The guy you linked and are citing is a self-proclaimed “former CEO” and “dealmaker” hawking consulting services for $20 a pop. Forgive me if I don’t listen to his take on anything.
DEI Fraud Exposed
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
That’s just a pitch for services. So what?
This analysis seems rather well done.
“I’ve lost all patience with the gaslighting about shoplifting—it’s just 1% of revenue, it doesn’t hurt anyone but rich investors, blah blah blah.
Using numbers from Lowe's 2022 10-K, here's a quick analysis showing how destructive it really is, including killing 1,500+ jobs. 👇
(1) For retail chains, 1% of revenue is an absolutely massive number. In the case of Lowe’s, inventory shrinkage—most of which is consumer shoplifting or employee theft—cost the company $997M in 2022.
That’s right: One company lost nearly a billion dollars from theft. In one year. If that $1B were the revenue of a company in its own right, it would be large enough to be publicly traded.
And, again, this is just Lowe’s. Think of the scale if you added in Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and all the grocery stores and drug stores across the country. Imagine how many billions of dollars that must be.
All of a sudden, 1% doesn’t seem that trivial anymore, does it?
(2) Even if you still believe that 1% of revenue isn’t that big a deal, let’s look at it in terms of earnings. In 2022, Lowe’s generated $11.9B in EBITDA and $6.4B in net income. That $1B in shrinkage represents 8.4% and 15.5% of those numbers, respectively.
In other words, for every $6.50 in earnings for Lowe’s shareholders, they’re losing roughly $1.00 due to theft.
If Lowe’s were able to eliminate all shrinkage, EBITDA would grow more than 8%, and net income would grow 11%. The company would generate an extra $710M in earnings, all without having other sell a single extra item or grow sales by even a dollar.
(3) For investors, that $710M of foregone net income is massive. In 2022, Lowe’s paid out 36.8% of net income in the form of shareholder dividends—actual cash payments to its owners, including mom-and-pop retail investors and the pension funds that represent a large portion of its shareholder base. Assuming that Lowe’s kept the same payout ratio, eliminating shrinkage would create another $261M available for dividend payments.
(4) More important, though, is the earnings that Lowe’s doesn’t distribute—the cash they reinvest back into their business. In 2022, Lowe’s had $1.8B in capex, in the form of new stores, improvements to existing stores, and other strategic initiatives. This $1.8B represented 28.4% of earnings.
If Lowe’s kept the same ratio and applied it to an incremental $710M in net income, that would represent an extra $202M available for capex. It costs Lowe’s about $22M to build and stock a new store, and the company has an average of 173 employees per store (inclusive of employees working in corporate-overhead positions).
In other words, stolen merchandise is costing the company the opportunity to build another nine stores, which would create 1,500+ new jobs.
(5) To summarize: $997M in shrinkage turns into $710M in foregone net income. This foregone net income, using 2022’s ratios, means $261M in shareholder dividends missed out on, nine stores not built, and 1,500+ jobs not created.
So you really want to say that shoplifting isn’t a big deal? You really want to justify it and say that it’s a victimless crime?
Go tell that to the senior citizens not getting the dividend checks that they otherwise would have received. Go to nine mid-size towns without a Lowe’s and tell them that. Go find 1,500 people looking for retail jobs and tell them that the only people getting hurt here are fat-cat shareholders.
Really, go on.”
“Literally beat out Brad Pitt…”
Revisionist’s history to justify a grown man being a fanboy. The artwork? 😂
Watching academics feud is quite amusing.
Plagiarism in the academic world is MUCH more serious than plagiarism in any other field.
So when you're in another field it's quite entertaining to watch academics go after each other over it. The ackman wife one is hilarious, she credited it but forgot quotation marks in a section of 4 paragraphs out of 300+ where she properly included quotations and cited the same person on numerous other occasions...and she had to explain all that at length. Great stuff.
Plagiarism in the academic world is MUCH more serious than plagiarism in any other field.
So when you're in another field it's quite entertaining to watch academics go after each other over it. The ackman wife one is hilarious, she credited it but forgot quotation marks in a section of 4 paragraphs out of 300+ where she properly included quotations and cited the same person on numerous other occasions...and she had to explain all that at length. Great stuff.
I urge you to read both long posts by
@BillAckman . Were it not for Elon Musk taking over Twitter all this rot in education would have gone on turning the USA to a Third World country.It is also true that the DEI folks will stop at nothing to cling to the institutions they have captured. What they are doing to @elonmusk and @BillAckman now is what they do behind closed doors in class rooms, board rooms, on campuses, in medical rooms to vulnerable students and professionals who speak up. They threaten to ruin people by amplifying their mistakes, pile up on them and cancel them.This is changing now.Let’s have a full audit!!!!Bravo @BillAckman and @elonmusk .But remember we are only at the beginning of this fight.
