Lesser Degrees Of Workplace Stupidity

Here, in America, you will probably not find a truly great job unless you are extremely lucky, take advantage of being born into wealth (so that you do not really need the job as it is), lie to get a position, or put so much effort into a course of action which might not succeed that this alone makes it practically pointless.  Finding a job might not be particularly hard, if you are willing to take almost anything.  Securing a job that does not demand most or all of your free time, pays livable or even better wages/salaries, and is free of fools in any leadership role is extremely improbable already, and then there are working conditions, job duties, and other coworkers to worry about.  Jobs in America are largely aimed at enriching someone else who does not put in the same level of effort as oneself or trying to look productive when it is all a hollow facade.

This is not even listing how many people would, of course, want a job that they find subjectively enjoyable/fulfilling.  However, almost any option, at least one that is accessible even to basic college graduates, will at best only have less bullshit (irrationalistic or petty company policies, micromanaging, contradictory goals, leadership consumed by greed, and so on) than some other job.  You might not get micromanaged as much, you might not be underpaid as much, and you might get more PTO, but it is far more likely than not that anything positive about a given workplace is nullified or hindered by something absolutely asinine.  A workplace without hypocrisy, egoism, and exploitation is logically possible because it does not contradict logical axioms, and it is within the power of whoever has control of a business to make it so as much as it depends on them.

There is still no workplace dominated by rationalists that I have ever heard of, though such a thing is logically possible.  It is always easier for imbeciles to take power because the common person relates more to them (almost no one is a rationalist because it is always easier to make assumptions or ignore abstract truths), because they are willing to sincerely invest themselves into social constructs if only they will benefit from it (such as with laws of human origin or meaningless company traditions), and because they might be willing to genuinely mistreat others if they will climb the corporate ladder.  They might alternatively throw themselves into idiocy like emotionalistic acts of kindness because they think this makes them a good person and will thus make them liked by others.

A thorough rationalist has no concern for such things and sees them for the errors or illusions they are.  He or she does not care about pleasing some likely pathetic employer, almost certainly a liar and a hypocrite, and does not care about abiding by the emotion or tradition-based constructs of professionalism, which have no logical validity (at least not as far as can be proven!) or moral significance whatsoever.  They do not care, except when it benefits them as people who know the difference between pragmatic manipulation of non-rationalists and actually embracing workplace norms, about making other people happy just to fit in.  They do not think the social constructs of language or company policy matter unless they are used in perfect alignment with reason and morality and for no other end than this.  Because many people are not like this, almost any accessible job will involve contact with fools, who make sure many employment opportunities are only better than something worse rather than truly excellent in themselves.