I think it is true that “diversity costs cost,” but diversity existed before majority people understood it, and the cost of diversity was borne by minority. Diversity is not being created now, it’s just that people are finally realizing what was there before.
First published Twitter relevance - Parable of the eye shield
feedback
- Facebook
-
Jun Harada
-
The passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Law was in 1985, and before that, work and education were for men.
-
It seems to me that this level of diversity did not exist a short time ago. I get the feeling that there is at least a lot more than there used to be and that new ones are being created.
- nishio There are different interpretations of the same situation of “work is for men. I interpret the situation as “the diversity of men and women originally existed, and the cost of that diversity was borne by women in the form of ‘lower lifetime earnings for women due to lack of access to work.
-
If we consider the entire earth as a system, the diversity is the same. I cut out the aspect of work as a system, and then when women enter the system, the diversity increases.
-
-
Kohei Okubo
-
I have a feeling that nishio’s theory can only work with a partner who shares the premise that diversity is a given.
- No, I don’t think collateral is relevant because the claim is that “diversity is a phenomenon, not something that is secured or not secured, and someone has to bear the costs that result from it.
-
-
Shunsuke Soeda
-
I think you are just talking about mixing up “diversity” that doesn’t cost anything and “diversity” that needs to cost something, though…
- The criticism is that the very idea that “there is diversity without cost” is just pushing the cost onto minorities and making them “something they don’t have.”
-
What? My original comment was intended to say that I think you are mixing up the story of diversity itself and the story of equal opportunity at a cost.
-
Is there a case where diversity is a thing, but it costs more?
- First of all, we’re not talking about equal opportunity, and there are all sorts of communication costs and other costs that are imposed on the minority side by diversity.
- Jun Harada
-
The diversity argument has many aspects, but if we simply talk about the phenomenon of “the presence of various people,” the discussion of cost does not enter the picture, which is why I think it is a blur. Just “being” there does not mean that costs are incurred.
-
The discussion of diversity needs a background, and if it is “work”, “career implications for women who give birth” could be a cost, and if it is “communication”, “language, religion, creed, race…” and other costs (or frictions?) will be discussed. If it’s “communication,” then “language, religion, creed, race…” and other costs (or frictions?) will be discussed. See more
-
- My argument is that people are not objects, so they perform various activities just by “being” and that these activities have costs, and that the reason we are not conscious of these costs is because we only see people who are highly homogeneous with us, and in many cases this is caused by “the majority ignoring the existence of minorities”. I am not a fan of the “majority ignores the existence of minorities”.
-
-
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/多様性のコスト using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.