[polygamous_bat]

This comment reads like a classic "X-ism doesn't exist because Y people have it hard too!"

No one is saying that Y does not have it hard. The claim about X-ism is that people with X never even had the chance that Y did. In your case, sure, someone worked hard to convince their boss to hire their friend, but the people who don't have those connection (i.e. because they are from marginalized backgrounds/different country) just don't have a single chance of being hired, regardless of how qualified they are.

[thaumasiotes]

> In your case, sure, someone worked hard to convince their boss to hire their friend, but the people who don't have those connection (i.e. because they are from marginalized backgrounds/different country) just don't have a single chance of being hired, regardless of how qualified they are.

This requires that every hire the boss ever made was based on an employee recommendation. That seems unlikely.

[wizzwizz4]

Relax the hyperbole (e.g. s/don't have a single chance/have a much smaller chance/), and it no longer requires that.

[lliamander]

> This comment reads like a classic "X-ism doesn't exist because Y people have it hard too!"

The claim was not "nepotism doesn't exist". The claim was that "It isn't nepotism if the person hired through personal connections can actually do the job".

Yes, people without personal connections have it harder, but the mere inequality exists does not mean the situation is unjust.

[comfypotato]

It’s really all opinion. I would say the system here is unjust. (Life’s not fair.)I wouldn’t say that the relationship-hires are morally wrong (if the person hired is qualified).