News

The real fence is capital vs labor, and he doesn’t play both sides of that one

I mean, he did give a generous "personal donation" to the Trump inauguration.

Maybe his interpretation of DEI would be more H1Bs from India?

I reckon they have to at this point. Pay your dues and get to keep your business.

But Costco loves us, right?

They also operate a lot of sweatshops.

Well they don't love you.

They can tout DEI and idpol all they want. They're still stiffing union workers.

Companies are not things to love.

My understanding is it's basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it's anti-white behaviour.

"I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one" type stuff

I'm not American so no idea what your constitution says.

DEI is basically "you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let's hold off on that."

Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They're still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.

I know its effect won’t be more equality.

Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you've heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.

the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)

Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:

“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.

basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.

personally, i think most of it is hubabaloo, and most companies know(or should know) the minimum requirement they are looking for out of an employee since most of them already want the cheapest person in the building regardless of race. I just think the argument that they wont hire the best person suited for the job a fallacy, as if they were THAT good, then they would never get passed up to fill some racial quota. No one is going around for example passing up on Jim Keller (cpu architecture guru) over a minority designer who has little experience. for the jobs that require the best, a company will look for it regardless.

A lot of them are temps/contracted too, which is even worse. (at least for their warranty/refurbishment locations)

They've had a rainbow logo for a long time.

A terrible company, but some of the best marketing

They are a terrible company, and yet I'll always bat for them online because I feel they get more flak than other, even worse tech companies.

Apple was the first company to give you several years of software support instead of one major OS version. Apple, for a while, made devices so easy to repair, it would've put them out of business at some point, honestly. Even with the first 8 or so iPhones, they were fairly easy to open up, but I'm talking of course about the PowerPC era, where they'd send you repair manuals with your spare parts. As a private individual.

Apple still makes the highest quality laptops, as far as actual build quality is concerned. That aluminium feels so nice. Also only running 2 or 3 models at once means they're actually easier to repair, as spare parts aren't nearly as diverse. I see a HP that doesn't say "Elitebook" on it and I throw it in the trash, because I ain't looking for parts for no Pavilion or Envy or whatever.

That said, do I think they actually have any social principles? Hell nah. But they aren't worse than all the other companies. Apple makes money selling you an overpriced phone. Google only does if you buy a Pixel, which isn't all that big a marketshare, there's still Samsung and others in the same space. Google needs to be making money off those too, and they are, via data collection and advertising.

Tim Cook has made it a point to kiss the ring privately on his own while keeping apple neutral so that money keeps flowing in.