BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Diversity Makes Business Better

Diversity is a good thing. It helps to give more people a voice and it certainly helps to make the workplace fairer. You can't argue against that - but there's an argument to be made that diversity doesn't necessarily make a business better. What makes a business better is a corporate culture that rewards those who work the hardest. Should this result in a more diverse board? In some cases, it should. In others, though, it should not. It's important that there is a good balance between a need for diversity and promotions based on merit. There's also the uncomfortable fact that sometimes diversity leads to less engagement according to Harvard's Robert Putnam;. Is this a good thing? Even the researcher behind that study would so that it is not. It is, however something that should be studied when one is considering forcing a higher level of diversity via quotas on a business' leaders. If diversity can hurt as well as help, it should be obvious that forcing it is not always the solution. Finally, that natural and forced diversity are not the same thing. Putting more women on a board to promote diversity may provide a solution with good optics, but it doesn't do anything to make the company more accepting or to improve the diversity of those in the lower ranks. Forced diversity is always about perception, and the benefits of diversity that were listed above simply won't be gained in that kind of situation.
Diversity Makes Business Better

Diversity is always something for which a business should strive. It's not just something that makes a business socially responsible, though - it can impact the ledgers as well. According to Gallup, retail businesses that are more gender diverse tend to make more money than those that are not. This puts gender diversity on a must-do list for any business that actually cares about its profits. Furthermore, it creates a situation in which a failure to promote a better gender balance is actually actively harmful for the company - and any company that leaves money on the table isn't likely to survive. If diversity is beneficial, it should hold that diversity at the board level is even better. When women are given a voice in leadership, they're better able to parlay those valuable insights found at the ground level into company-wide initiatives. Creating a more diverse board gives more room for thought, more impetus for innovation, and a better connection to the people who work in the business. Diversity is an incredible benefit for the any business that chooses to embrace the concept. It should also hold that if diversity is good for individual businesses, it's good for the economy as a whole. The things that drive innovation for one company should be able to drive innovation across the board. While there is certainly nothing that says innovation cannot come from a gender-imbalanced board, the numbers don't lie when it comes to the improvement brought by a more diverse place of work.
Quotas are Inherently Helpful

There are many reasons why quotas aren't as helpful for minority groups as one might think, but it's perhaps best to start with the obvious - quotas aren't something that have been effectively tested in the private sector. Sure, there are businesses that embrace hiring quotas, but that's a part of the corporate culture at that business. There's absolutely no telling how a quota would impact performance across the board in multiple industries and to pretend like it would have overwhelmingly positive results would be disingenuous. Another article from Forbes states that even those who argue that quotas can be helpful have to be mindful of the drawbacks. Quotas can, for example, be an easy way for a business to impose limits rather than for it to embrace diversity. If every business is required to have one woman on the board, what is stopping businesses from simply creating a token board position and then pointing to that position as its sole gesture towards a more diverse workplace? What's to stop the minimum percentage from become the maximum amount of minority representation a business will allow? Minds don't change because they are forced and some people are very good at manipulating the system to make sure that things won't progress. It's not possible to pretend like all quotas are good because that statement is just too broad. Even an admission that a gender quota for boards is good requires several logical leaps. Putting quotas into practice could very well be harmful, yet those in favor want to experiment with the economy in the name of theory.
Quotas are Inherently Helpful

Sometimes, it's not enough to talk about gender diversity. One has to put his or her money where his or her mouth is, and that means actually hiring women. Quotas are inherently helpful because they force businesses to adhere to the lofty goals they talk about in press releases. Simply put, a good quota is a promise that a company will actually care about diversity. How do we know that quotas are inherently helpful? It's easy - all we have to do is look at the sectors where quotas are already in place. Look at higher education, for example - not only are quotas in place, but they've been defended time and again as a necessity. Today's world sees more women and more people of color in universities than ever before, and that's something that's largely due to the quota system. Likewise, government positions are less overwhelmingly white and male than they have been in the past, and that's largely due to a government that embraces diversity and puts systems into place to make sure that the workplace remains diverse. It all comes down to money, though, and the Wall Street Journal writes that even large businesses agree that diversity targets are worth pursuing. Businesses that set targets and quotas are able to move ahead of the natural curve and put more minority voices in positions that make a difference. Simply put, quotas are already embraced as necessities in both the public and private sectors.
Putting a Quota in Place Would Help Women

