), how they are hiring "diversity officers" (that's not a satirical moniker; it's the actual term they are using; yes, "diversity officer", implying some kind of position of authority) and so on. Buzzwords like "diversity", "equity", "inclusive", etc. will be thrown freely and abundantly.
Note that it's "equity", not "equality". There's a difference. Even the social justice ideology has started making that difference. They used to claim they want equality, but they have pretty much stopped doing that, because they have stopped to need to pretend anymore. What they want is "equity", not "equality", and they aren't even ashamed to openly say so. "Equity", by their own definition, means precisely and explicitly treating people differently, engaging in preferential treatment and giving people special privileges, and conversely discriminating against the remaining people, based on their "oppression" status. "Equity" means to forcefully take away privileges, whatever those might be defined as, from those who are "privileged", and giving them to the "less privileged", for example via special treatment and discrimination in hiring and other such things. It doesn't even need to end up in equality of outcome. If the "less privileged" person ends up benefiting and enriching from this more than the "privileged" one, that's not only ok, but all the better. For example, if the "less privileged" person ends up with significantly more money than the "privileged" one due to these actions, that's fine, and even desirable. That's "equity". It's a nebulous term not completely dissimilar to the concept of "karma". If the roles of the "oppressed" and the "oppressors" are reversed due to these actions, all the better. It's only just.
Also note what exactly the word "inclusive" (a word that they just love to use; you see it everywhere) actually means. When a corporation or entity that employs people use this word in this context, what they are actually saying (but do not want to say out loud) is "discrimination in hiring based on perceived oppression status", plain and simple. Which, in practice, means "discrimination in hiring against white males."
Qualifications and merit will become merely a secondary aspect of hiring. Skin color and sex will become the primary aspect. The same goes for promotions and salary raises.
In fact, some of these corporations are already openly talking about changing the meaning of "merit" and "meritocracy". It used to mean that those who are the most qualified, skilled and talented, those who excel at their jobs and are the most productive, and thus the most beneficial to the company, get rewarded with salary raises and promotions. It used to be that companies wanted these types of talented and hard-working employees who bring most money to the company and help the company in becoming more successful.
But no more. Company after company is stopping being concerned with success, and becoming political activists trying to better society by engaging in discrimination in hiring and promotions. No longer will the most qualified, talented and hard-working people be hired and promoted. Instead, the hiring and promotions will be primarily reserved to those who deserve them... for being "oppressed", not for being skilled and talented.
Moreover, when you read the new policy statements of these companies, you quite often notice a quite distinctive lack of improving their own products and benefiting the customers. It's all about benefiting the people who work at the company. Not a word about benefiting the customers. (These new policies are just awesome examples of selfish virtue-signaling.)
All this will eventually hurt these companies economically.
The "diversity officer" positions, and all other such positions created out of thin air, are not filled by people who actually know about the industry the company is working in. These will be social justice graduates with zero skill in the actual field of industry of the company, and no interest in having the company succeed and start making better products. Paying these people full salary is a complete waste of money.
In fact, it's even worse than that. Paying full salary to a person who does nothing and contributes nothing would be one thing. However, these are people who don't just do nothing. They will make the workplace extremely toxic. Remember that social justice warriors crave power and control. The people in these positions will want to gain absolute power and control over the workplace. They will start seeing "problems" and "problematic behavior" everywhere, and enacting their own draconian rules in the workplace. Good employees will be punished for completely innocuous things, and the work environment will become unpleasant, totalitarian and toxic, lowering morale and efficiency.
And, of course, hiring quotas and discrimination in hiring, when no longer will the most qualified people be hired, will lower the overall efficiency and performance of the workforce. Projects will take longer and will be of lower quality. Innovation and technological progress will suffer.
The most talented and hard-working employees may start seeing their salaries be reduced (both because the company can no longer afford to pay them as much, and because of "equity", which I discussed above), which in turn might make them quit to join some other company. It may well be that not only are not the most qualified people hired anymore, but the ones already working for the company may start leaving in droves, accelerating the downfall of the company.
In the end, nobody will benefit from this, except for those "diversity officers" who got full salary for doing nothing but destroy the company. And the irony is that they will probably not even be blamed for it. Heck, they may even be praised for a job well done. By the company itself!
