What happened to the best person for the job?

[featfan]

I guess I should have said peoplekind.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7494223/nasd ... companies/

Nasdaq wants to require listed companies to have at least 2 diverse directors.

[The Green Barbarian]

what happened? Political correctness happened.

[TylerM4]

I'm with you guys.

Laws and rules like this fuel more racism than they remove.

Laws/rules are to protect people from the impact of racism only. If you want to eliminate racism you need to look elsewhere - like education, social programs, and other incentives. It's such a simple concept yet amazes me how few people actually understand this.

[typhoon44]

Proven to be false. The racist/misogynist/... status quo will always want to keep it the way it is.
If you're a white man you can complain but it only strengthens the argument.

[The Green Barbarian]

Proven to be false. The racist/misogynist/... status quo will always want to keep it the way it is.
If you're a white man you can complain but it only strengthens the argument.

Strengthens what argument exactly?

[typhoon44]

Proven to be false. The racist/misogynist/... status quo will always want to keep it the way it is.
If you're a white man you can complain but it only strengthens the argument.

Strengthens what argument exactly?

To have more diversity in the boardroom. Did you even read the OP's link or are you purposely being obtuse?

[The Green Barbarian]

To have more diversity in the boardroom.

But that's not the argument. The argument is should it be up to NASDAQ and other agencies to enforce diversity. That's the argument. You are just jumping on the PC bandwagon

Did you even read the OP's link or are you purposely being obtuse?

Right back at ya PC person.

[oneh2obabe]

From the article ... It would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have, or explain why they don’t have, at least two diverse directors. This includes having one board member who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ.

Pray tell how someone identifying with either of these 2 classifications makes them more suitable for the position than someone with the same qualifications but a bit more experience? I don't care if you're pink, purple, blue, or green with gold dots, the position should go to the person best suited for the job. End. Of. Story.

[TylerM4]

To have more diversity in the boardroom. Did you even read the OP's link or are you purposely being obtuse?

Where your head at on this one? Seriously, the question was: "Strengthen what argument" your answer "To have more diversity in the boardroom."

Uhh, How is that an answer? To take your lead - Did you even read the question? It's like your answering a different question entirely.

So I'll ask it again: Strengthens what argument?

[typhoon44]

To have more diversity in the boardroom. Did you even read the OP's link or are you purposely being obtuse?

Where your head at on this one? Seriously, the question was: "Strengthen what argument" your answer "To have more diversity in the boardroom."

Uhh, How is that an answer? To take your lead - Did you even read the question? It's like your answering a different question entirely.

So I'll ask it again: Strengthens what argument?

The argument is that diversity is good. Seems obvious.
Diversity of thought / perspective
Shareholder/stakeholder representation and enhanced reputation
Access to a broader pool of talent
Competitive advantage
https://www.simplifie.com/boards-blog/t ... ir%20needs.

[oneh2obabe]

What is Nasdaq going to do or say if/when companies decide it's in their best interest to voluntarily delist?

[The Green Barbarian]

The argument is that diversity is good. Seems obvious.
.

Nope. That's what you WANT the argument to be, so that you can automatically assign yourself the moral high ground. But that isn't the argument. Should NASDAQ be enforcing "diversity", or should companies make these decisions autonomously without the bureaucratic oversight? If "diversity" is so good as you state, then there should be no need for the bureaucracy right?

[bernie428]

From the article;

Nasdaq’s plan ups the stakes in what was already a widening push by shareholders and governments around the world for more diversity on corporate boards, which often are composed of mostly white men.

In its proposal, Nasdaq cited a report from the Carlyle Group investment company, which found that companies it invested in that have at least two diverse board members have nearly 12% more earnings growth per year than the average of companies that lack diversity.

Shareholders are increasingly pushing companies to improve their board diversity, both in public and in private. Big investors are trying to cajole executives through private channels. For example, Nuveen, which invests $1.1 trillion globally, has been pushing a group of smaller and mid-sized companies without a woman on their board to add one. It’s seen more than 30% of them add a woman, as of 2019.

In public, investors are getting more chances to vote at companies’ annual meetings on shareholder resolutions seeking more disclosures on the makeup of the board.

Shareholders being the owners.
Public being the customers.

[GordonH]

Businesses don’t care about the right person for a job, instead it is about perceived public image.

[LANDM]

What is Nasdaq going to do or say if/when companies decide it's in their best interest to voluntarily delist?

Nasdaq is simply a company that provides a service. I am certain that they have thought this through as part of their business model.
If it happens as you suggest, then that decision was wrong and companies make wrong decisions every day. However, I do not believe this one will prove to be wrong.
Can you imagine the blowback on a public company because they refuse to have a more diverse board? I can.