It's impossible to say what having more female board members will do for women as a whole. Women who will be placed on boards are not the average employees, just as men who make it to that level aren't average employees. Unless one is looking to have a quota that's based strictly on gender and not merit, you'll still see the cream of the crop rise to the top and you'll still see the average worker stuck in their current position because of multiple factors that may have nothing to do with gender. What's even more troubling, according to the The Harvard Business Review, is that diversity movements often have the opposite of their intended impact. If a quota is put into place, the most likely outcome may well be that men double down on holding onto what power that they have - and that women might find themselves even more ostracized in some workplaces. Perhaps most of all, these quotas hurt women because they take away from their individual accomplishments. If a quota is put in place, it will be easy to dismiss any female board member as someone who got a job only because of diversity regulations. This negates any accomplishment the woman may have and sets a dangerous tone for the rest of the business. Women should be allowed a place at the table and they should be respected for the work that got them there.
Putting a Quota in Place Would Help Women

If quotas are helpful and they can help a business to become more productive, it should also be read as true that quotas would help all women in the workforce. As more women gain representation at the top of the ladder, more women will be seen as viable candidates for other roles. Remember, women aren't just underrepresented as C-level employees - they are underrepresented as leaders and managers throughout most organizations. Once you give a minority voice a place at the table, everyone under them is pulled up. This is a situation where a rising tide really does lift all boats. All one has to do is to look at businesses that have female CEOs to see the difference in workplace culture. It's hard to say that a woman doesn't have a place as a manage or a team leader, for example, if there is already a woman running the company. Mirroring is a basic part of instruction, so setting the tone for any place of work has to involve realistic demonstrations at the top. If there are no women leaders to look up to, there are going to be no examples for women to follow when they are working at lower levels of the company. Would a quota on boards help women in general? Of course. Not only would it put more women at higher positions, but it would help to get rid of any presumptions that a woman cannot lead. Setting quotas will directly lead to more diverse boards and better gender diversity.
Because highrise housing is so often associated with unsuccessful welfare programs, leading to a hig...

Because highrise housing is so often associated with unsuccessful welfare programs, leading to a higher concentration of the poor, and certain immigrants groups in particular areas, it will always carry a stigma. Disconnecting this type of housing from this negative image has proven difficult even in places where there was a will and funding was available, such as the Netherlands or the UK. Despite name changes, renovations and even privatization or semi-privatization schemes, very few highrise complexes managed to change their negative connotation and include a more diverse population among its tenants. While a few centrally located highrise apartments have been successfully re-branded, the majority remain less desirable alternatives for those who could not afford more.
The world should slowly move towards safer housing alternatives that have proven to be preferable ov...

The world should slowly move towards safer housing alternatives that have proven to be preferable over time: single family homes or smaller building units that allow for more privacy, creativity and individual freedom. These units have traditionally proven to be the safest, cleanest, and certainly the most aesthetically pleasing housing alternatives. Building more highrise housing will only deepen current problems and possible exacerbate them in the future. As the world is expanding and much of the developing world and transitioning economies are looking for development models (including housing models) one needs to be careful which models are promoted, for if highrise housing is introduced as a solution to slums and favellas, then we may see the problems with which Western Europe and the US is dealing with now, multiplied and deepened by an even more challenging, discriminating and unforgiving social environment.
Highrise housing has a deep negative social impact both at the collective and the individual level. ...

Highrise housing has a deep negative social impact both at the collective and the individual level. By limiting living space and access to outdoors private areas that have traditionally played an important role in supporting large families, highrise housing encourages smaller, nuclear and single-parents families, breaking down traditional connections. It also has a deep impact on the individual by putting intense pressure on him/her to compromise, deal with noise, small spaces and lack of privacy. Highrise housing is also not ideal for children and families, breeding conflict, little investment in public spaces, few safe playing grounds and creating spaces that often isolate the individual affecting his/her emotional growth and ability to communicate and relate to others.
Highrise housing is difficult to manage, whether privately owned, government owned or belonging to a...