Gtfo! Do you even read the crap you repost?
Ackman has been leading this charge for a while now.
What's her job is a pretty pertinent question.
If she's a university president she should probably be shit canned if true. A baseline requirement for a university president is not to be a plagiarist IMO.
Hopefully some if not many of the sisters of HROT, will one day be on a flight ✈️ that suddenly barrel rolls into a mountain because the pilot is a liberal push through!
Thanks for adding more race bating, you're extremely helpful.
What's amazing to me is that the left doesn't see or chooses to ignore the danger DEI causes. In America we should always want the best and brightest for every job or position and we shouldn't be worried how many people of color, age, sex, height, weight, hair color, religion, etc. we need. America rose to greatness based on meritocracy and by ignoring the old world's class system of rewarding those of privilege. The left now wants to replace the practice of rewarding nobleman with rewarding "protected classes". Both systems penalize the hardworking and qualified at everyone else's expense.
Looks like Robert Sterling wants to f*ck Ackerman as bad as you want to f*ck Elon
If the the GF is a university president...then I agree with you.
Don't tell that to the "diversity is our strength" crowd. They've been brainwashed into believing a person's color, sex, height, weight, hair color, religion, etc, are relevant qualifications. They believe meritocracy is a vestige of white supremacy.
Wait you don’t want to make a lame attempt to both sides this topic? Are you feeling ok today?
Last edited:
There's no 'both sides" to this argument.
A university president shouldn't be a plagiarist. Should be a baseline requirement across the board.
Google has a lot of problematic employees and has for years. Here is just one example of their garbage DEI department. Perhaps we could see google/alphabet lost more multi billion dollar lawsuits again this year over their illegal hiring practices next (in addition to all their other illegal/highly unethical business practices)
So what does this women want? Does she expect everyone to feel sorry for her or give her a break that the rest of society doesn't get? I'm confused.
It sure seems to get the dumb people fired up.
People like Abby, Northern, Scruddy, etc. have never written a paper and cited sources. Ever. You in with them?
Neither has Claudine Gay (without cheating)
In regards to it being unacceptable for a university president to have several instances of plagiarism? Yes.
We have a major problem in the world today and it's extremism. At the end of the movie Angels and Demons the Cardinal makes the statement "Religion is flawed because man is flawed". At this point in time there's a whole lot of flawed people. DEI isn't the problem, people are the problem. Just like religion isn't a problem, people are the problem. Any time a person or group of people believe they're way is the only way, that becomes a problem. In your eyes you view DEI as a black cause and you view it that way because many in the black community believe DEI is about them. That is so wrong, DEI is about everyone, they've chosen to hijack it make it about them. Just like when a group of people hijack religion and use religion for bad things.
You're a typical person in these arguments, you make statements that don't really back what you're saying. You say that America is great because it didn't reward "those of privilege" and yet you mention that America rewards nobleman. A nobleman is a person of privilege, so America does reward based on privilege. If you truly want "meritocracy" then you must be for true DEI. If you take a rich kid and a poor kid, chances are the rich kid will get a better education than the poor kid, and as a result a better job. That's not rewarding based on merit, that's rewarding based on privilege. That's the opposite of what you claim you want. If you want merit based rewarding then you'll want the poor kid to have the same education as the rich kid. So guess what you're wanting, Equity. As you said, you want the best and the brightest, so how can you achieve that if every person isn't give the same opportunity, which is Inclusion. When you have Equity and Inclusion, chances are you're going to get a Diverse set of people. Sounds to me like you're all for DEI.
You have been brainwashed. For one thing, I never said we should reward nobleman. Try reading my statement again. I was comparing the old world (Europe of previous centuries) of rewarding nobleman with the DEI lackies of today rewarding protected classes. I'm saying they are one in the same NOT different.
Secondly, the education one obtained as a result of his families income or where he lived cannot be a factor. My guess is you would choose the well educated, experienced and heralded surgeon to save your child's life over the below average, inexperienced, DEI hire who grew-up in the innercity. As would I.
You mean like dredging up a 25 year old quote and starting a thread about it? Something like that?
Why do I say DEI is Marxist? - HackMD
# Why do I say DEI is Marxist? I can totally understand why you would think I was just throwing the
hackmd.io
If you don't like the meaning of the words, just redefine them! That's Equity!
If people are trying to apply DEI when hiring someone, that's too late. DEI starts when kids are born. I want the smartest kid to be my child's doctor, not some person from a rich family that was able to buy a degree. Talk about being brainwashed, you've fallen for the far right's rhetoric about how women and black people are coming for your job. Just think what can happen if we apply DEI to the youth of today so they're able to get the education and resources to be successful. Once that's accomplished there won't need to be a discussion around who to hire, it will be what you want, the best person for the job.
