Microsoft has reportedly Fired its entire internal DEI team
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Thats the point, skin color does not mean diversity, it means racism. You can have diversity of education, religion, socioeconomic status, lived experience, values, gender, etc. Who the hell decided that skin color and sex were the most important kind of diversity? The whole thing is stupid and counterproductive.
That is not what I am questioning, I was questioning this statement by you-
Black skin color does not make you have a different perspective than a white person,
Vastly different than mine. Pretty much everything revolving around DEI is voluntary where I am.
I don’t know why you can’t do both.
Our monthly global ops meetings at Amazon start with a Safety tip, DEI tip, and Mental Health and Wellbeing (MHW) tip. I volunteered for someone in November 2020 that ended up leaving and have been giving them ever since then. I've actually learned some interesting things through them, but I get how sometimes they can feel forced too. Problem is even though I work on a hugely diverse global team, I can't get anyone to volunteer to present them for me now. I do get a lot of compliments from people for them at least, but I have started recycling from prior years since my workload continues to grow.
Both can be fine.
The “staff” hired to sort of implement it, while then eliminating “overhead” positions seemed to be a contradiction- again just here.
Like when company announces no/low raises but “softens” the blow with a new mouse pad. Makes you wonder if C suite people have any ability to read the room.
Precisely. This is why Elon’s companies are running laps around their competitors and even indeed nation-states like China. Here is his litmus test. No DEI needed, just excellence.
Blackrock had a major impact on the rapid growth of DEI. They have so much influence on so many companies. Here is an interesting article. (I did not copy the first part of the article, but feel free to read the history of blackrock if you please)
The Big Three
BlackRock is part of an even bigger monopoly, as it’s not the only one of its kind.
BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard are the three largest index fund managers in the world, and are collectively known as the Big Three index funds. They’re all American, and together have $22 trillion AUM.
They also work together in complicated collusion: BlackRock owns State Street, whose largest shareholder is Vanguard. Vanguard is also the largest shareholder of BlackRock. They interlink in other ways, and have intertwined with each other to the point where nobody is quite sure how separate they are.
They were described as the “most powerful cartel in human history” by Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in an X post in August.
The three companies are the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P 500 firms.
BlackRock itself owns majority shares in:
In short, these three companies oversee more of the world economy than anyone else.
- Apple
- Microsoft
- Amazon
Why is this a problem?
Any kind of monopoly is a problem, not just ethically, but economically.
The extent of BlackRock’s control is still up for debate too. Nobody is certain of how much they affect things, and of course BlackRock claims that it’s just an innocent investment firm.
But the problem is that while BlackRock doesn’t directly own anything, they oversee so much, and can steer investments at their discretion.
Some key points to note:
None of these things are out of order, nor dangerous by themselves.
- BlackRock has the ability to influence corporate governance, and vote on key issues, such as board appointments and new policies.
- BlackRock offers risk management and data management which is used by central banks and governments to make informed decisions about economic and financial stability.
- BlackRock makes investment commentary, and influences investor sentiment.
- Companies must contact BlackRock before they make any big moves in the company.
But it’s just the sheer scale that BlackRock operates on, and the cold fact that BlackRock basically has no competitors, means that these abilities are huge, as they’re widespread across the entire global economy.
With $10 trillion (and potentially more) being managed by one company, BlackRock has a say on almost everything.
It has significant influence over certain areas of the market which influence decision-making even further.
For example, BlackRock, along with Vanguard, owns majority shares in:
These four companies control 90% of the US media landscape.
- Warner Media
- Comcast
- Disney
- News Corp
BlackRock and Vanguard together are also among the five largest shareholders of the three biggest airlines. Too much concentration of power means that companies have no competitors, as they can be assured of BlackRock’s investment. Therefore, flight prices stay high, and can go even higher, and customers have no choice.
BlackRock can subtly steer decisions based on their own agenda, almost without anyone knowing.
It’s even starting to act like a debt collector.
Just like the World Bank and IMF, BlackRock have generously offered support to Ukraine and rebuilding its economy after Russian destruction.
But many savvy economists are aware that BlackRock are simply purchasing Ukraine, and cashing in on devastation.
So does BlackRock run the world?
Who knows?
As is always the narrative, BlackRock clients own the shares, and the company simply manages these funds.
As this article from CNBC demonstrates, its influence could seem more threatening than it actually is.
The value of the company is nowhere near its assets:
“That’s because BlackRock makes money by collecting fees from its investors, not by reaping profits from the companies it invests in. In short, BlackRock doesn’t own a portion of many US corporations. The people who own shares in BlackRock funds do.”
But perhaps this just demonstrates the problem, that BlackRock are doing all this by proxy, with our money.
And it should also be pointed out that CNBC is a division of NBC Universal News Group. This is a subsidiary of NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast — which BlackRock and Vanguard own majority shares in.
This is just one article, but would CNBC take a full stance against its biggest shareholders? Probably not.
BlackRock and the Big Three might not run the world as a cabal of evil.
But it’s more that this is creating a problem of economic disparity. It will create a situation where one single company owns the investments for the entire world, and there’s nothing that we could do about it.
Things will get more stagnant, and economically worse for the poor, while BlackRock and its investors profit.
Entire nations will also be at the mercy of corporations.
BlackRock can influence global markets, and governments, and the more their power increases, there is a chance that one day, BlackRock could oversee a majority of the global economy, wielding more power than any government or company in history, all the while being able to deny that they have control.
It’s exactly this hazy mist of ownership and financial jargon that is so effective in financial unfairness.
Companies such as BlackRock have oversight over so much of the economy which is still in the dark. Even economists and politicians don’t know exactly BlackRock’s influence. Perhaps even Fink himself is unsure.
BlackRock may not own things, or control things directly.
But they have fingers in many, many pies — more than any company in history.
You calling them diversity hires is what makes you a racist. Kind of ironic don't you think?
Well this should be fascinating. Please do elaborate on what is wrong with his statement.
"We fundamentally believe that a diverse workforce enables us to best meet our customers' needs and because of that we will continue to track and advance the diversity of our organization"