Highrise housing is difficult to manage, whether privately owned, government owned or belonging to a housing association. Bringing together a large and diverse population, different ownership schemes, different needs and, with time, the emergence of structural problems – such as roof leaks, old pipes, elevators, heating, etc – means that problems are often overwhelming, requiring a well organized and skilled administration which is often lacking. Unlike smaller private houses with their individual plots of land, highrises suffer from the tragedy of the commons - critical public spaces and amenities are shared between too many people, none of whom feels enough responsibility for their maintenance and cleanliness. Housing associations often have little or no money to hire good managers, while the governmental bureaucracy is often inefficient and tardy in allocating funds and any means for dealing with these problems. Successful management of such problems often requires private management, which, because of its costs, charges exorbitant rents or coop fees.
Highrise housing is often connected to unsuccessful welfare and social programs. Governments have u...

Highrise housing is only connected to welfare programs in certain parts of the world, such as Western Europe or the USA. In other parts of the world, such as Central and Eastern Europe and many parts of Asia, highrise housing was a more or less successful housing solution when faced with the problem of population growth and urban migration. While there are many shortcomings to highrise living, these buildings have played an important role in offering an alternative to the slums and favellas of Latin America, for example. That highrise housing has also been used as a solution for offering support to underprivileged groups is a different question. Few welfare programs have ever proven to be as efficient as private endeavours, yet this does not mean that at least temporarily, they have not been able to provide ‘a’ solution to an otherwise more desperate alternative.
Because highrise housing is so often associated with unsuccessful welfare programs, leading to a hig...

The stigma of highrise housing has often had little to do with the living conditions within this type of housing: historically, there have always been areas, neighbourhoods and building types associated with poorer populations, and this is unlikely to change, at least in the near future. The concentration of poor and immigrant populations in highrise housing is not necessarily a reflection of the inefficiency or negative social impact of this type of building, but rather a reflection of larger social problems such as inequality and discrimination, which will continue to be an issue independent of the existence of highrise housing or not. Addressing these larger social problems with mechanisms other than housing subsidies alone, along with anti-discrimination campaigns, might help to improve the negative image that highrise housing has earned in certain parts of the world.
The world should slowly move towards safer housing alternatives that have proven to be preferable ov...

The world has never had a single model of housing as the housing needs will always be very different, depending on topography, population, and land. Again, solutions need to be considered on a case by case basis, and in some cases highrise housing may be a better solution than favellas, for there are many advantages to it if done properly. Highrise housing can be more efficient when it comes to offering a relatively quick solution for people that do not have a roof over their head. It can be more environmentally friendly as it can save a lot of space and energy, much cheaper to build than independent homes and in many ways easier to manage than the chaotic buildings and complex infrastructure, or lack thereof, that currently exists in slums and favellas. One can also learn from the mistakes that Western Europe and the US made in the past, for example by ensuring that there is sufficient money set aside for maintenance, and that there are job opportunities and shops located near the highrise developments. It should also be remembered that different cultures adapt differently to things such as highrise buildings: traditional families of South Asia have embraced them quite eagerly as a superior alternative to what was available to them before.
Highrise housing has a deep negative social impact both at the collective and the individual level. ...

Social solidarity, at the level of the collective as well as the individual, is meant to change. Social relations have historically changed over time, and the nuclear family emerged before highrise housing even existed. With or without highrise housing the tendency to move towards the nuclear family would have probably been the same. As for the negative impact that highrise housing has on the individual, pressure, noise and less access to private spaces are the reality of modern living. Because the modern individual is more used to being assaulted by different kinds of stimuli from an early age, psychologically speaking, he/she is also a lot more adapt at dealing with the pressures at hand or taking them as unavoidable inconveniences.
Highrise housing is difficult to manage, whether privately owned, government owned or belonging to a...

Most forms of public housing are difficult to manage. This, however, does not mean that there are no solutions at hand. The key is to be more creative, allow for more input from those who live in these developments and have experienced these problems first hand, and not seek to implement a single ‘successful’ model in all cases. Renovation of highrise housing is often less expensive than building new housing, and when properly done, can last a long time. Management can be streamlined as the necessary lessons when it comes to highrise housing problems should have already been learned. Enough material and research has been conducted on the subject to have offered a series of possible solutions to those who are truly interested in applying them.
Highrise housing is often connected to unsuccessful welfare and social programs. Governments have u...

