I don't care for any airline, but while I see your disgust for United expressed often I haven't had any issues with them. Granted I only fly them a few times a year. Either they've improved a lot or I have been lucky!
It doesn't matter the colour of employees' skin. It matters how many there are, and how the company insists they act. A company that cuts its own staff, reduces the bargaining power of unions, lets its supplier fuck it even harder, and cares about volume over quality... is going to be worse.
> "Cost-cutting was the single major reason behind selling commercial aircraft-parts operations [to] the new entity named Spirit Aerosystems [which] introduced its own cost-cutting strategy, even harsher than Boeing's"
> Spirit executives explained that they "hired 1,300 fewer people than the predecessor had employed" and implemented less-favorable union contracts which "provided for wage reductions of 10%"
> Boeing took advantage of Spirit's weaker union and more cutthroat business tactics by further squeezing their supplier to do faster, cheaper work.
> In a federal securities lawsuit [...] some of Spirit’s former employees alleged [...] many serious production issues including "out-of-calibration torque wrenches" that mechanics were using, and "defects such as the routine presence of foreign object debris (“FOD”) in Spirit products, missing fasteners, peeling paint, and poor skin quality."
> The complaint concluded that "such constant quality failures resulted in part from Spirit's culture which prioritized production numbers and short-term financial outcomes over product quality."
Diversity actually tends to IMPROVE results — including corporate financial results — by bringing aboard different points of view. And if you somehow still think that some races are more intrinsically intelligent than others, you're simply ignorant of the fact that the supposed racial results disparity in tests like the SAT measures more accurately disparity in opportunity [2]. There are many more references for both, and I'll stop at ignorance, but you really should get more educated before posting ignorance like that.
> Evidence that board diversity benefits firms, however, has been mixed. A 2015 meta-analysis of 140 research studies of the relationship between female board representation and performance found a positive relationship with accounting returns, but no significant relationship with market performance. Other research has found no relationship to performance at all.
From your own link shows very strong evidence for a null effect (keep in mind there's strong incentive to show a statistically significant effect).
OK, for the sake of discussion, let's say that diversity of the board & exec suites has a null effect, and take a closer look at GP's statement.
That is certainly a vastly different claim vs the extreme negative effect claimed by the GP of "accelerating" everything getting "getting shittier and more dangerous"
He's literally claiming that including people from diverse backgrounds will make things shittier and more dangerous. That is literally the trope of the dangerous black man coming to destroy society. So, yes, thinking about it, I'll go beyond ignorant and call it out as racist. Because if you can say that with a straight face, you really have a deep problem with attitudes about race.
Yes, I made a claim and specifically addressed it — and it's consequences
Since your counter claim was un-cited studies showing "mixed" results or no benefit, there was little to discuss about your point, other than the consequences, so I did.
Making the assumption that neither of us have decisive data, I granted for the sake of discussions that your counter-claim was correct. And went on to address the consequence, which is still that the GP is deeply wrong by asserting that leadership diversity accelerates the decline of civilization in general and aircraft building in particular.
In short: the worst case you can come up with is that it is more fair and does no harm. The best case is that it is more fair and causes improvement both locally and to society at large.
If you were trying to support GPs racist assertions, you failed. If you were trying to assert something else, it's not become clear in two posts. I'll be happy to respond if you could elaborate on what is exactly your point in referring to un-cited studies about null results?
Are you claiming that one of the links shows that it is harmful, or only null, as you stated above (& which link, where?)? If it's null, then I addressed that - again, worst case is neutral, but more fair performance.
And you have not even bothered to specify anything beyond "it asserts null", which I addressed and an otherwise unsupported and unspecified "you are wrong".
I'm happy to have a discussion, but not engage with zero-effort passive-aggressive empty assertions. Say what you mean, with some specificity, or go away. Have a nice day.
> you're simply ignorant of the fact that the supposed racial results disparity in tests like the SAT measures more accurately disparity in opportunity
Literally all this chart shows is disparity in performance, thereby proving my point. Unless you're trying to say standardized tests are racist?
>And if you somehow still think that some races are more intrinsically intelligent than others
Black people just have more access to sports, which is why they are more athletic. Disparity in opportunity, right? Asians just don't have access to enough basketball courts. But yeah, I'm the ignorant one.
>>Unless you're trying to say standardized tests are racist?
Quite the opposite. While the tests were criticized as racist, further sutdy is showing that the results correlate most strongly with educational opportunity, and basically document the broader disparities.
