To be fair, everyone kind of already knew that "it's all about who you know", so to speak. So the fact that disenfranchised people tend to stay disenfranchised is not really news to most people who followed the inevitable implications of that adage.

> The dark side of that is discrimination when "someone they enjoy working with" is based on more than a friendly attitude and hard work.

In my experience friendly or not, people tend to be quite honest when vouching or generally asked an opinion on someone.

Referring a bad candidate (or an incompetent one) will damage your reputation/credibility, and most people don't want that.

We don't live in a fair society, and I think we all know that. I would not have experienced the same degree of success if I looked different or had an accent, even if the quality of my work was the same. There's nothing meaningful I can do with that information though.

Thats a feature not a bug. Networks are based on trust. You have a shared interest in making sure your recommendations work out and there is nothing more valuable than knowing who you recommend will work out.

I think more accurately, it's based more on a friendly attitude than hard work.

Network with people that look like/conform to the majority power in your market. They have the same background as other people that are decision makers in that market.

Getting married to one country's politically struggling groups or disenfranchisement issues is playing a totally different game, and is a total waste of time for this game.

I do this in a lot of markets. Almost country by country when necessary. Work with someone that looks like money in that market. Go to the places they are. Don't masquerade your pride of being the front person of your company as 'progress' that society let you get that far just to inspire 4 year olds, unless that is honestly the game you are trying to play.

Although my own background and success would probably inspire people "that look like me", alongside the general distribution of wealth and status seekers

Passive networking isn't very effective.

I strongly disagree with your points. Building a trusted group of peers is the most valuable action you can take in establishing a network. I don't dispute the value of mentors and high-ranking friends, I know many people who can attribute a large part of their success to the right person in the right position.

However, a group of peers provides the following benefits:

* support and camaraderie, as you are likely facing the same challenges at the same times

* a more natural connection and more conducive environment for meeting and regularly interacting

* a rising tide that raises the whole group, as you help each other gain more success

Finally, I would say that your idea comes dangerously close to the idea of "kissing up and kicking down," which I personally find to be an unfortunate and disingenuous style of network management that discourages me from working with that person.

Did the people above my pay grade just magically get there? Are none of my colleagues ever going to advance in their careers? Why wouldn't I want to cast a wide net? Why wouldn't I be friendly and nice to my coworkers?

I've gotten jobs through former co-workers who have moved on to new companies. Some of my peers have been promoted into management and having a good relationship with them prior has given me a leg up. It's so incredibly easy to network with your colleagues. Just work hard and be a decent person and the network will create itself. Acting so dismissive of colleagues is short-sighted and silly.

Oh right, I forgot to mention I'm not a wage slave and not in a hurry to become one either.

I was talking about actual business opportunities. Good luck getting anywhere by being friendly to the, quick frankly, annoyingly arrogant sysadmin. Sure, some of them are nice - although most of them aren't because of the nature of the job, but that's not the point. We all are "nice" people, that does not pay the bills.

That's called brown-nosing and it's not attractive.

If you could effectively network above your pay-grade, your pay-grade would be different. Then again, if you think colleagues are useless, that will likely not help anything -- does that mean if you were your own colleague, you would think you are useless?

Most of my professional networking is virtual mixed in with traveling to some events (and, of course, work colleagues though I work remotely). I do local activities with a couple clubs as well as more ad hoc things, which is good from a social perspective, but TBH it's never been especially relevant from a professional/job perspective.

well ofc if you're a strong link in that network it will fade away - it's not a network in that case just a string of people you know. networking also includes introducing people who can help each other and cross pollination so the mesh is strong.

Could you elaborate?

It's why "networking" often gets a bad rep. So many of these events are, as you say, people passing out business cards looking for consulting ops, a job, etc. By contrast, socializing, participating in various activities, staying in touch with former colleagues, and so forth is very valuable. Personally, every job I've had since the first post-graduation one has been through someone I knew. None were jobs I "applied for."

" If anything, you'll find other peddlers trying to sell you something."

I just got back from a "networking" event and this is 100% accurate.

I would appreciate an intro course on this.

I think the "know" is meant to be the symmetrical kind.

Yes, to clarify, I meant exactly what you said: the point-of-time snapshot of when you last heard from them

Perhaps, but this is only one narrow kind of merit and it's responsible for a disproportionately large fraction of the outcome.

Networks also have gravitational type dynamics that accrue more network influence to existing influencers, so there's a huge path dependent effect where some nodes get rich network-wise by just being lucky or first.