Highrise housing is often connected to unsuccessful welfare and social programs. Governments have used it as a housing solution for under-privileged groups that could only afford subsidized housing under special leasing or rent contracts. This use of highrise housing unfortunately served to concentrate poverty and other problems often related to poverty, such as crime and drug use, in particular areas. This in turn has significantly affected the housing market by creating so called ‘bad’ neighbourhoods vs ‘safe’ neighbourhoods, affecting everything from property pricing to local investments, employment opportunities and population makeup. One can safely say that the majority of these welfare programs have proven to be disastrous or inefficient at best, thus begging for a different solution: privatization, demolition or refurbishment.
Subsidy always carries with it a danger of government interference and distortion. If artists and c...

Subsidy always carries with it a danger of government interference and distortion. If artists and companies become dependent upon funding, they will react to the implicit threat of its removal should they be too critical of the government. Government may seek to co-opt art into serving its wider policy aims, making it promote nationalism, moral behaviour or a cult of personality; this compromises artistic integrity and forces art to become nothing more than propaganda.
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it....

Without subsidy, many of the arts would not survive - local theatres would be forced to shut, film industries would shrink, national theatre, opera and ballet companies would disband or merge, museums would close their doors. Although some people will value the arts highly enough to pay a market rate for them, they are too few to maintain a diverse and extensive artistic sector which can improve the quality of life for all. In addition, exposing the arts to the full winds of the economic cycle means that skills and institutions lost during recessions can never be reestablished successfully when business improves - art is not a commodity.
Government arts funding often subsidises the favourite leisure pursuits of the elite who staff the g...

So-called 'elite culture' should be available for all to enjoy, and not just confined to the rich. Opera and ballet might survive without government subsidy because enough rich people enjoy them, but they will do so by putting their ticket prices up beyond the pocket of any ordinary person. Subsidy can ensure that cheaper tickets are available and that the arts remain democratically open to all, regardless of income or social class.
There are alternatives to government subsidy or relying solely on ticket sales to fund the arts. Th...

Commercially-funded arts have to play to the lowest common denominator, avoiding risk by providing what has proved popular and successful in the past (for example, musicals and endless productions of Shakespeare’s As You Like It or Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite). Subsidised companies can afford to take more risks and to experiment, enabling new styles and forms of art to emerge and to become popular in their own right.
Subsidy always carries with it a danger of government interference and distortion. If artists and c...

Free and cheap access to the arts is crucial for education. Without subsidy schools and young people would not be able to take affordable music lessons, visit museums or galleries, or to attend plays or concerts, and would thereby be prevented from understanding and enjoying their culture fully. As well as being important for personal enrichment, access to the arts also makes the young aware of their national heritage and helps to promote feelings of nationhood.
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it....

Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it. If art is not good enough to be popular, then government should not reward it for its failure. The success of the unsubsidised popular music industry in Britain contrasts with the failure of the subsidised British film industry. Why should London have five symphony orchestras if there is not enough demand to justify them? The arts in the US are largely unsubsidised and they are thriving and popular.
Even if government subsidy of the arts occasionally produced popular and acclaimed artistic successe...

Even if government subsidy of the arts occasionally produced popular and acclaimed artistic successes, these will always be too infrequent to justify wasting public money on a great many more flops. Just as governments have proved to be very poor at centrally-directed economic planning, they are unlikely to be any better at centrally-directed artistic planning. Instead, they are more likely to channel resources inefficiently, stifling more creative and potentially popular endeavours elsewhere. And remember, money wasted on the arts is money that could be spent on schools, pensions and hospitals.
There are alternatives to government subsidy or relying solely on ticket sales to fund the arts. Th...

There are alternatives to government subsidy or relying solely on ticket sales to fund the arts. The patronage of rich enthusiasts is still a very important force in the art world, as it was in Shakespeare’s or Mozart’s day. Companies are often keen to sponsor the arts as it gives them an opportunity to associate their brand with creativity, generosity and excellence. The USA offers generous tax breaks to individuals and companies to support the arts and has developed a culture of personal philanthropy which is very different to that of subsidy-dependent Europe.
Fantastic value for money

The money that the BBC gets is used to fund top quality television. Although there are a few notable misses in everyone's personal tastes, programmes such as Doctor Who would not be able to be made. All the other big hits on British TV are all American imports. The USA can have big budget shows, because they can get big sponsors, something which Britain cannot achieve without funding such as the TV licence. I mean, 40p a day is not too much for 7 stations, plus radio broadcasts (which we get free anyway), and a brilliant internet service.