Warren Buffett-misogynist leader of the S&P 100? archived

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/03/07/few-women-corporate-high-earners/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Berkshire Hathaway is the leader-at the bottom!

That's a pretty poor show. Looking at the rest of the bottom 5, if I were called Gilead Sciences, I'd make sure I had a bunch of smart women on the board, that's just terrible PR for a company with that name.

I clicked the link (I know, that's something you usually shouldn't do with the OP), and was disappointed that there were no details, just a summary. I don't know if the problem is with Berkshire Hathaway or with the various businesses that it owns. I don't even know how many people are part of Bershire Hathaway, which may be a small core of people (which nevertheless could be more diverse, if that's the problem).

One of the things I recall about Warren Buffett is that his investment philosophy could be summarized as, "What do people want to buy?" He'd find businesses that sold stuff that people wanted. I'd be surprised if he didn't pay attention to women's opinions on that topic.

Of course, this thread subject is a phony attempt to criticize someone who is rich and yet calls out the conservative "I got mine" crowd.

I link two articles today-one from AOL, the other ABC-and the peanut gallery reacts like I linked to Drudge and Breitbart.

For all those who've applauded Buffetts 'progressive' tax stance I just wanted to point out that he has the worst anti-women record in the S&P listings.

Deal with it, and try and reconcile your admiration for him with his anti-woman stance. If you can.

Agree. BH seems to invest in high-performing but pretty non-creative companies, so not surprising the dominant person at the top of those is a boring white dude.

Sure, BH can improve its culture, but I'd imagine close friends of Buffett like Carol Loomis of Fortune and (if she could) Katharine Graham would have issues with the misogynist label.

nohero said:

Of course, this thread subject is a phony attempt to criticize someone who is rich and yet calls out the conservative "I got mine" crowd.

johnlockedema said:

For all those who've applauded Buffetts 'progressive' tax stance I just wanted to point out that he has the worst anti-women record in the S&P listings.

Proves my point. It's not about caring about women, for the right-wingers.

JLD, shouldn't you be more concerned about the 18(!)-point gender gap in the 2012 election, what the GOP did for that to happen, and how that can change going forward?
Seems like a bigger issue to me, and one you haven't addressed.

johnlockedema said:

I link two articles today-one from AOL, the other ABC-and the peanut gallery reacts like I linked to Drudge and Breitbart.

For all those who've applauded Buffetts 'progressive' tax stance I just wanted to point out that he has the worst anti-women record in the S&P listings.

Deal with it, and try and reconcile your admiration for him with his anti-woman stance. If you can.

You need to understand that not having a specific set of diversity criteria to be used when hiring and promoting people is not the same as being misogynistic or racist.

But, if you think you are helping to close the gender gap, knock yourself out.

Democrats are happy to make strides in the real world with real world consequences.

JLD is happy to make stupid points on a message board. Like I said, he is the poster boy for why the GOP is in the sh-tter.

bzzz, bzzz, bzzz, the bot is juiced up today on something!

Republicans lost the woman vote by 18 points, the party can't stop talking about rape, over 100 GOP congressmen voted against the VAWA but here's a link to one thing so it's all even.

Hey, if that makes you feel better, jld. And apparently it does. Must be nice to think so simply.

Well, shame on Buffet if his company is not well represented by women and minorities, but he is still right on many economic issues.

Student_Council said:

JLD, shouldn't you be more concerned about the 18(!)-point gender gap in the 2012 election, what the GOP did for that to happen, and how that can change going forward?
Seems like a bigger issue to me, and one you haven't addressed.

Feel free to start another thread-we're talking about Warren 'I pay less tax than my secretary' Buffett. Of course, she's the only woman in the office!

Of course JLD knee-jerks and runs with a headline that can serve as fodder for antagonism on MOL. But a closer look shows the OP claim to be dubious on two levels.

One, the fact is that Berkshire ranked so low because it has no explicit commitment to diversity, not necessarily because it doesn't employ women in high-ranking or well-paid positions.
http://lexch.com/news/regional/low-ranked-berkshire-adds-to-its-diversity/article_424afbf8-880d-11e2-ad23-001a4bcf887a.html

Now as I see it an explicit commitment to diversity is similar to affirmative action and hiring quotas or the like, which historically have not been championed by Republicans. So I guess judging by JLD's criticism of Berkshire not having an explicit commitment to diversity, he supports traditionally lefty causes such as affirmative action and hiring quotas?

And two (also from the article), the survey considered only Berkshire Hathaway holding company, not any of its operating units. Now the Berkshire holding company had only a couple dozen employees a few years ago, whereas the overall company including operating units had about 250,000 employees. So it's specious at best to make this claim looking at only a few dozen employees at the corporate unit, but speciousness hasn't stopped JLD before.

