I'm uncomfortable with the way that "cancellation" can destroy people's careers without a proper trial, but after reading the article I'm also disgusted that these two are able to continue their careers without apparent repercussion.

Is the problem that I'm trusting the article without allowing the two to defend themselves? Is it better to trust the judicial system is sufficient? Or are extra-judicial "mob style" punishments actually a good thing in cases like this?

I recently read "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who stole the world" and can't recommend it highly enough. It shows that tax fraud and offshore banking is despite propaganda that "it's dead" very much alive and the US is a central player now. Hollywood still uses Switzerland and the Cayman's but a lot more convenient are setups involving Nevada, New Mexico, etc.

Offshore banking is a key component in maintaining control when an empire retreats/collapses. The French installed puppets in Gabon who let them launder their money until today in a similar fashion that the City of London and the more reckless jurisdictions (BVI) allowed the Brits to keep their loot which they stole in the past 200 years.

we had a chance to burn all this to the ground during the financial crisis but Occupy Wallstreet was just a "leaflet campaign" without teeth. You don't fight a real enemy that subverts the rules of democracy with democratic tools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...

Later edit: To add to my comment, what do you call sleeping in the same bed, eating from the same plate and having direct physical contact with a person who gets the virus and ends up in IC or dead while the other person tests negative for the virus?

Let's not forget that ever since February we've all known that this virus is particularly easy to transmit/get, so you cannot say "that person got really lucky, that's why he/she hasn't got it".

Compensation Trajectory: Sure, I can relocate from [HCOL city] to [LCOL city] and come out ahead today after factoring taxes, home prices, etc. What happens in the long term? Will I have a harder time getting promoted because of lower visibility? Will my annual raises and stock refreshes be lower than my counterparts who did not relocate? In tech-dense areas like the Bay Area, I can switch jobs and negotiate a substantial salary increase. Will LCOL areas allow me to substantially increase my salary when I switch jobs?

Home Prices: Folks often cite cheaper housing as a reason for leaving HCOL areas. I generally agree with that. But housing is an investment, not necessarily an expense. You might be paying seven figures for a small townhouse in the Bay Area. However, you'll get your money back when you sell your home in the future (assuming a sufficiently long time horizon and the ability to wait out dips in the housing market). Like any other investment, there are risks associated and ROI is not guaranteed, but my point is that spending $1M on a house is not the same as spending $1M on a luxury car.

Purchasing Power: Earning more money in a HCOL city (relative to earning less in a LCOL city) goes a long way once you leave your local economy. Want to send your kids to a private university? Most tech employees won't qualify for financial aid regardless of where they live. In that case, tuition for [private university] is the same regardless of whether you live in San Francisco or rural Oklahoma.