CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The problem is the public shaming that could inevitably follow.

I already see it now--articles, tweets, etc about how company X doesn't have enough minority board members, with calls to boycott them. I can see CEOs being on the defensive about this, having to focus on calls to "fix their diversity problem" as if they don't already have enough on their plate. I don't think much good will come out of this.

That is certainly a possible outcome and a reasonable worry.

To me, it seems like consumers would want that information to make more informed choices. A free market requires freedom of information for all parties. If companies are "benefiting" by keeping this information from consumers (this assumption is baked into your comment that educating consumers would cause boycotts), we are further away from a free market.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

Thank God we spent time and energy to fix unisex bathrooms instead of the $200,000,000,000 of pension debt that’s getting larger every second.

I expect our elected leaders to be able to walk AND chew gum. Shocking, right?! It's almost like they are smart, college-educated professionals with law degrees.

They can absolutely work to fix the pension crisis while ALSO enacting uncontroversial, zero-cost policies that increase equality in our communities.

The fact is, there are NO solutions to the pension crisis that don't impose serious pain on voters, either pensioners or all taxpayers collectively... so instead of being flip, why don't you go down your block and convince the nearest retired teacher or cop that they deserve less money?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I expect our elected leaders to be able to walk AND chew gum. Shocking, right?! It's almost like they are smart, college-educated professionals with law degrees.

Yet here JB is, chewing gum but doing no walking.

But he has no problem burning through his political capital trying to amend the constitution to raise State income taxes on the one demographic that Illinois needs more than anything to survive this crisis

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

That is certainly a possible outcome and a reasonable worry.

To me, it seems like consumers would want that information to make more informed choices. A free market requires freedom of information for all parties. If companies are "benefiting" by keeping this information from consumers (this assumption is baked into your comment that educating consumers would cause boycotts), we are further away from a free market.

This is not about transparency. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Board of Directors of publicly traded corporations already public info? If so, can’t you already look up their names and info?

This is a distortion of that—it takes what is already transparent and racializes it for political ends. It specifically forces us to focus on the race of the people in question for no good reason that I can think of other than to generate public ire and resentment over the fact that most of them are white. Do we need more of that?

Boy, I thought the end goal here is a color-blind society. I would love to go for something like that. Stuff like this is a step in the opposite direction, and I find it to be a huge turn off.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This is not about transparency. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Board of Directors of publicly traded corporations already public info? If so, can’t you already look up their names and info?

Maybe "looking up people's names and information" isn't the most reliable way to obtain demographic information? And if it's already available that doesn't add any burden to the company.

I'm not sure anyone claimed that the goal was a color blind society, but maybe this is people's way of saying that tactic isn't working?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

So what’s been done to fix the pension crisis?

Remember our discussion on the income tax amendment? Pensions costs are part of the structural deficit that will eliminate. The marijuana bill that sent 55% of revenue to the general fund should also help.

We all know they passed a bill to cut benefits and the courts struck it down. They now seem to be relying on a combination of increased revenue (taxes) and early payouts.

Once the next recession hits government budgets, there will probably be a serious attempt to amend the constitution. I don't see it gaining momentum until then.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Maybe "looking up people's names and information" isn't the most reliable way to obtain demographic information? And if it's already available that doesn't add any burden to the company.

It isn't? With Google, Google images, Linked in, Facebook, etc you're really saying that it's that hard to find out more info about Board Members of publicly traded corporations, and perhaps see what they look like? Besides, why is it so fundamentally important that we reveal what a person's race is? Why is the law focused on race, as opposed to forcing them to reveal their resumes, or where they grew up, or what their favorite food is, what their political donations were, or their marriage history, or their criminal history? Why race? What are we trying to do here?

I'm not sure anyone claimed that the goal was a color blind society, but maybe this is people's way of saying that tactic isn't working?

I'm sorry, but what "tactic" are you referring to?

Isn't the goal here to have a color blind society? Isn't that what we are trying to go for, here? Any efforts to shame people because of their skin color (and that means shaming a corporation because a lot of its board is white) seems counter to that effort.

Is the "tactic" to somehow coerce corporations through public outrage to add nonwhite people, even if they are not qualified, to their boards? Is that what we are going for here?

