Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In this episode of The 2030 Podcast Show, we discuss the theme of a decline and great loss of qualities and strength of the USA in this decade — and mostly due to the woke culture and the democrat policies of the radical left politicians in the USA from national to local.
As you will hear in this audio episode, there are four major areas where the USA will be losing strength and leadership in the following areas:
- quality — including the decline of the value of any work to be done, as well as the work that has been shoddy and delivering very low measures of success;
- talent — including having the best qualified people contributing to the society and the economy;
- innovation — including scientific and technical leadership; and
- progress — including the creation of great skills and products and services and themes for the future.
And perhaps, the actions for these started with the “participant trophy” attitude of the citizenry, thus accepting the attitude that there should be no competition or no winners in anything that requires skills or achievement.
So how did the USA lose its differential competitive advantage on the world stage for technology leadership, products, services and innovation? We look at only a couple of instances…
Unfair advantage given to females — the beginning with the phrase “affirmative action” (which was really based on quotas, timetables, schedules and giving competitive slots to others due to their gender and the color of their skin or being minorities.” This term of affirmative action was discussed in the Supreme Court discussion in Regents of University of California vs. Bakke. And if you look at this with a fair mind, you will see that attempting to “level the field” of opportunity by mandating forced acceptance without regard to levels of competitive areas for positions or opportunities is a self-defeating narrative that only eliminates the fairness of applying for areas. From my own experience, I was a first-hand witness to see this in my career within Corporate America when the mission of our corporate division was to promote females to get the percentage right of the females (especially managers) compared to males. And it got worse when you had colored females. As someone who inherited the worst results of this policy, I saw how unfair this was to both the firm and the individual being promoted or positioned for the opportunity. In my case, the latter situation saw colored females promoted — and they had absolutely NO talent and could not do the job — for they were just fulfilling the number of slots to minorities and females. And one such manager was placed in command of my unit. So what was the result? They did so poorly that they had to be promoted again to get them OUT of the unit, and we who remained had to “clean up their mess” (which many times could not be remedied, due to the severity of their failures).
Unfair advantage given to “bimbos” and “bimbos of color” — the excuse given to weaken competition within qualifications, experience and aptitude. This is definitely seen as the erosion of the quality, the talent, the innovation and the progress due to unfair and whimsical delivery of positions and other advantages given to those who really do not deserve them– all because of the color of their skin and their gender. For this example, I again point my own experience when I had to suffer in cleaning up the mess (with the rest of my unit). The mess many times did irreparable damage to the firm (again, unfair to the firm as well as the individual). And what was surprising was that the individual promoted just on the basis of their skin color or gender (that is, without merit) many times did not realize that the promotion was given by fulfilling a quota, and without even knowing that the next promotion would come quickly so that the unqualified promotee could be moved to another department (and where their own department could now move to “clean up the mess” of the unqualified promotee).
Thus, we summarize each of the 4 areas…
The QUALITY of the work suffered, the quality of the decisions made was nonexistent, the quality of the management and leadership was poor, and the results were disastrous — because the unit could not contribute to the success of the organization. So this type of policy did not look to quality — it only looked to filling a spot with females or with those of color so that a quota can be made.
The TALENT was non-existent. In fact, many of the subordinates who had to work for this unqualified promotee knew about this problem and even joked about it sometimes among themselves. However, many kept quiet and had to work harder. And then resentment set in once the unqualified promotee would be given an award — especially when it was “token” award to someone who did not deserve it, but again, it was one where a quota of award-winners had to occur. And many of my unit peers were aware that the talent of this unqualified promotee was a shameful act of lying.
The INNOVATION that would normally result from a team working together to address issues and problems within the firm suffered, as well. Why? Because no one wanted to work so hard to overcome the failures of the promotee that they would give up and just deliver the minimum work and not care about innovation or promoting the best service for the group. After all, what reward would there be, since only the unqualified would receive the promotions and rewards for their blunders and mistakes, due to the notion and policy of quotas? Thus, the USA falls in the area of innovation, and other competitive countries not only take up the gauntlet, but surpass the USA with innovation, as they will not be hypocrites in the phony policy that the USA holds.
And finally, PROGRESS and success for the firm and those who work in the firm, as well as in the USA, will suffer and stifle, due to poor leadership, poor decisions and failures of these quota-based actions (made in the name of “equity” or “equality”). And you can see this in the results for successes in patents, development, technology and superior products, services and results from other countries.
So, what do we see as far as trending to 2030?
With the practice of doing away with SAT test scores to measure success academically, as well as any tests within the schools, how can we know who is qualified? Well, what you will have is passing dummied-down students with no knowledge or qualification to the next level or grade, and then graduating these dummies (remember, if you don’t, then you are labeled a “racist” — which is an idea that has to be done away with).
We see that, unless there is a change in the future, this decade has been hurt by the radical left and democrats that want “equity” at any price and will sacrifice any and all benefits to give away the positions, opportunities and benefits to those who DO NOT DESERVE IT and who have not competed fairly for them.
So, we may pose a “gloom and doom” scenario for those who believe that fairness still exists. Let them look at the lame-stream media and tell us if there is equal time for both sides of an issue or theme to be discussed fairly — or else is there only censorship and cancel-culture for those who differ from the ideology of the radical left.
It only took several years for this trend to infiltrate the educational system, the political scene and the workplace. However, we see that it could be reversed by going back to the initial values of a strong nation, competitiveness, and fair dealings in what quality and talent demand for those competing for the benefits. And woke culture will only destroy and not bring about progress or success.
If we don’t return to the strong values from earlier years, then we feel it will take several decades — not years — for the citizenry to reject this age of equity and radical left theories and return to a fair landscape where the merits and qualifications and results will be looked at more.
Thank you for your attention.
Copyright (c) 2022, Matrix Solutions Corporation and michaelandmike.com. All rights reserved.