Lastly as a disclaimer I'm neutral on Buffett, he's an okay guy but I don't particularly like him or dislike him. My motivation is solely to expose the shortcomings of the OP's argument.

johnlockedema said:

Student_Council said:

JLD, shouldn't you be more concerned about the 18(!)-point gender gap in the 2012 election, what the GOP did for that to happen, and how that can change going forward?
Seems like a bigger issue to me, and one you haven't addressed.

Feel free to start another thread-we're talking about Warren 'I pay less tax than my secretary' Buffett. Of course, she's the only woman in the office!

Ok, I just added my 2c on the Buffett topic, let's see what you have to come back with.

Student Council should be commended for taking jld seriously, and taking down yet another of his stupid arguments with one post.

Unfortunately, it's an exercise in futility because jld has proven time and again that he doesn't understand basic logic, reasoning, or even simply written sentences. Which, of course, makes him the perfect Republican tool.

Offered with neutral comment- Buffett's leftist credentials can't be seriously doubted. What is surprising is that many don't know far to the left he is and has been for years, despite the public persona he has as the folksy Oracle. He doesn't hide it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/29/when-warren-went-left-the-ideological-seduction-of-warren-buffett/

ktc said:

Student Council should be commended for taking jld seriously, and taking down yet another of his stupid arguments with one post.

Unfortunately, it's an exercise in futility because jld has proven time and again that he doesn't understand basic logic, reasoning, or even simply written sentences. Which, of course, makes him the perfect Republican tool.

I used to take JLD somewhat seriously but I don't really anymore -- just too many BS arguments and never a hint of acknowledging the BS.
I've cut down on participating in the JLD threads but I'll still enjoy a deconstruction every now and then.

"The Calvert report looks at the number of women on S&P 100 Index company boards, the extent to which women are represented among the highest-paid executives, the prevalence of minority women in key positions, the rise of corporate diversity programs, and whether or not companies publicly disclose employee demographic data that investors could use to evaluate the effectiveness of the companies' corporate diversity efforts."

There you go folks. Besides keeping women down, they don't want anyone to know it.

What's great (is that the right word?) about john is that no matter how many times he loses an argument, which is multiple times per day, he keeps coming back for more.

johnlockedema said:

"The Calvert report looks at the number of women on S&P 100 Index company boards, the extent to which women are represented among the highest-paid executives, the prevalence of minority women in key positions, the rise of corporate diversity programs, and whether or not companies publicly disclose employee demographic data that investors could use to evaluate the effectiveness of the companies' corporate diversity efforts."

There you go folks. Besides keeping women down, they don't want anyone to know it.

I rest my case. Neither of my specific points were addressed, so like a baseball team with a no-show opponent, I win by forfeit.

ktc said:

What great (is that the right word?) about john is that no matter how many times he loses an argument, which is multiple times per day, he keeps coming back for more.

See the criteria below to see how Buffett's company came in LAST among the most powerful companies in the world. I'll summarize for you.

Low representation of women among highest paid executives.

Lack of minority women in key positions.

Lousy corporate diversity programs.

Refusal to disclose employee demographic data.

Gee, aren't these the kind of things you claim that outrage you about the Republican Party-lol? Excluding women, minorities, having white men in positions of power?

"The Calvert report looks at the number of women on S&P 100 Index company boards, the extent to which women are represented among the highest-paid executives, the prevalence of minority women in key positions, the rise of corporate diversity programs, and whether or not companies publicly disclose employee demographic data that investors could use to evaluate the effectiveness of the companies' corporate diversity efforts."

What's great (is that the right word?) about john is that no matter how many times he loses an argument, which is multiple times per day, he keeps coming back for more.

OK, ktc, since you're dodging Buffett's stance on women we can only assume you support it. Carry on.

JLD,

These things don't outrage us about the what-once-was-the-Republican Party. In fact, we love it. One comment by some of your clowns costs you more votes than any amount of smooth talk by Comrade Barrack can attract. In addition, the entertainment value is immense. "legitimate rape" - you can't make this stuff up.

How many S&P 100 companies have as few employees as the BH holding company?

I wonder if they can be considered a small business?

Still not sure what this has to do with Buffet's call for higher taxes on the wealthy.

I would have more respect for an argument that takes that on (as the early part of the Jackson Fusion article does). Just because one agrees with Buffet's call for taxes does not mean one agrees with his other policies and practices. And conversely, even if he is a mysogenist (which I have no clue about, and neither does JLD), that does not refute his argument for higher taxes on the wealthiest.

Frankly, a very big red-state herring here.

ParticleMan said:

How many S&P 100 companies have as few employees as the BH holding company?

I wonder if they can be considered a small business?

Well, given that Bechtel is one of those little S corporations they are always going on about........

johnlockedema said:

OK, ktc, since you're dodging Buffett's stance on women we can only assume you support it. Carry on.

See, john'll just believe any ol' sh-t no matter how illogical or wrong. Which is why he is the poster boy for the Republican party these days. You can't teach him AND he refuses to learn.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/03/07/the-best-and-worst-companies-for-women-and-minorities/

Add people with 'diverse sexual orientation' to the groups that Buffett treats poorly.