All you say is correct, even down to the "it's who you know line", but I disagree that we should exploit it or even tolerate it. It's just Cronyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism) and my personal moral compass rejects it.

If you were looking for a job, would you call up the people you know or dive into the classifieds? When you hire a contractor, would you go with someone you know or a stranger? Relationships and social proof make the world go round. There's certainly a spectrum here-- but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You miss my point. Cronyism is being hired for who you are, not what you know.

In answer to your question I would call up the people I know but I would expect them to only hire me if I brought the right skills.

Cronyism is when one hires useless people just because they are beneficial for your own sake, not for the collective good. Wikipedia agrees "" The practice of favoritism based on relationships and connections - rather than someone who demonstrates top credentials and well-suited experience "".

The main question then becomes, were they hired more for relationship and connection or because of their credentials and experience?

Cronyism says nothing about the skills of the people. They may well be the best people for the role. It merely means they were chosen on the basis of relationship.

Then what do you call it when people are chosen because of their skills and their relationship with the individual?

A safe bet

So then don't also call it cronyism.

I didn't. If you are selecting people because they have the best skills then it's not cronyism.

"Cronyism says nothing about the skills of the people." Being the best has nothing to do with it. Cronyism "merely means they were chosen on the basis of relationship."

Therefore, if a person is chosen because of their skills as well as their relationship, it cannot be cronyism.

Now, can you honestly say the hires have absolutely nothing to do with their skills? That she merely hired friends despite their skills? Because they have specific skills that are valuable, and unless you can back that up with something more than a wild accusation, it's just you trying to stir shit up with pointless comments.

>It isn't just bullshit "who you know rather than what you know".

I dont believe in your assessment.