I don’t argue with your last point (lot of inefficiency in large organizations). However, that point in itself does not credibly support the idea that the people who get forced out are low-value-add. In fact, you could argue it’s the high-value-add people who are often forced because ‘the system’ of mediocrity does not tolerate people who question it.
Put differently, organizations regress toward the mean by rewarding the people who fit and ejecting the people who raise the standard.
This. Once an organisation reaches a certain threshhold of mediocrity, it becomes self-enforcing/self-defensive.
This is an interesting perspective and might actually match my anecdotal experiences - but then again (and I know I’m making no fiends with this statement) it’s just a job - people who get angry at work and too invested or think they need to challenge the organization, even though nobody asked them are just playing “the wrong game” and making enemies for no reason.
While in some organizations you have to play politics and backstabbing bingo to climb the ladder, one can just ignore all that bs and do the “acceptable” workload and mentally check out and still earn 90-95% of what the “work horse” does. This is the reality of a lot of swiss compensation systems… my boss is a work horse and I know he doesn’t earn more than 1.3x what I do, while working on vacation… no thanks.
I like to have my life frictionless and peaceful - I fully enjoy being an avg, overpaid joe.
My point was not that high-value people are always wise to challenge the system, or that they should martyr themselves for an organization that has no interest in changing.
I meant that, in many mediocre systems — and mediocre is what most systems are almost by definition — people who question the way things work can become inconvenient precisely because they expose problems others have learned to tolerate, or opportunities that make others uncomfortable. That does not automatically make them strategically smart. Sometimes the rational move is exactly what you describe: understand the incentives, do what is acceptable, protect your peace, and avoid over-investing in a game that does not reward the extra effort proportionally.
But none of that supports the idea that people who are forced out are therefore low-value-add. If anything, it supports the opposite. A system that rewards conformity, political comfort, and acceptable mediocrity may be especially likely to reject people who create disproportionate value but also make the dysfunction harder to ignore.
So I think both things can be true: mediocre systems may push out high-agency, high-value people, and those same people may still be making a strategic mistake if they keep trying to fix a system that clearly does not want to be fixed.
This is true, I have to admit that there probably is a significant amount of people that didn’t get kicked out because they don’t know Excel, but maybe because they knew Excel too well and their boss didn’t like that.
Either you are taking the piss, or you are reducing the point to a level where it becomes meaningless.
This is not about being “good at Excel.” It is about people who understand the bigger picture well enough to expose structural problems, bad incentives, weak leadership, political decision-making, or missed opportunities that others prefer not to confront because confronting them would require change. In other words, it is about people focused on the mission and value creation rather than personal convenience.
That kind of person can absolutely become inconvenient in a mediocre system, not because they are technically competent, but because they make the system’s mediocrity visible.
So no, the point is not “my boss disliked me because I knew Excel.” The point is that high-value-add people can be pushed out precisely because their judgment, standards, or visibility into the bigger picture disrupts the comfort of the people around them.
mods, hello?
i mean super interesting discussion and all but the poor dude who just asked if he can retire must be thinking “what the fuck?”!
He’ll realize that once FIRE he will be able to fill his days on this forum - never a boring day!
I really appreciate the whole master apprentice vibe on here it’s cool that you hang around.
Hi again,
Thanks for all the feedback and tips.
I am now wondering if there is one major flaw in my plan which is that my fixed mortgage (below 1%) is expiring by age 54. In my calculations I already accounted that my mortgage payments would at least double when I renew mortgage. But if I am not employed at this point, noone would probably want to renew my mortgage, even if I have 3.5m in stocks and vested benefit accounts. So i may be forced to repay the mortgage of 800K, which would significantly reduce my portfolio, reduce its growth potential and saddle me with extra appr. 6K per year fortune tax (as I would probably draw from the 2nd pillar, as it would also reduce later the withdrawal tax).
Are you aware of any mortgage solution that I could use? I am afraid that it would be basically considered leveraging and the cost would be too high.
Thanks for any tips!
You can find banks that calculate 4% of your wealth as income.
Maybe try going from there for your calculations. Also, imho if you have significant assets, just taking a SARON is a no-brainer. worst case, you start paying back a bit extra for risk free returns.