Pretty cutting reviews even for Glassdoor, esp. the one accusing him of writing the reviews himself (a point that wasn't addressed in the reply). As people say, there's always two sides
The reason it is a good approach is that; when you think about poverty, one may go round and round in circles trying to uncover a panacea but it all comes down to productivity. Are a group of people/is a person able to produce goods and services? This (ability) could be hampered by a lack of skills relevant to the current economic environment among other things. To acquire said skills among other inputs, one requires capital. If you consume capital goods, it won't be possible to save up enough to acquire the aforementioned production inputs. Systems like the Asian family-centric one you mentioned earlier allows for 1) creation of capital goods through production and 2) preservation of capital goods through savings and reinvestment over multiple generations.
If there's capital for future generations in such a family, then acquisition of the relevant skills in an economic environment that's constantly mutating becomes plausible.
It starts with a sense of frugality in a bid to amalgamate capital that can be compounded over generations in the future. Without capital generation and preservation (by the subjects themselves in order to cultivate discipline), you have nothing in terms of wealth creation and poverty alleviation.
What gets me is that these are always displayed first by the default "popular" sort even though they have no votes.
In the meantime, you end up reading posts like these from people who would rather think that companies don't just suck. It's really annoying, because it's not as if you can reveal the whole situation to people just to prove that their "No, no, companies wouldn't just act like that / be so mismanaged".
I think most people have worked at somewhere that sucked, but even some cases (e.g. Uber) can still make a lot of us step back and wonder how a workplace managed to become that toxic.