5 ms·
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
by exolymph 5y ago
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
- throwaway684936 5y agoHow does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
- bcj7393nsk 5y ago
- tomp 5y agoWhy would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
- throwaway684936 5y agoAre you actually serious? We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads). Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender. In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-and-poor-127585 https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l... https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transgender-people-according-to-u-s-transgender-survey/ https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge... https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender
- pessimizer 5y agoTransgender people are a tiny percentage of LGBT people, so using them to characterize all LGBT is intentionally misleading. Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
- burnished 5y agoThe US has a recent history of racial discrimination that prevented a lot of people from building wealth in their communities or generational wealth. Not that there aren't a shit ton of white people living in trailer parks, but no one was denying them home loans because of the color of their skin. So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family. Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
- tomp 5y agoSure but here we're talking about LGBT. I include women because of this: > I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results AFAIK most of these studies focused on "women in boardrooms/leadership"
- burnished 5y agoHmmm, fair enough, I suppose I simply failed my reading comprehension roll.
- giraffe_lady 5y agothis is mathematically similar too, and about as sensible as, statements like "it either kills me or it doesn't, so that's a 50% chance"
- pessimizer 5y agoYou're reading it wrong. They weren't saying that there's an equal chance for anyone to be born poor as to be born wealthy, they were saying the chances are the same for a straight person to be born either poor or wealthy as for a LGBT person to be born either poor or wealthy. This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.
- rayiner 5y agoYou mean like Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s? Or for that matter Italians or Irish or Eastern European immigrants?
- throwaway684936 5y agoRacial/cultural/nationality discrimination isn't identical to LGBT discrimination.
- xyzzyz 5y agoIndeed, it's much easier to hide that you're gay than that you're black or Russian.
- kuschku 5y agoThe chance to successfully start a new company depends on the succes your parents and others in your demographic had. It's not that simple.
- trhway 5y agoHaving successful parents is equally random for everyone, isn't?
- phalangion 5y agoNot with other systemic issues.
- listless 5y agoAnybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most logical solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
- zozbot234 5y ago> Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.
- giraffe_lady 5y agosome grim capitalist realist shit when it's easier to imagine taking everyone's kids away than it is to imagine not structuring society around the exploitation of artificial inequality.
- toast0 5y ago
- okwubodu 5y agoUntil you need funding and find out you don’t fit the profile of a successful founder.
- bobkazamakis 5y agocapitalism doesn't solve every problem.