It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
dryflower said:Is there any escape, or partial escape from the wokeness?What companies do you know of that don't take sides on political social and moral issues?Also, which of the fund families do you think is least woke?
Is there any escape, or partial escape from the wokeness?What companies do you know of that don't take sides on political social and moral issues?Also, which of the fund families do you think is least woke?
carew388 said:Perhaps Philip Morris or Altria is less woke!
Perhaps Philip Morris or Altria is less woke!
LewisBraham said:Are you saying you want companies that don't apply fundamental anti-discrimination laws: https://ftc.gov/site-information/no-fear-act/protections-against-discrimination What exactly are you seeking? For most companies that's all "woke" really means.
Are you saying you want companies that don't apply fundamental anti-discrimination laws: https://ftc.gov/site-information/no-fear-act/protections-against-discrimination What exactly are you seeking? For most companies that's all "woke" really means.
Tarwheel said:Don’t let politics guide your investments, although it’s admirable to have a moral compass. One of my best performing funds, PRBLX, could be described as “woke,” and that hasn’t hurt its returns. In fact, all of the Parnassus funds have excellent risk adjusted returns and the same is true for other “woke” fund families.
Don’t let politics guide your investments, although it’s admirable to have a moral compass. One of my best performing funds, PRBLX, could be described as “woke,” and that hasn’t hurt its returns. In fact, all of the Parnassus funds have excellent risk adjusted returns and the same is true for other “woke” fund families.
To be fair, there are far more egregious examples than M&S. Earlier this year, Nike’s profits soared to $6bn after its Kaepernick ad. The company then launched a campaign fronted by Serena Williams that challenged attitudes towards women. “If we show emotion, we’re called dramatic. If we want to play against men, we’re nuts,” she says over footage of female athletes campaigning for equal pay or demanding to play in exclusively male leagues. All very noble, but with the Nike-sponsored runner Alysia Montaño condemning the company this week for not providing her paid maternity leave, the firm might want to look at whether it is treating its own female athletes with basic rights first.
Mark said:@davidrmoran - remember your audience.
@davidrmoran - remember your audience.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
I think the largest big company that hasn't bought into all this is probably Berkshire Hathaway.
Companies take positions all the time on economic issues which have political, social, and moral consequences.
Even if they don’t make public declarations, companies show where they stand (and always have) by their actions and policies.
I think you’re looking for a unicorn - though it sounds like you’re not looking for companies that don’t take positions but companies that don’t take a certain position.
Warren Buffett has said that if you look hard enough at any company, you're going to find some things you don't like about it.
I would just prefer it if I had to look a little harder.
Instead of hiding behind lobbyists, trade associations, and bland statements of noncommittal, companies should be more, not less, transparent. Even if I don’t agree with their position, I’d admire their forthrightness.
Wokeness, if nothing else, is a major ingredient in all branding today.
@Shostakovich, I believe you are right. Especially as to mutual funds.
Some smaller companies may avoid it more, and I do think maybe BRK.
Overall, do you think it's good for business? I'm skeptical that it is.
>> I'm all for non-discrimination but this quickly morphs into quotas, pandering, virtue signaling, and advocacy for all of the Alphabet People. Should I really feel better about a company because board seats are occupied by homosexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, non-binary persons, and queers?
a perfect summary of anti-woke weakness, or maybe it's weak anti-wokeness, summarized by the modern motto I'm all for non-discrimination but
(And WASP is an "alphabet people.")
ISTM that making sure everybody has a place at the table is good for the economy.
It’s a term that folks like Tucker Carlson—not the most enlightened source of investment advice—are obsessed with.
Maybe I'm naive to a point but I do believe most folks while having some biases are not "racist", "white supremacists" and are for equality of opportunity...
To quote Roger Kimball...the pursuit of “equity” entails the imposition of inequitable treatment. What began as a presidential Executive Order in 1961 directing government contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure that people be hired “without regard” for race, creed, color, and so on soon resulted in the creation of vast bureaucracies dedicated to discovering, hiring, and advancing people chiefly on the basis of those very qualities. And... Wokeness, like the Marxism it draws sustenance from, is an exclusionary cult.
Folks are fed up with the media emphasis on this week's designated victim group...like FB, Tweety leadership and employees get to decide on the narrative and how we should think...regardless of the facts...legal public brainwashing....F them.
Let's take Nike, so woke, so just (not), supporting disrespecting the United States flag...yet can you say slave labor, can you say kowtowing towards an authorarian CCP regime? Selling crappy overpriced shoes to the public (I wear New Balance, some of which are made in the USA)
Just do what I do...companies get woke, I stop buying from them, don't invest in them, like my own ESG fund based on my prinicples not what some snowflake thinks I should do...no big deal.
@davidmoran, I too find this thread hilarious...for it's anti, anti-woke weakness...good stuff!
The funny thing is you and Dryflower claim to be cynical about wokeness, but aren't cynical enough to recognize an advertising ploy when you see one. This ploy is coming from the companies ostensibly supporting wokeness and from the Republican politicos ostensibly attacking it when neither truly cares about the gender/racial equality activists on the ground are fighting for. Wokeness or Anti-Wokeness are spurious means to an end--to generate more money for the companies supporting it and more votes for the do-nothing GOP politicos opposing it. From both perspectives their positions can cynically make sense. A multinational like Nike needs to be woke because it is striving to attract a diverse customer base in the global economy, to broaden its base of consumers. Appealing just to white hetero Christian males won't work for them as a corporate strategy especially because many of the best athletes are not white and some of the most exciting interesting ones today are female. I forgot the exact date but most demographers project the U.S. will be a non-white majority country by a certain year. To only appeal to a white audience then is toxic to a company like Nike's future growth. Meanwhile, being anti-woke is a cheap easy way to gin up votes for Republicans. It doesn't require them to build any roads or bridges or solve any actual problems that cost money.
For the record, however, one doesn't have to be a right-wing nutjob longing for some halcyon depiction of the 1950's to have broader suspicions of many slices of the current zeitgeist.