Because it sucks? Is there any more reason needed?<p>At a good job you get to acquire and make use of your expertise, you gain seniority over time, people appreciate your contributions, and your compensation grows commensurate with your skill level, work output, and commitment to the company. How many "mainstream workforce" jobs fit that criteria today? Not a whole damn lot.<p>A typical job is like an abusive relationship. You'll be given responsibilities up the wazoo but little authority in directing your own work. You'll be asked to sacrifice for the good of the organization, who will in turn show you utterly zero loyalty. You'll watch as you contribute to significant revenue generation, without seeing a share of it or gaining significant equity. Employers do all of these things so often because as a rule (perhaps culturally) they are, frankly, power mad and greedy. By treating employees like disposable automatons incapable of making decisions it's much easier to deny them their due share of equity and compensation, which instead goes into the pockets of management, shareholders, and investors.<p>Of course, this is a classic "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" scenario, and it does come with some serious consequences. It becomes much harder to acquire talent (a common refrain throughout all industries these days) and also much more difficult to hold onto it. When you treat employees poorly the best of them find it easiest to go somewhere else. And because working with other talented folks is often one of the most important work environment factors for talented and self-motivated people these dynamics often result in an escalating evaporation of talent and capability. Often this is invisible to management because it's so tempting to see workers as cogs. But then it starts to become harder and harder to execute on ambitious projects. What your org is capable of doing becomes diminished, and its business prospects shrink accordingly.