> In short, the “up-or-out” path of professional life may not just be a cultural phenomenon among top professional service firms but also an efficient response to how reputation is maintained and information flows. What looks like a ruthless system of constant turnover, the researchers argue, is in reality a finely tuned mechanism that helps the market discover and reward true talent.
For people who are fans of this system, I genuinely want to understand how one overcomes the common sense, humanitarian centric rejection of corpo speak like this. Is it about just drinking the koolaid?
Actually there was a discussion about cults yesterday and now that I think about it, I'm seeing all sorts of parallels here: inventing new words and using that to complete redefine reality and transform your fundamental understanding of how the universe works or should work, supplanting with your made up fantasy world and rules that rewards the best play actor.
>For people who are fans of this system, I genuinely want to understand how one overcomes the common sense, humanitarian centric rejection of corpo speak like this. Is it about just drinking the koolaid?
Economists don't work in the real world economy so they have no clue or idea what these things even mean. They work for the Fed, a central bank or in academia. Sometimes and only sometimes do they work for banks or as quants, but then they usually make enough money to never have to question the system. Bankers usually have MBAs that specialize in banking and finance. They don't need to understand economics, they need to understand how the businesses they allocate capital towards function.
Economists are insulated from the real economy, because economists are redundant to the real economy and I'm not saying that to denigrate economists, it's what economists tell each other all day in their research.
Purely theoretically speaking, they say free markets are self regulating and stabilizing and efficient. You don't need economists to steward or study the economy according to economics itself.
Weirdly enough, economists aren't historians either. They don't teach how economies have been run in the past, they just presume some sort of proto-market economy and that market economies have existed since the dawn of time.
Calling something a cult should have its own godwin law.
I don't think you'll find any "fans" of a up-or-out system, but you will find people who will gravitate towards it because the 'up' part of it can be extremely lucrative. Not everyone can make it, but people will try and I think that is good.
> In short, the “up-or-out” path of professional life may not just be a cultural phenomenon among top professional service firms but also an efficient response to how reputation is maintained and information flows. What looks like a ruthless system of constant turnover, the researchers argue, is in reality a finely tuned mechanism that helps the market discover and reward true talent.
For people who are fans of this system, I genuinely want to understand how one overcomes the common sense, humanitarian centric rejection of corpo speak like this. Is it about just drinking the koolaid?
Actually there was a discussion about cults yesterday and now that I think about it, I'm seeing all sorts of parallels here: inventing new words and using that to complete redefine reality and transform your fundamental understanding of how the universe works or should work, supplanting with your made up fantasy world and rules that rewards the best play actor.