>Do you believe there is a direct correlation with how long someone was working there and how productive they are? Would you like to live in this rubric?

Given my experience as someone who is looking for full time work over 3 years later because executives decided that data centers are better to pursue than quality products: yes, and yes.

>What kind of people do you think are interested in this kind of rigid rubric?

People who need to worry about rent next month.

>The best people want to work in a place where they're valued (and paid) on merit.

And we know from decades of knowledge this is never true. Two equally talented engineers can be paid differently based on where they live. They can end up with much different compensation based on one company lucking out with a deal and another missing a crucial deal and collapsing. Which isn't an engineering factor. We know negotiating gets you paid more, which is a skill orthogonal to engineering.

This illusion of meriocracy will be the collapse of the whole industry.

>Why shouldn't a better engineer with less formal experience be promoted above someone who has been filling a desk for the last 20 years?

Because you think the job is building things. the 20 years employee understands the systems and how to keep things together. Life isn't all about moving fast and breaking things. Especially in fields like teaching the future generatrions.