Imagine yourself as someone who wanted to infiltrate and control large US companies. What would be your "holy grail"? How about getting someone directly on their boards? That person could work directly to influence board decisions and be a watchdog to publicly shame other board members who won't vote for their goals. Well, in California, this wish is coming true for those who want to elevate "diversity" over merit. Starting in 2021, all publicly-listed companies will be required to have at least one person who is part of an under-represented racial group or is LGBT+. California governor Gavin Newson says “When we talk about racial justice, we talk about empowerment, we talk about power, we need to talk about seats at the table”. By requiring handing over power to someone solely based on their immutable identity, California is explicitly saying that the sole reason why these groups are underrepresented is "systemic racism" (i.e., not merit or pipeline problems) and the government has a responsibility to use coercion to change it.
As its been said that California is the future of American politics, do you see a connection to Biden's selection of Kamala Harris? Do you expect these government-required board members to improve the strength of the companies that they will be placed? Does a company have a responsibility to become more diverse? What do you think will happen next?
The nonprofit group Business Roundtable is one source for this kind of rubbish. The corporate movement toward wokeness is actually coming from within. It’s a strange phenomenon but it reminds me of the novel Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis. Babbitt is a morally weak businessman who secretly yearns for a bohemian lifestyle. Lewis, being a socialist himself, has a field day humiliating him, all the while painting Babbitt’s yearning as good and righteous.
This type of thinking is exactly what is killing (economically) most of the "Free World"!!!
Men and women that are smart enough to start a company and get rich doing it are what drives progress!!!
By picking "leaders" by skin color/sex/ sexual orientation/ personal believes/ without regard to ability is a guaranteed fail!!!
A recent example is how Biden picked his running mate!!!
Using his criteria, he limited his ability to chose the best person for the job, to about 9% of the population!!!!
He effectively eliminated the other 91% of the USA population!!!!
Do you think that was the best idea?????????????????
The less the government decides for us, the better. I disagree that California represents the future of politics in this country. That state has proven over and over one of the absolute truths I believe... the government is hopelessly incompetent and inept. I refuse to believe the rest of the country doesn't see that.
I don't mind if my own people run a business and I think that my government shouldn't meddle in it. However I also think that crooks should be prevented from being somebody's boss. If someone is a fraudster, he should for some years only work under supervision and without any powers or competences. Such a person should not run or manage anything
When you appoint people to positions of power based on nothing more than filling quotas you accomplish nothing more than than the erosion of cohesion with in what ever group you target.
To over look those best suited to such positions in favor of filling quotas you not only lose the abilities of your best people but you risk them leaving your country in search of more favorable opportunities in other countries, we in the United Kingdom learned this lesson back in the 1980's when we over looked our brightest people and began the so called brain drain that has taken us almost 30 years to recover from.
Never in human history has appointment based of quotas instead of ability worked out well, fail to learn this lesson and you end up with a group of people all with agendas unique to what ever quota they filled.
20.10.05.2000M IS THIS A DELUSION OR AN ILLUSION? Now I understand that corporate law is a convoluted concept bordering on mysticism in an effort to explain things that don’t really need explaining. That’s why a whole sector of law is committed to it with its own battery of forked tongued lawyers to explain its incongruities (or rather explain them away). This is why communists see corporate law as a, weak spot, vulnerability they can exploit to harm capitalism. AND THEY’RE RIGHT only because of the extensive application of legal theory by lawyers seeking to validate their sorted profession.
I suggest you refine your question then refine it some more. Simply ask what is right & what is wrong? Simply ask who owns a thing & who seeks to own that same thing other than its owner? And to add the disgusting aroma of politics to the query, understand that to control a thing is to own that thing. Don’t quibble now, you know it to be true. This is the true reason, kept hidden behind the curtain, socialists always seek power – because they conflate power with control. In addition they always rebuke authority until they’ve attained it unto themselves. It’s rather like a motorist who needs ownership of an automobile (control), petrol to power the automobile (power), and finally a license to drive the automobile (authority). GOD help us if socialists get their hands on all three!
I wish to humbly adjust the sentence from the commentary I copied from this string. Whether it is the point of cleavage I don’t know – I’m just settling for it. But I digress.
The sentence I’m choosing for entry into the conversation is: “Board members are often appointed as representatives of shareholders.” Let’s try this: Board members are ALWAYS appointed (OR ELECTED) as representatives of the shareholders. An infamous attorney, or it could’ve been a famous one as I’ve known both, once told me not to go to a court house for justice; for justice go to a whore house. Corporate law is a crap shoot – a literal shit show. But I digress again.
I submit that this contemplation of governments dictating corporate board composition is in actuality an assumption of socialist government already in place – is it? (a little humor there) TAKE WARNING: Government dictating the composition of a corporate BOD (Board of Directors) is tantamount to the nationalization of that corporation. However you cut it, it’s confiscation of the private property belonging exclusively to the shareholders – albeit invisible, it’s still private property.
This effort in question is an attempt to walk a fine line between Nazi German & The Soviet Union destined to topple into full blown communism just like national socialism did in the past. And before someone asks, I do understand the difference between socialism & communism and that difference is getting smaller every day.
Now take me back to my old folks home.
This is what will happen next:
California will have very few corporations and company headquarters here, it will turn into a corporate ghost town.
The companies and corporations will keep facilities there but the headquarters/corporate offices will be moved out of state.
Texas and Pennsylvania will see an increase to their economy from this exodus of headquarters and California loose their corporate tax base and to make up for that loss, will start raising property taxes and personal income tax, the property values will drop like a stone off a cliff.
California's economic and social check light is on but they are ignoring it.
This is the perfect metaphor of where California is heading
Terrible idea. Who is to decide which minorities, racial, gender, political, environmental, religious, social will be chosen and who will represent them. That representative will have to be acceptable to the majority of the minorities (ironic term I have never used before). They can accomplish very little toward inclusiveness and will probably be disruptive and increase divisiveness. There are, and will always be, minorities in any society. Today minorities are demanding respect, which turns people off. It is much more difficult but much more effective if instead of demanding respect a group inspires respect. Government efforts to equalize society are never very effective and are used to placate rather than solve. The exponential increase in the disparity of wealth is the main problem. I have no idea how it could be achieved at this time, but people should be able earn equal to their productivity and pay according to their use of government services without subsidies or special favor.
Is that how it went with Hong Kong? Family plays into it. I read about Ben and Jerry's, almost went under by Pillsbury. They put a little please help circle and phone number to an explanation. The SON of Pillsbury became upset his family would do that, waited until Christmas dinner, complained, they reversed.
Taking over is unhealthy in the long run.
Letting companies manage is healthy.
At all levels.