I really don't see what else would be achieved from this other than to race bait. Make people mad about race. Because we already don't have enough of that in our society

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Besides, why is it so fundamentally important that we reveal what a person's race is? Why is the law focused on race, as opposed to forcing them to reveal their resumes, or where they grew up, or what their favorite food is, what their political donations were, or their marriage history, or their criminal history? Why race? What are we trying to do here?

You are ignoring the part of the bill that requires information on female board representation to focus on the race aspect.

Even so, do you honestly not know why race is important? None of the things you mentioned (except criminal history) are things that have been used by the government to actively discriminate against specific groups.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Is the "tactic" to somehow coerce corporations through public outrage to add nonwhite people, even if they are not qualified, to their boards? Is that what we are going for here?

I really don't see what else would be achieved from this other than to race bait. Make people mad about race. Because we already don't have enough of that in our society

That you immediately jump to "coercion" says more about government paranoia than anything contained in this particular bill. Your implication that there would be "public outrage" if "already available public information" is gathered defies logic. How can both be the same?

This is a transparency bill. The idea is to better understand the demographic makeup of corporate boards operating in Illinois. This is achieved by collecting the data and having a research team at U of I analyze it and publish it annually. You may justifiably fear that it will lead to more strict bills in the future, but there isn't any evidence of that today. Let's discuss those bills when they come up.

Maybe not everyone thinks that hoping extra hard for a color blind society will solve problems.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Even so, do you honestly not know why race is important? None of the things you mentioned (except criminal history) are things that have been used by the government to actively discriminate against specific groups.

No, I honestly don't know why race is important. Explain to me why today, in 2019, we need to know about the racial make up of corporate board of trustees.

That you immediately jump to "coercion" says more about government paranoia than anything contained in this particular bill.

It's a law. Hence corporations are being "coerced" to provide this info. Laws are basically the ultimate coercion out there.

Your implication that there would be "public outrage" if "already available public information" is gathered defies logic.

And you are being completely silly and naive. Of course public outrage defies logic. Outrage is not logical, particularly outrage being spawned by forcing us to refocus on this particular piece of information when we have a system that is already transparent.

This is a transparency bill.

No it is not. As discussed before, if corporate board names of public companies are already publicly reported, then the transparency already exists. This is more than that--it's an effort to narrow in on race to achieve an objective.

In fact, if U of I wanted to do a study on the racial makeup of Corporate boards, why don't they just do so independently and then publish their data? Why do we need this law? Why do we need JB Pritzker sitting at a desk with a pen doing a photo op with a bunch of black people?

The idea is to better understand the demographic makeup of corporate boards operating in Illinois. This is achieved by collecting the data and having a research team at U of I analyze it and publish it annually. You may justifiably fear that it will lead to more strict bills in the future, but there isn't any evidence of that today.

You just said that my concerns are justified, but that there isn't any evidence of it today. Are you unable to extrapolate.....like.....anything at all? I am concerned about implications and potential slippery-slope issues in the future but I don't have any evidence of this now. So I don't have evidence of the future yet because it hasn't yet happened, and that's your argument?

We already have a lot of people and groups in America today all worked up about race, with a lot of anger, plenty of marches, plenty of activists. What more evidence do you need that we aren't going to gain much more by continuing to fan this flame? This seems politically motivated, and we all know who benefits (politically) the more anger about these issues there is.

And I already can see the public shaming happening. Here is a quote from the article:

The bill signed today requires companies to turn over data to the Illinois secretary of state about female and minority board membership, as well as practices for identifying and appointing diverse leadership. The University of Illinois will study board demographic makeup and grade each corporation according to a rating system it will develop. The university will also publish aggregate data annually.

Let's discuss those bills when they come up.

Exactly. Because there is a common sense voice inside you that already know that such laws are coming. But there's no "evidence" of it yet, because it hasn't happened yet, right?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

^ Wrong again.

35% went into the general fund and 10% to overdue bills.

At least we can agree that something has been done.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In fact, if U of I wanted to do a study on the racial makeup of Corporate boards, why don't they just do so independently and then publish their data? Why do we need this law? Why do we need JB Pritzker sitting at a desk with a pen doing a photo op with a bunch of black people?

