Summary
Costco shareholders voted overwhelmingly (98%) against a proposal by a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, to assess risks linked to the company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Costco’s board supported DEI initiatives, dismissing the proposal as partisan and unnecessary.
This rejection contrasts with trends in other companies scaling back DEI efforts.
The vote comes amid new federal rules from Trump targeting DEI initiatives in federal agencies, potentially impacting private vendors working with the government.
I commented this earlier but quite a few corps that tend to beat the market in returns have not abandoned DEI initiatives. These are corporations that will not bat an eye to plunge thousands into poverty or worse to save .007 cents on manufacturing costs. This tells you that they believe that DEI has some tangible value on their performance whether it’s through marketing opportunity or because their workforce is actually better.
But I think abandoning DEI for many companies is the right choice, as bad DEI is magnitudes worse than no DEI.
I would a source to back this up if possible please.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/business/dei-programs-initiatives-costco-microsoft.html?unlocked_article_code=1.r04.sbAE.ogSNaMWiAKxK&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Apple, Microsoft, Costco, and I don’t know if they are mentioned there but JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs too.
Nothing there, asides from corelation with capitalism being bad. Dei doesn’t seem to factor into your claim there.
Maybe I didn’t understand. For which comment do you want source on?
I wish you would better articulate what part of this you would like me to address because I believe the link I shared addressed this. Use words, or highlight the specific statement you’d like me to clarify.
You said these corps that like DEI are happy to plunge thousands into poverty. That is what I need a source for that DEI is the root cause of this, not just shitty corpos in general.
I think you misread me. I meant that they do that because they are shitty corporations that act only in the interest of their profit and share price, therefore they would not have any qualms about dropping DEI if it was adverse to that goal. The fact that they keep these programs should be evidence enough that they believe it is either an asset or at worst as not having any effect either positive or negative. But given the overt hostility that the new administration is showing towards companies that keep DEI, I interpret the act of keeping the program as validation that they see it as an asset, enough that in their calculus it is worth more than potential threats to their profits like lawsuits or investigations or more openly violent attacks like targeted tariffs.
Is it not like anything else? It’s the implementation and execution of the program that makes the difference in whether it’s better or worse… DEI is an incredibly broad term. Many companies try to diversify their workforce because it’s always better for business to have different perspectives… no?
For example, work in a male dominant field, always trying to hire females, they are simply unicorns because they are almost non-existent in the field.
Yes, but most things that are badly implemented in a work place don’t lead to people feeling resented and angry at society.
People feeling resented and angry at society… Are these the same people that tell me I need to pull up my own bootstraps? If so, the two messages are conflicted.
Usually how this goes, there is a few bad implementations that go viral and make everyone else look bad…