Again - The DEI policies /goal themselves aren't the issue - Which I have tried to explain in detail. Hire the best person isn't something that is /should be debatable. Companies that don't will go bankrupt
It's HOW you measure it's actually getting done. And this almost always comes down to a binary measure of X% of Y.
These DEI scores are now part of annual reports and investment packages for mutual funds, ETF's, etc
So because these scores became very important/popular companies started to pander to the criteria of the score. They know if their score isn't "good" - Even if they have hired all the best candidates - investment in their company - especially institutional investors - will suffer.
There's a reason companies are ditching their DEI policies now. It isn't because they don't want to hire the best person, it's because these scores required them to not hire the best candidates in some cases. If not why would companies be ditching these programs and mandates that helped them hire better and make more $$........
You act like all jobs, candidates, and success are all so easily quantifiable yet struggle with the quantifiability of DEI policies?
You don't think more funding for public education, education specialists, academic studies that focus specifically on boys education, etc., could maybe help narrow the gap?
Since these gaps persist across wealthy school boards and poor, probably not.
The first step is simply acknowledging that there’s a problem. But because of culture wars stupidity, that isn’t happening.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Proof that he didn’t want his french exposed, silly boy. You’re all about proof so let’s see it.
A "Liberal Party Official" had this to say:
Quote:
Jeremy Ghio, a former strategist for the Liberal Party of Canada, said Carney’s team made a strategic choice. “The Liberal team was facing two bad choices and took the one that they considered to be the least bad, from a linguistics point of view. It is certainly difficult to recover from a bad debate.”
The first step is simply acknowledging that there’s a problem. But because of culture wars stupidity, that isn’t happening.
I don't think anyone is disputing or not acknowledging there's a problem. This topic is coming up more and more in public sphere. There's also a concern about more and more young men just dropping out of the workforce altogether that doesn't have any easy explanation.
That's why I brought up academic studies. I don't know how you solve a problem without actually studying it and trying to determine a source.
While we cannot directly analyse outcomes after high school, the disproportionate association between family SES and childhood outcomes among the lowest performing boys, paired with the predictive power of behavioural outcomes for high school completion, positions family environment as a potentially important contributor to gender gaps in long-term educational achievement—and likely adult earnings as well.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
Ya, of course. The problem is they've been convinced the cause of their inability to get what they see other(mostly older) have is because they are being pushed down by DEI. The reality is minorities aren't cashing in on this, they are also struggling all while being scapegoated by the wealthy.
Musk, the richest man on the planet, routinely guides anger toward the vulnerable. Does he criticize the uber wealthy and the inevitable collapse that is the end game of wealth consolidation? No, he says only white immigrants are worth having.
The young really need to figure out they are being played for fools while the rich rob them and point them at imaginary enemies. And also need to understand that the generations before us were able to achieve what they were because wealth was more evenly spread around.
Here's the 1% tax cut you voted for. say thank you
Spoiler!
In reality people think about wealth inequality and no its bad. But they have absolutely no idea how bad it truly is:
Last edited by Cappy; 04-16-2025 at 02:01 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
Hope Cliff actually responds to this. I've seen too many times where when he gets provided with information that counters his argument, he kind of just ignores it.
Greed, dergulation, and wealth inequality aren’t the reason boys do much worse than girls in school right from age 5 onwards. Nor are Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. Not every problem is rooted in ideology and culture wars.
The educational gap between boys and girls is wider than the gap between rich and poor students.
Educators and parents know this is a big problem. But as Reeves points out in his book and interviews, many of the people he spoke to about the education gap would not go on the record with their concerns, for fear of being branded conservative or anti-women. Just another instance where tribalism is the enemy of reason and good policy.
In 1972, the U.S. congress passed Title IX to address the gender disparity in college. At the time, the gap in undergraduate degrees favoured men by 13 percent. Today, the gap is 15 percent favouring women. I don’t see public champions of equity speaking out to address that disparity. Or the gender disparity among K-12 teachers, which research suggests plays a role in the growing gap in educational outcomes.
I don't think it's a given that it's the educational system driving that. As infants and toddlers, girls generally advance faster than boys; at 18 months old, girls normally have 4x the vocabulary that boys do. So it's not all that surprising that that carries over into childhood literacy and communication.
And since at least the 1960s, girls have generally graduated high school at higher rates than boys, so why shouldn't they attend university at higher rates? Particularly since most of the non-university paths to well paid careers are in fields dominated by men.
And this also isn't necessarily a recent phenomenon or anything. Some data shows that median performance among women in post-secondary education has consistently been higher than among men for the last 100 years.
Hello, I'm not going to go through the entire thread and I know the majority of CalgaryPuck posters are 45+ in age but 80% of the people I talk to and are within 5 years of my age (33) are all voting conservative without a second thought, myself included.
My question is:
I would like to know why those of you that are above 45 in age or older that own their own homes, think that Mark Carney will benefit us in our 30s over Pierre Polieivere. Pierre has stated he will cut immigration to the point where we're building more homes faster than we allow people into Canada and will allow first time home buyers to purchase their first homes without the 5% GST included in those homes.
The reason for the above question is because of 80% of the people I talk to in my age range (millenial) is because we're concerned about never being able to afford a home and if we're never able to afford a home, it affects many things specifically, like starting a family. From my understanding, Mark Carney wants to increase the Canadian population to 100 million by 2100 which is 800,000 a year when Canada has been known to build 200,000 places of living a year. He has publicly stated this.
If I currently owned a home this would be great for myself as my home would sky rocket in value. Please let me know on this particular issue, why as a millennial this is good for me.
Thank you in advance. Not looking to fight anyone. I want clarity.
I'm genuinely thankful for this post. Sharing this opinion does a lot to explain the support Conservatives are getting among younger people. It's a nice break from the usual fighting and scandal hunting that usually goes on in the politics thread.
Do you mind sharing what you do for work and where you're taking to these people (what kind of social circles)? I'm really interested to know more. I'd also like to know if you discuss any specific Conservative policies that you're excited for or if you're simply voting against the Liberal status quo. I am also not looking for a fight, just curious.
Personally, 80% of of people that I talk to in my life are voting NDP or Liberal. I'm 37 but I also own my own home. I work as a ML engineer and my social circles are either bicycle people or extremely politically involved.
And this also isn't necessarily a recent phenomenon or anything. Some data shows that median performance among women in post-secondary education has consistently been higher than among men for the last 100 years.
To bring this full-circle to the DEI discussion. If that's the case, then why have men generally been hired at higher wages and promoted faster if DEI is such an issue?
Here's the 1% tax cut you voted for. say thank you
Spoiler!
In reality people think about wealth inequality and no its bad. But they have absolutely no idea how bad it truly is:
That video is a decade old. Wealth inequality in the USA is far worse than shown in the video.
It's a problem I've been screaming about for pretty much my entire adult life, but the response I always get is, "just accept there's nothing you can do about it, and focus on making yourself richer".
Someone brought this up elsewhere, so I'm not taking credit for it. I wish someone would ask Carney how he hopes to leverage AI while limiting trade with the U.S. All of the major AI companies are American.
Someone brought this up elsewhere, so I'm not taking credit for it. I wish someone would ask Carney how he hopes to leverage AI while limiting trade with the U.S. All of the major AI companies are American.
We go the china route and the cheaper DeepSeek
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
They absolutely will if cost of living issues don't improve in the next four years.
How do you measure that? I understand the housing price issue (although federal governments can only do so much on that front). But inflation is dropping, and if anything, it's dropping more than expected.