Yes, exactly! The information is already public knowledge and they are free study it all they want, there's no need for this law. Other than to shame corporations for the racial makeup of their board!

[moorhosj]

[QUOTE=the urban politician;8671617]No, I honestly don't know why race is important. Explain to me why today, in 2019, we need to know about the racial make up of corporate board of trustees.[QUOTE]

Have you tried reading the bill? They spell it out pretty clearly in the first section. This is also the part that shows the bill is as much about gender as race, but for some reason you are only focusing (over and over again) on the race angle.

Sec. 8.12. Female and minority directors.
(a) Findings and purpose. The General Assembly finds that women and minorities are still largely underrepresented nationally in positions of corporate authority, such as serving as a director on a corporation's board of directors. This low representation could be contributing to the disparity seen in wages made by females and minorities versus their white male counterparts. Increased representation of these individuals as directors on boards of directors for corporations may boost the Illinois economy, improve opportunities for women and minorities in the workplace, and foster an environment in Illinois where the business community is representative of our residents. Therefore, it is the intent of the General Assembly to gather more data and study this issue within the State so that effective policy changes may be implemented to eliminate this disparity.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In fact, if U of I wanted to do a study on the racial makeup of Corporate boards, why don't they just do so independently and then publish their data? Why do we need this law? Why do we need JB Pritzker sitting at a desk with a pen doing a photo op with a bunch of black people?

Because then you have the actual companies providing the information. Objectively, this makes for a far stronger analysis with verified data. Instead of, "We web scraped some profiles and this is your board makeup.", you could say, "Based on the data reported by companies, the typical Illinois-based company has a board makeup of..."

Your entire argument is that we are coercing companies to do something that they are already required to do. It is either an added burden or they already do it, can't have it both ways. No amount of eye rolling or emojis changes that.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Exactly. Because there is a common sense voice inside you that already know that such laws are coming. But there's no "evidence" of it yet, because it hasn't happened yet, right?

I can't predict the future like you can. If bills are proposed to dictate how businesses construct their Boards, we should discuss the merits of them. Until they exist, it seems like a waste to get worked up about.

I just wish folks cared this much about the privacy of actual humans. We could have used it during the Patriot Act discussion many years ago. We could also use them to fight against the attempts to ban encryption today.

[the urban politician]

^ At some level there is a fundamental gap between my view and yours that can't be bridged.

I think that the info that we already have on public corporation board of directors is ample transparency. I just don't agree--and I never will--that that info is somehow inadequate for society. Anything more than that, particularly when mandated by law, is simply probing...fishing...for something that could spur outrage and disruption--particularly with the U of I talking about creating a "scoring" system for corporate diversity. If there is any better example of public shaming, I'd like to see it.

Also, I think a huge University with hundreds of millions of dollars like U of I easily has the resources to conduct this study without a Law. Your suggestion otherwise is completely ridiculous. Universities conduct far more extensive and costly research than that all of the time.

My final point is more fundamental than that:

To me, we should pursue equality of opportunity. That's always felt, to me, what America is about. But lately the Left (and JB with his pandering) has moved into a mindset of equality of outcomes.

It's fine--hell, we have an obligation--to eliminate legal barriers to success. But to try to mandate equalization of outcomes for people of varying backgrounds sounds way too much like Socialism to me.

[Baronvonellis]

So should the state of Illinois be dictating the makeup of public corporations boards? Since, that's what this law is implying if it's supposed to do anything.

For women, they get pregnant and have to raise kids thats why their is any disparity among men and women. I see it at my company all the time, a woman gets pregnant then has to leave the workplace for several months on maternity leave. Then maybe they decide hey I should focus on my new offspring now instead of trying to climb the corporate ladder, and try to do extra work.

And at the fortune 500 companies I've worked at there are lots of upper management that are women. At my office the highest executives are women. I know because they have said they institute quotas for women and minorities for each level of management. If anything that is reverse discrimination as a white man, I don't get that benefit based on my race. If a hispanic woman and I are both interviewing a position they will hire the woman everytime, because they have quotas. I can only move up based on my merit which I think is how it should be.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Also, I think a huge University with hundreds of millions of dollars like U of I easily has the resources to conduct this study without a Law. Your suggestion otherwise is completely ridiculous. Universities conduct far more extensive and costly research than that all of the time.

