Corbynomics: A Dystopia

CLAPTON

davomcdave wrote: »

Bloomberg did a screen where they looked at the performance of the companies whose boards that had most gender diverse make up in the S&P500 and compared it with the performance of those companies in the S&P500 that were least sex diverse. The outperformance over, I think, ten years by the most sex diverse boards was about 90% on total shareholder returns (capital gains plus dividends) but outperformance could also be seen in sales and return on equity.

if this were so, then one might reasonable assume that the companies with less sex diverse boards are now bankrupt and those with more are now the overwhelming majority of successful expanding companies. So the issue will be resolved simply by market forces in just a few years.

westernpromise

davomcdave wrote: »

I take your point however if you look at CEOs, MPs or company management then women always come second to men. That makes me think that either:

1. Men are superior to women
2. We are missing out on a huge amount of talent due to our reluctance to promote women and to pay them the same as men for the jobs that they do.

Why would a CEOs or company manager prefer a man over a woman just because he's a man? That would be completely irrational - the CEO wants the person who'll do most for the bottom line. Why would any CEO walk away from more money for his shareholders and hence for himself?

The other side of this of course is that there is no shrill advocacy for women to have their fare share of the dirty and dangerous jobs also. You never hear angry demands as to why it is that women aren't killed at work as often as men and that this must change. These jobs are overwhelmingly done by men and presumably the quotas would only be in the cushy high-paid jobs that are done by men and that are obviously therefore very easy.

chris_m

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

How much of that is down to merit?
It's not unreasonable if you assume that advancement on merit will not necessarily lead to a 50/50 split, or even anywhere close to that.

I know at least one of the 7 CEOs of British companies got it on merit.
She was doing a great job as a divisional managing director at the company for whom I worked and was then headhunted for her present position.

westernpromise

davomcdave wrote: »

(Anecdata snipped) IQ is pretty much discredited as a measure of intelligence let alone anything as remotely connected with intelligence such as ability to run a business.

Way to miss the point completely.

Women are more closely bunched around the mean than men in every area: height, shoe size, IQ, ability to do brain surgery, doing standup, the whole lot. There are disproportionately more male maths university professors than female.There are more male standup comedians than men. There are fewer female outliers at either end of the spectrum, so there are both few female geniuses and few female retards.

When you start selecting people for anything at all that requires them to be in the outer range of a normal distribution, 2 or 3 or 4 standard deviations from the mean, there will be more men than women in the population when starting from an equal size of population of each. To achieve 50% female CEOs on a quota basis would entail promoting women who don't meet the spec. It is wholly irrelevant what the actual selection criterion is in any instance. You could set the criterion as "ability to run a FTSE 100 company" and men would still outperform women, in the same way that they outperform them at the bottom end too.

I wouldn't personally want to be operated on by a quota female surgeon.

davomcdave

westernpromise wrote: »

Why would a CEOs or company manager prefer a man over a woman just because he's a man? That would be completely irrational - the CEO wants the person who'll do most for the bottom line. Why would any CEO walk away from more money for his shareholders and hence for himself?

You'd imagine so but my experience is that men employ men to be managers.

westernpromise wrote: »

The other side of this of course is that there is no shrill advocacy for women to have their fare share of the dirty and dangerous jobs also. You never hear angry demands as to why it is that women aren't killed at work as often as men and that this must change. These jobs are overwhelmingly done by men and presumably the quotas would only be in the cushy high-paid jobs that are done by men and that are obviously therefore very easy.

Actually there is. BHP Billiton recently announced that it wanted a 50:50 split of men:women working at the metaphorical and literal coal faces by, I think 2025. It won't happen as there aren't enough women graduating as mining engineers worldwide for them to reach their goals but at least they're trying.

BHP Billiton do a pretty good job of not killing people at work, Samarco aside. I met their Head of Safety a year or so ago and he genuinely seemed to take every death and injury as a personal slight against him. Some of the stuff BHP (and Rio Tinto for that matter although I know BHP better) have introduced is amazing. Most miners working for proper companies these days that die do so from being run over by trucks. The solution is to give each miner a badge to wear. If a truck comes within 20ft of a badge the brakes are applied automatically and cannot be overridden. The badge has to be moved more than 20 ft from the truck before it can move again.

westernpromise

davomcdave wrote: »

You'd imagine so but my experience is that men employ men to be managers.

You have misunderstood your experience.

TrickyTree83

davomcdave wrote: »

You'd imagine so but my experience is that men employ men to be managers.



Actually there is. BHP Billiton recently announced that it wanted a 50:50 split of men:women working at the metaphorical and literal coal faces by, I think 2025. It won't happen as there aren't enough women graduating as mining engineers worldwide for them to reach their goals but at least they're trying.

BHP Billiton do a pretty good job of not killing people at work, Samarco aside. I met their Head of Safety a year or so ago and he genuinely seemed to take every death and injury as a personal slight against him. Some of the stuff BHP (and Rio Tinto for that matter although I know BHP better) have introduced is amazing. Most miners working for proper companies these days that die do so from being run over by trucks. The solution is to give each miner a badge to wear. If a truck comes within 20ft of a badge the brakes are applied automatically and cannot be overridden. The badge has to be moved more than 20 ft from the truck before it can move again.

I don't think anyone is saying women cannot do these jobs, or that sexism doesn't exist, but it's not such as issue these days that it warrant the women's march on London/New York/Washington/etc... It really isn't that ingrained into western society, if they really wanted to affect women's rights they'd be talking about Islam amongst other things.

It's just the liberals going off on one again the same way they did over BLM. It wouldn't surprise me to find people who straddle both social groups.

setmefree2

Jeremy Corbyn REFUSES to say if he would send troops to help NATO ally in Russia invasion

Under the Nato mutual defence pact, an invasion on one member state is seen as an attack on all members

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-say-would-9675387

LHW99

There are fewer female outliers at either end of the spectrum

And IMHO also in the psycopathic spectrum - a number of the male upper echelons in business seem to have a strong streak of that in their personalities!

westernpromise

LHW99 wrote: »

And IMHO also in the psycopathic spectrum - a number of the male upper echelons in business seem to have a strong streak of that in their personalities!

I'm pretty sure that is also correct. Psychopathy is a rare mental condition and thus an outlier, so the "women bunch around the mean" hypothesis predicts there would be fewer female than male psychopaths.