Realist1337

> a lot of his followers are looking for too many shortcuts.

In the old days, people devoted their careers to a company and companies looked out for people. Continuous layoff cycles were rare and long-timers earned pensions. These days there are layoffs in good times and bad. Sometimes layoffs hit entire divisions and even top rated people are let go.

Why the heck would i trust some traditional system and not try to find shortcuts?

I've been in a hiring capacity many times and as explained to me by HR/Legal: Never reveal the reason for passing on a candidate. They explained that in the US, it can provide rationale for lawsuits if the person comes up with some counterpoint, perhaps with evidence that you were in possession of the counterpoint. I am not a lawyer, but that is the reason given to me by multiple big companies.

I dont fully understand this statement -- I've reduced Facebook browsing 85% because of newsfeed changes in the past year (i only see a handful of people, and at times dont even see my wife's posts for some strange reason (NO she is NOT blocking me)).

How is it good for advertising that I dont use their product much anymore?

> When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.

There is another benefit (of course, understanding with all the dues you have to pay along the way.) JOB SECURITY While I make more than a professor, as with most tech jobs I can lose it anytime. When the economy is bad, even great job performance is no guarantee for continued employment. Sometimes entire companies disappear. It is difficult to understand this if you havent been thru a downturn (I've been thru 2) and it is difficult to appreciate this until you have hard responsibilities in live (mortgages, family to support.)

This is another reason why many jobs which pay less (government jobs, k-12 education, police forces, etc) are still attractive -- because they offer relatively more job security. It means you can commit to liabilities -- a higher mortgage, etc without having to sock away funds for rainy days.

You are right, most people are not like that. How many people are? 1%? 2%? 0.5%? I work with hundreds of people, we have dozens of meetings a month, we might meet with over a thousand people a year in a large company.

Not throw in tough situations. People trying to cut legal/ethical/accounting corners to make their numbers. People hoping not to get caught. People doing whatever they need to to prevent getting fired. People trying not to be in the bottom 10% (and thus let go.) In the context of all this -- yes, people start using every tactic and social weapon in their toolkit. It takes 1 accusation and you are done.

> People who bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the same untoward thing done to them repeatedly.

Sounds like you've already pre-inclined towards a guilty party then, before you even heard evidence from both sides. And if there is no evidence, the man is in a world of trouble.

I have personally witnessed a man in the office be fired for "sexual harassment" shortly after escalating an accounting audit issue. Convenient timing and very effective way of dealing with an accounting issue.

> One accusation of ill-doing on my part and my life is essentially over.

Not sure why the downvotes either. I have personally witnessed a man in the office be fired for "sexual harassment" shortly after escalating an accounting audit issue. It is the easiest corporate weapon to use, and the default assumption is you are guilty. Even easier against awkward men who people love to hate.