It's because we all know it is a con to just get money from universities and governments. We had a long time without this system and we perverted it from its original intent. 3-4 people reading a paper are incapable of proving something is valid (the inverse is true, but also remember there's 3 options: true, false, indeterminate). It's even more silly that we think we can rank them (i.e. top tier venues). Rejection rate isn't a ranking, and it is silly to think it could be (way too easy to hack). We just go with the momentum and because that's what the admins require of us. Otherwise, let's me honest, we're all communicating our work outside the structure of journals and conferences (at least they offer meetups). It's very hard for me to justify their existence if we're being honest. And honestly, I don't see how abandoning these systems wouldn't just save us time and money. Like god, the number of hours I spend reworking things which got no actionable feedback from the previous round, is insane. It is just too easy to get non-actionable rejections and that just wastes everybody's time and money, and frankly holds back science.