It's already been studied by academics, in a way that would be far better than getting some random people hired by the State to write a report supporting this initiative.

A very influential paper paper found Norway's 40% female membership quote on corporate boards significantly harmed affected companies. http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/changing-boar...ion-mandated-female-board-representation

And it doesn't really help women either, except for the few privileged enough to get on a board. This forthcoming paper in a top econ journal found that Norway's law had no meaningful effects on female wages or employment. https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/mariann...aking%20the%20Glass%20Ceiling_063017.pdf

"Overall, seven years after the board quota policy fully came into effect, we conclude that it had very little discernible impact on women in business beyond its direct effect on the women who made it into boardrooms."

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ At some level there is a fundamental gap between my view and yours that can't be bridged.

I think that the info that we already have on public corporation board of directors is ample transparency. I just don't agree--and I never will--that that info is somehow inadequate for society. Anything more than that, particularly when mandated by law, is simply probing...fishing...for something that could spur outrage and disruption--particularly with the U of I talking about creating a "scoring" system for corporate diversity. If there is any better example of public shaming, I'd like to see it.

Also, I think a huge University with hundreds of millions of dollars like U of I easily has the resources to conduct this study without a Law. Your suggestion otherwise is completely ridiculous. Universities conduct far more extensive and costly research than that all of the time.

My final point is more fundamental than that:

To me, we should pursue equality of opportunity. That's always felt, to me, what America is about. But lately the Left (and JB with his pandering) has moved into a mindset of equality of outcomes.

It's fine--hell, we have an obligation--to eliminate legal barriers to success. But to try to mandate equalization of outcomes for people of varying backgrounds sounds way too much like Socialism to me.

I think you completely misinterpret my perspective. I don't think this bill is necessarily a good idea, or will really be effective in promoting any change. I take issue with your comments that this is a mandate for businesses to act a certain way. This is a mandate for them to report information. That is not socialism, and we shouldn't call it socialism. I agree that if they use this data in an attempt to mandate how companies form their boards, it would be disgraceful. And I wouldn't support it.

I just think that your outrage about potential bills and burdens placed on corporations is misguided. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I believe that you come to your opinion honestly and with integrity. I just don't buy the idea that "this might lead to a socialist bill" is something worth spending time on when the Feds are creating blatantly socialist programs for farmers and nobody seems to care.

Maybe that's your entire point in the first place, our government should be focusing on real issues and how to actually solve them. Rather than grandstanding. That belief does require us to assume these representatives have negative intentions.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ You're right, obviously.

This has got to be one of the sillier conversations.

This is a reporting requirement. Nothing more. People need to stop reading into it what will most quickly trigger them into throwing around the uber scary "socialism" word. Sometimes the libertarian types can be the most sensitive among us.

And, no - using google image search is not a subsitute for officially reported, standardized government data.

[the urban politician]

^ I think we already came to the “agree to disagree” part before you walked in, thank you.

Let’s check back on this topic in about 5-10 years?

[SIGSEGV]

Any thoughts on https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hin...anges-calls-3-percent-cola-unsustainable ?

RE a congestion fee, it seems like it would be straightforward to charge a a fee on every rideshare/taxi ride starting or ending downtown and on all non-overnight downtown parking (including private lots). It wouldn't capture people driving through downtown to get elsewhere, or private pickups/dropoffs, but I imagine that's not a huge fraction of the traffic. Downtown here could be defined as inside Halsted/Roosevelt/Chicago.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Any thoughts on https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hin...anges-calls-3-percent-cola-unsustainable ?

RE a congestion fee, it seems like it would be straightforward to charge a a fee on every rideshare/taxi ride starting or ending downtown and on all non-overnight downtown parking (including private lots). It wouldn't capture people driving through downtown to get elsewhere, or private pickups/dropoffs, but I imagine that's not a huge fraction of the traffic. Downtown here could be defined as inside Halsted/Roosevelt/Chicago.

My main question is quite simple: What's the exact purpose of this fee, and where will the funds wind up? It's not going to reduce traffic in the least bit, so it's really just a money grab. Given that, that money grab had better wind up in improved transportation options in the Downtown core, not just gifts to whatever pet project the local Aldermen decide to be generous towards.

Aaron (Glowrock)