You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.
I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.
Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I’m not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don’t think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they’re going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.
I would argue that Apple has actually done more to increase the quality of working conditions in China than any other company. Is it still a horrible environment, yes, but without Apple I’m not sure that it would have been better.
I don’t find a problem with exploiting tax loopholes because 9/10 times the loopholes are there by design, this is something to take up with the IRS and the government, because corporations HAVE to take advantage of said loopholes to stay competitive.
But to address directly your comment, I didn’t say that them retaining DEI was a moral choice. I believe it was a business decision, which is why I framed it as them historically beating the market while these firms don’t. Apple has clearly seen the value of DEI in their revenue and operations, otherwise they would be cutting the program real quick.
Tim Apple donated to the guy who wants to make DEI illegal though, so if Apple does stay the course, I just hope it ends up being under someone else’s leadership.
Research clearly shows most corporate entities (and their figureheads) donate to both sides of the political game. They want to have friends in power no matter who wins the election.
Tim is a very pragmatic man, and like any CEO he’s not an ideologue so he paid the bribe. It’s the cost of doing business under the corrupt Trump administration. Is he a coward for doing so? Maybe. But if he didn’t pay it and Trump acted against Apple the blame would fall on Tim and he would be replaced with someone friendlier towards Trump. Maybe Tim figured it was better he stayed in charge to minimize damage, as gay man who has no doubt faced his fair share of persecution and prejudice.
Then again Peter Thiel is also gay and he’s the puppet master behind Silicon Valley’s sudden heel turn. So is Sam Altman who is also donating.
You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.
I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.
Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I’m not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don’t think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they’re going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.
I would argue that Apple has actually done more to increase the quality of working conditions in China than any other company. Is it still a horrible environment, yes, but without Apple I’m not sure that it would have been better.
I don’t find a problem with exploiting tax loopholes because 9/10 times the loopholes are there by design, this is something to take up with the IRS and the government, because corporations HAVE to take advantage of said loopholes to stay competitive.
But to address directly your comment, I didn’t say that them retaining DEI was a moral choice. I believe it was a business decision, which is why I framed it as them historically beating the market while these firms don’t. Apple has clearly seen the value of DEI in their revenue and operations, otherwise they would be cutting the program real quick.
Tim Apple donated to the guy who wants to make DEI illegal though, so if Apple does stay the course, I just hope it ends up being under someone else’s leadership.
Research clearly shows most corporate entities (and their figureheads) donate to both sides of the political game. They want to have friends in power no matter who wins the election.
Tim is a very pragmatic man, and like any CEO he’s not an ideologue so he paid the bribe. It’s the cost of doing business under the corrupt Trump administration. Is he a coward for doing so? Maybe. But if he didn’t pay it and Trump acted against Apple the blame would fall on Tim and he would be replaced with someone friendlier towards Trump. Maybe Tim figured it was better he stayed in charge to minimize damage, as gay man who has no doubt faced his fair share of persecution and prejudice.
Then again Peter Thiel is also gay and he’s the puppet master behind Silicon Valley’s sudden heel turn. So is Sam Altman who is also donating.