But this is assuming that "bad" companies outnumber the "good" by a significant margin, which has been untrue in my experience.

It's entirely possible the landscape isn't different because the "good" companies are inherently uncompetitive with the "bad", but this is not something to be solved by just writing every company off as "bad" and then blaming the resulting system on that.

You have to start by understanding why, to paraphrase you, "the landscape is not different". I think writing off all companies as "the same" avoids answering that question entirely, which really cripples any logic you build on top of that premise, to the point where it leads to contradictory or invalid conclusions.

I disagree that the "bad" companies represent "an overwhelmingly negative majority", because I do not see the necessary proof to support such a statement. It appears to be a generalization driven by motivated reasoning.

"plenty that are" isn't sufficient, though? Comments like yours tend toward the portrayal of all companies as being evil and exploitative. It's trivially obvious that this is not the case, so perhaps you're just trying to claim that the vast majority of them are evil and exploitative?

In my career, I've had fewer "bad" companies than "good", and none of the "good" ones match any of your descriptions of what "companies are like". Am I to believe I've just had incredible luck? Maybe!

However, I reject the notion that the "vast majority" of companies are exploitative. This does not fit with my experience, or the experiences of my peers. I would say "less than half", if I were to really ballpark the number.

This, of course, puts your comments in a pretty poor light, for me. You're outright insulting the "good" companies I've worked for, by insinuating that they were only trying to exploit me for profit. I mean, they were "exploiting" me, if you really want to split hairs, but I understood the nature of the relationship and actively consented to it, because the relationship also benefitted me. I had a good job, good colleagues, challenging work, solid responsibilities, good benefits, good pay, and more. The fact that the "company" was trying to make more from the output of my work than they were offering to me as compensation is not an inherently bad thing. I could not, on my own, build the kinds of things these companies were building, nor would I have thought of the products/services on my own, so there is indeed value in being "a company".

I was also part of said company, and identified as such. My success was its success, and vice versa.

Your outlook on this topic is needlessly pessimistic.