Note that it's "equity", not "equality". There's a difference. Even the social justice ideology has started making that difference. They used to claim they want equality, but they have pretty much stopped doing that, because they have stopped to need to pretend anymore. What they want is "equity", not "equality", and they aren't even ashamed to openly say so. "Equity", by their own definition, means precisely and explicitly treating people differently, engaging in preferential treatment and giving people special privileges, and conversely discriminating against the remaining people, based on their "oppression" status. "Equity" means to forcefully take away privileges, whatever those might be defined as, from those who are "privileged", and giving them to the "less privileged", for example via special treatment and discrimination in hiring and other such things. It doesn't even need to end up in equality of outcome. If the "less privileged" person ends up benefiting and enriching from this more than the "privileged" one, that's not only ok, but all the better. For example, if the "less privileged" person ends up with significantly more money than the "privileged" one due to these actions, that's fine, and even desirable. That's "equity". It's a nebulous term not completely dissimilar to the concept of "karma". If the roles of the "oppressed" and the "oppressors" are reversed due to these actions, all the better. It's only just.
Also note what exactly the word "inclusive" (a word that they just love to use; you see it everywhere) actually means. When a corporation or entity that employs people use this word in this context, what they are actually saying (but do not want to say out loud) is "discrimination in hiring based on perceived oppression status", plain and simple. Which, in practice, means "discrimination in hiring against white males."
Qualifications and merit will become merely a secondary aspect of hiring. Skin color and sex will become the primary aspect. The same goes for promotions and salary raises.
In fact, some of these corporations are already openly talking about changing the meaning of "merit" and "meritocracy". It used to mean that those who are the most qualified, skilled and talented, those who excel at their jobs and are the most productive, and thus the most beneficial to the company, get rewarded with salary raises and promotions. It used to be that companies wanted these types of talented and hard-working employees who bring most money to the company and help the company in becoming more successful.
But no more. Company after company is stopping being concerned with success, and becoming political activists trying to better society by engaging in discrimination in hiring and promotions. No longer will the most qualified, talented and hard-working people be hired and promoted. Instead, the hiring and promotions will be primarily reserved to those who deserve them... for being "oppressed", not for being skilled and talented.
Moreover, when you read the new policy statements of these companies, you quite often notice a quite distinctive lack of improving their own products and benefiting the customers. It's all about benefiting the people who work at the company. Not a word about benefiting the customers. (These new policies are just awesome examples of selfish virtue-signaling.)
All this will eventually hurt these companies economically.
The "diversity officer" positions, and all other such positions created out of thin air, are not filled by people who actually know about the industry the company is working in. These will be social justice graduates with zero skill in the actual field of industry of the company, and no interest in having the company succeed and start making better products. Paying these people full salary is a complete waste of money.
In fact, it's even worse than that. Paying full salary to a person who does nothing and contributes nothing would be one thing. However, these are people who don't just do nothing. They will make the workplace extremely toxic. Remember that social justice warriors crave power and control. The people in these positions will want to gain absolute power and control over the workplace. They will start seeing "problems" and "problematic behavior" everywhere, and enacting their own draconian rules in the workplace. Good employees will be punished for completely innocuous things, and the work environment will become unpleasant, totalitarian and toxic, lowering morale and efficiency.
And, of course, hiring quotas and discrimination in hiring, when no longer will the most qualified people be hired, will lower the overall efficiency and performance of the workforce. Projects will take longer and will be of lower quality. Innovation and technological progress will suffer.
The most talented and hard-working employees may start seeing their salaries be reduced (both because the company can no longer afford to pay them as much, and because of "equity", which I discussed above), which in turn might make them quit to join some other company. It may well be that not only are not the most qualified people hired anymore, but the ones already working for the company may start leaving in droves, accelerating the downfall of the company.
In the end, nobody will benefit from this, except for those "diversity officers" who got full salary for doing nothing but destroy the company. And the irony is that they will probably not even be blamed for it. Heck, they may even be praised for a job well done. By the company itself!
I think there is a portion of the population which does not understand work. They think jobs and companies exist purely to enrich the workers and provide them with status, with actual productive labor being optional, or a mere formality. You see these people sometimes, and they always insist on being entitled to having what others have, regardless of merit. If someone gets a promotion, so should they. It's only "fair." They love words like fairness and sharing because it projects their lack of productivity onto other people; their failings are really your lack of sharing properly. They are always generally mystified when they get fired because they think everyone else is just as useless as they are, therefore the only reason you are firing them is out of personal malice or animosity towards them; everything is always personal.
ReplyDelete