I am all for women becoming CEOs through merit. But this is just hilarious where they say women-heades S&P 500 companies "perform great" and immediately follow it up with a chart that proves the opposite.
But do you think they even comprehend how the chart proves that their "Woman's World" companies are performing 7-10% WORSE than the companies they disparage?
Isn't that kind of like a similar subterfuge when they remove failing companies off of the Dow Jones average in order to keep that fake number propped up?
Wtf. How did that page make any sense. I'm not even a stock guy and if I'm understanding it right, its saying not only did "no glass ceilings" (which I'm assuming is representative of the 22 Fortune 500 companies with women CEO's) lose out to anyone that simply did a straight index fund of the S&P 500 (which means literally zero thinking required or involved), but that they lost their shareholders a shitload of money. And they're trying to spin that as Good? A Boost in Profitability? The numbers don't lie. Again, if I'm reading that correctly its saying the exact Opposite. The great thing about numbers is that they don't lie.
My other favourite was the article that proclaimed women are better bosses because "women were 6% more likely to feel engaged at work" (42% vs 36%). They came to that conclusion because we all know that people who feel more engaged are better, more inspiring leaders, therefore better overall. They're better than men because they feel better about their jobs. Way to go to ignore productivity and results!
God that is hilarious. Oh the irony. I do wonder what calibre of human being it takes to do that. I mean really is just ***** hilarious. I feel sorry for all of those women who are actually competent CEO s and have to put up with this. I mean must be very annoying to have someone say women are great CEOs and then show a chart that makes it look over wise. Anyway who would invest in a fund purely because it pleased feminists? I mean really what person would create a fund trying to prove that women are good CEOs but then have it show on the first few lines that it consistently loses money. Create post cappy
The narrative in this case is that the companies led by female CEO's are doing "well enough". It would also be argued that these companies are more fair, more egalitarian, solve world hunger and have a "conscience".
Women are also much more likely to pursue careers that are "personally rewarding" than men. Women also tend to prefer jobs that are close to home, offer flex time and other non monetary forms of compensation.
So, I'm surprised they only like their jobs 6% more.
This is how commies edit history. When you published this, the graph showed that feminist companies' shares were below SP500. But look at it now - it's above the index. The difference is, it's another companies.
13 comments:
Yo the chart dawg
But do you think they even comprehend how the chart proves that their "Woman's World" companies are performing 7-10% WORSE than the companies they disparage?
Isn't that kind of like a similar subterfuge when they remove failing companies off of the Dow Jones average in order to keep that fake number propped up?
Wtf. How did that page make any sense. I'm not even a stock guy and if I'm understanding it right, its saying not only did "no glass ceilings" (which I'm assuming is representative of the 22 Fortune 500 companies with women CEO's) lose out to anyone that simply did a straight index fund of the S&P 500 (which means literally zero thinking required or involved), but that they lost their shareholders a shitload of money. And they're trying to spin that as Good? A Boost in Profitability? The numbers don't lie. Again, if I'm reading that correctly its saying the exact Opposite. The great thing about numbers is that they don't lie.
My other favourite was the article that proclaimed women are better bosses because "women were 6% more likely to feel engaged at work" (42% vs 36%).
They came to that conclusion because we all know that people who feel more engaged are better, more inspiring leaders, therefore better overall.
They're better than men because they feel better about their jobs. Way to go to ignore productivity and results!
God that is hilarious. Oh the irony. I do wonder what calibre of human being it takes to do that. I mean really is just ***** hilarious. I feel sorry for all of those women who are actually competent CEO s and have to put up with this. I mean must be very annoying to have someone say women are great CEOs and then show a chart that makes it look over wise. Anyway who would invest in a fund purely because it pleased feminists?
I mean really what person would create a fund trying to prove that women are good CEOs but then have it show on the first few lines that it consistently loses money. Create post cappy
hmm but the manosphere says that women should stay home and have children
Thank You, that is the most funny thing I have seen today.
The narrative in this case is that the companies led by female CEO's are doing "well enough". It would also be argued that these companies are more fair, more egalitarian, solve world hunger and have a "conscience".
Maybe they were short the noglassceilings motif. Yeah... dats da ticket.
Women are also much more likely to pursue careers that are "personally rewarding" than men. Women also tend to prefer jobs that are close to home, offer flex time and other non monetary forms of compensation.
So, I'm surprised they only like their jobs 6% more.
Um, well this author Geoff Colvin says the new economy, the one to be overtaken by robots, will better suit women cos they are just..."better", mmkay.
Check these (hack) articles:
http://geoffcolvin.com/the-trait-that-makes-women-great-leaders/
http://time.com/3984017/men-women-economy/
This is how commies edit history. When you published this, the graph showed that feminist companies' shares were below SP500. But look at it now - it's above the index. The difference is, it's another companies.
Post a Comment