4 ms·

Yes, for example even after decades of saying there should be more women and minority people on corporate boards, it's all still dominated by white men. Califo

Yes, for example even after decades of saying there should be more women and minority people on corporate boards, it's all still dominated by white men. California brought in a law banning all male boards in 2018 because the problem is so endemic. Not 1988, 2018. A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.[1] So this is still happening now, and for decades most boards just had a token woman at best. For me personally, when I found out about how unrepresentative corporate boardrooms were, that changed my mind about positive discrimination. It showed me clear evidence that network effects were too strong, meritocracy is a farce and it had to be broken by forcing a cultural change, i.e. positive discrimination was the right solution. If you go back far enough in my comment history here you'll probably find me arguing against it. But I learnt about the persistent gender and minority inequality on boards a decade or two ago and changed my mind. You should too. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/california-requires-women-board-of-directors/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/california-requi...

Stupulous 4y ago
The average age of a corporate board member is ~60. If they joined the workforce at 22, it would have been in 1984. That makes it a very poor measure of present-day discrimination, because it has up to a 40 year lag on top of whatever delay exists between legislation and effect. Also, this: >A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC. is an arbitrarily defined measure (I expect intentionally to make things look worse) when we care about how many women hold board seats. In 2022, 29% of board seats are held by women. In 2018 it was something like 21%. Not at all good, but nearly double the 11% you'd get for a token woman on every board (assuming the average of 8.9 seats/board from Russell 3000).
throwaway894345 4y ago
Personally, I'm pretty fatigued at people pointing to disparities as though the cause of the disparity is so obviously nefarious that they needn't even articulate it (as though it's some sort of self-evident truth). I think you'll have a better time persuading people (certainly me) if you make the case that the boardroom gender disparity is caused by discrimination (rather than, for example, differing priorities between men and women in aggregate) or perhaps why (irrespective of discrimination) gender parity in the boardroom is such a significant social benefit that it justifies "positive discrimination".

Stupulous 4y ago

The average age of a corporate board member is ~60. If they joined the workforce at 22, it would have been in 1984. That makes it a very poor measure of present-day discrimination, because it has up to a 40 year lag on top of whatever delay exists between legislation and effect. Also, this: >A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC. is an arbitrarily defined measure (I expect intentionally to make things look worse) when we care about how many women hold board seats. In 2022, 29% of board seats are held by women. In 2018 it was something like 21%. Not at all good, but nearly double the 11% you'd get for a token woman on every board (assuming the average of 8.9 seats/board from Russell 3000).

throwaway894345 4y ago

Personally, I'm pretty fatigued at people pointing to disparities as though the cause of the disparity is so obviously nefarious that they needn't even articulate it (as though it's some sort of self-evident truth). I think you'll have a better time persuading people (certainly me) if you make the case that the boardroom gender disparity is caused by discrimination (rather than, for example, differing priorities between men and women in aggregate) or perhaps why (irrespective of discrimination) gender parity in the boardroom is such a significant social benefit that it justifies "positive discrimination".