if you read it 4x and don't see his point, consider reading it another 4 times. you seem to be advocating that certain employees, "bottom of the food chain" in your parlance, aren't culpable for their actions whereas the parent was saying everyone is culpable for their actions
The stories I've heard from CPAs and other friends is that it it's amazing for small companies < ~$300K annual revenue and then falls apart pretty quickly once you need to do something other than just basic reconciliation and pay taxes
Ummm unless lawyers somehow have evolved different brains than the rest of us, they, too, prefer to make more money vs less. So if they are billing hourly, then yes they all do want to spend more time. Now, they might fight against that urge (E.g. believing that spending less time on Client A will improve their reputation and lead to more clients) but your statement is naive re how incentives work
Lawyers in criminal cases generally work on a fixed fee basis, so working needless hours on one client means less work they can do on other clients. Celebrity lawyers charge hourly, but that is because their clients are so much more demanding that they generally only work on a single client's case at a time.
Lawyers in tort cases bill on a contingency basis, so working more does not change their payout--success is all that matters.
Lawyers in transactional cases usually bill hourly, because when you're talking about multi-million or multi-billion dollar transactions, the few thousand you spend on the lawyers and accountants is a rounding error compared to what you spend on the airfare for the executives negotiating the deal.
what you are saying is that you don't know any hikers that care significantly about weight.
I can also state that the majority of people I know care so much about weight that they would never carry mountain house type food around.
If we both extend our friends to the general public, we have a clash. Or, maybe, there are different types of people in the world, some of whom think that Soylent is a great alternative for many of the situations they find themselves in.
bold statement. I'm assuming you mean the potential env. damage, correct? Have you done a thorough analysis on, say, Blue Apron's impact on the environment? for example, do people who use Blue Apron decrease usage of their car to go to restaurants? I'm not convinced it's as black and white as you imply it is
you were the recipient of people that were terrible and/or just new at active listening. If it's done right, you just feel like you are enjoying the conversation. no different than writing code, playing the piano etc. related, some people are just genuinely interested in other people; that's also not noticeable.
