Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I'll repeat again, forcing employment positions based on superficial quotas is a communist principle of enforcing equality of outcome irrespective of qualifications.
No, you have not explained, you just keep repeating the failed line. You think one person here, and another there in corporate board rooms (each earning truckloads of money) somehow translates to a country where everyone (320 000 000 in US) earns the same? It doesn't. Not even close.
Like I said, the companies these people represent practically define the word "capitalism". Who they choose to seat on their board rooms does nor revert the nation into communism. Such companies would not even exist in communist nations, since all means of production would be owned by the state.
This woman is peddling something, but its not communism.
How about we just agree to disagree on this.
Quote:
In a functional society, everyone gets a fair shot to work their way up and earn the position.If it happens to be 10 straight white men, that's just the way it is no matter how much you want to put that square peg in the round hole
Yes, I agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Used2BeeHere99
Chair: This board meeting is called to order. First item, we need an LGBTQ+. We got any? Come on, don't be shy. Fess up.
I'll wear a wig if they pay me couple of mil to sit in a boardroom every now and then.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 12-01-2020 at 12:51 PM..
If a company is forced to hire someone because of their race or gender, that means someone else is not getting hired because of their race or gender. It is discrimination pretending to be for a good cause.
This actually makes me think, is there going to be a test? Polygraph? If not, just have one person say "yea, I'm bi" and that's that. I can certainly see some straight guy or girl just saying that in order to move this along.
Hah yeah, talk about a 180 degree shift
1950: Hey we caught you two guys on the board having sex, you're fired
2020: Hey you two guys want to keep your job? Go have sex together
It's the death of a thousand cuts. First only 2 board members required, then 50%. Then it moves down from public companies to private companies. Then to college admissions.Then it expands to include whatever new and exciting biology-defying category they can come up with. Next thing you know the economy is in the gutter and nobody can find a job to save their lives
As an investors I want results ie profits, higher stock prices, dividends and distributions. I'm not holding just to hold. I already held a socially/politically correct mutual fund and it was below my purchase price for YEARS. I'm not going to buy foxconn after a bunch of suicides but I'm not going to buy a stock because it has a quota.
"It's not like we're saying this is an optimal composition of a board, but it's a minimum level of diversity that we think every board should have," Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman told DealBook.
It's not Nasdaq's business what anyone's board looks like. I would dearly love to see these companies have the courage of their convictions and tell Nasdaq that their boards are their own business and no one else's, and they can take their delistment and stick it where the sun don't shine. But I won't hold my breath. Somehow, we've become a nation of cowards, quaking in fear before the onslaught of woke dictators telling them how to run their businesses.
It's simply a "proposal" and they will not be "delisted" if they "explain themselves".
For example, we were open to naming board members of all demographics but no one who was qualified stepped up.
Additionally, this affects four (4) companies total.
Much ado about nothing.
The article says that three out of every four companies listed on Nasdaq are non-compliant. And besides, why should they have to "explain themselves"? You explain yourself when you've done something wrong. It is not wrong for a company to compose its board in whatever manner it sees fit.
The article says that three out of every four companies listed on Nasdaq are non-compliant. And besides, why should they have to "explain themselves"? You explain yourself when you've done something wrong. It is not wrong for a company to compose its board in whatever manner it sees fit.
Never mind that none of the proposed NASDAQ requirements actually require anything that has to do with corporate management
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