>>Disparity in opportunity, right? Asians just don't have access to enough basketball courts. But yeah, I'm the ignorant one.
Yes, you are.
You entirely ignore the role of culture and disparate opportunity in athletic results. For starters, in some minority cultures, sports is a primary route AVAILABLE for success, so both more athletes go into those routes, and more stay in. A couple of examples.
I knew a serious football player, played for 'bama, won the Rose Bowl, was recruited by multiple top pro teams. Declined it all and went into software sales (which is where I met him, recruiting my company to be a VAR), because he wanted to have knees that worked after he was 40. He was white and had the opportunity to do something else.
Or, take the speed events of alpine ski racing, Downhill and Super-G (something I know a bit about from having been internationally ranked and on my national ski team and the pro tour decades ago). For decades, the Austrians dominate. At various times, a Swiss, Norwegian, German, French, Italian, or American will be on top, but there are always Austrians in the top 10 and usually dominating at the top of the podium. Yet Austria is only a country of 8+ million people, not much larger than Massachusetts. And there are serious skiing mountains and training programs in dozens of larger countries, and far larger potential talent pools.
I can also tell you that Downhill racing is one of the absolutely most intensly demanding sports - over 2 minutes of peak demands on strength, aerobic capacity, and skilled fine-tuned control required to merely make it to the finish line, let alone win.
You clearly suggest that it is genetics that determine sporting outcome and anyone claiming opportunity or other factors is ignorant.
So, what is it about the Austrians' gene pool that gives them such perennial prowess in Downhill ski racing? Is their genetic makeup somehow that different from the next-door Swiss or Germans? Obviously not. What IS different is their culture where they have great training programs and a huge portion of their talent pool goes into ski racing — Austrian kids want to win at Kitzbühel or Wengen the way American kids aspire to win a Super Bowl or World Series —and that's differentially where much of our talent pool goes.
As for Asian basketball players, obviously they CAN be great [0], but anecdotally, their culture values things other than basketball, so we see lots more of them at the top of math competitions than we see Austrians.
So, while I could go on at far greater length, the answer is clearly that YES you are the ignorant one on those sorts of topics, and should stop spreading your ignorance.
Let's also deal with the facts here, from actual data on Boeing and Spirit.
You claim that diversity is accelerating the decline, in this case in the context of airline technology and management failures. Looking at their bios & photos, [0, 1,2] here's the breakdown:
Out of the 13 Boeing Board members, 8 are white men, 3 are white women, 1 is a black man and 1 an Indian, 1 a mixed woman.
On Boeing's 21 member executive council, 13 are white men, 5 are white women, and 3 black/mixed men.
Spirit Aerosystems has 10 Board members, of which 7 are white men, 1 black man and and 2 white women.
Spirit's 14 executives are 10 white men, 1 black man, and 3 white women.
You are saying that out of 58 people, the 38 white men got overwhelmend by the 13 white women and 6 black men and 2 others who completely and illegitimately dominated their choices and forced them to make such bad decisions that their fleets are again grounded and subject to inspection?
Because that is what is required for "diversity to accelerate" this decline — that those 38 white men are so weak that their superior judgement is overwhelmed by any minority of women or non-whites.
More likely, the dominant white men are just making inferior decisions all on their own, and the minority either goes along to get along or cannot outvote the commanding WM majority.
Either way, diversity is NOT the problem. The problem is that the old white guys (esp from the McConnel-Douglas cultrue) are forking it up and deed to be replaced.
Go peddle your racist ignorance elsewhere. (&re: your Twitter ref: you are obviously incapable of understanding an argument beyond mischaracterizing it — I'm not simply saying "here's an exception to your statistical generalization"; I'm describing and providing evidence for OTHER FACTORS that you ignore, and which actually dominate. Yese genes and opportunity play a part, but cultural push dominates top athletic prowess)
In general, you can spend your life using confirmation bias to confirm ytour racism. That does not make you any less ignorant. I makes you willfully ignorant
I sincerely hope your "doctor" moniker has nothing to do with practice of medicine. You would be a plague on your patients, and should quit. Wow, what an awful person you are.
This is rebutting a gratuitous, false, and racist comment claiming that addressing structural racism would "accelerate" "everything... getting shittier and more dangerous" and the "Decline of civilization".
We shouldn't have to rebut that kind of racist claptrap in such a technical discussion, but evidently someone calling himself "the_doctah" thinks it's appropriate to include and defend.
