As a manager with 10-15 reports at a company you've probably heard of, I think the main question is how much they will need to contribute. I put up a PR or three a week, usually in non-critical path flows or system support, and its honestly fine. I could barely contribute to the productivity level of even one of my junior engineers, but I can debug production issues and ship code AND be a good manager (with a decent work life balance).
I feel like managers should be able to contribute. Managing a good team isn't that hard, though managing a bad team (or a good team in the midst of a ton of bad processes) is a nightmare.
Creating an additional 30%-50% on top of whatever a normal person would consider passive income in order to actually have passive income is NOT a realistic option for a huge % of the population.
I feel like teaching is mostly a one size fits all endeavor, but people learn and think in different ways, just like a processor is optimized for some operations but not others.
Take simple arithmetic like 12x17. Some people do the long form multiplication (carry the one..), some people say it's 12x10+12x7. Some remember 12x12 from times tables and go 12x12+12x5. Some people make it 24x8+12 => 48x4+12 => 50x4-8+12 etc. Some do it on the abacus in their heads.
All valid, though some are slightly more optimal than others. Good teachers empower alternative solutions and try to help people connect what they already know to what they already understand.
These are costs that you have determined are worth it. You don't have to pay for Postman if it's $29 a month, but it clearly saves you >$29 a month of productivity. You feel that Bonusly reduces your turnover just enough to be worth $4.5 a month.
Not saying that people couldn't make licenses a bit more friendly. But saying it's expensive to purchase tools you could just not purchase if they weren't worth it doesn't make sense.
Economics as a concept is a bad example for a black box because what would you say the input and output would be?
Isn't economics the study of all the different black boxes and how they interact in general? Like if you took the honey market, someone out there understands the honey market, who is buying, who is selling, and why the prices are where they are. You repeat this for all markets (or parts of markets) and someone understands either the black box, or the way black boxes usually work together. When you have a large number of black boxes, the system can behave in weird ways because the behavior of the system is defined by each of the sub-systems behaving in a certain range. When that range changes wildly, the system can behave in unpredictable ways.
Economics simply defines general rules for these complicated systems and so are heavily dependent on all the sub systems to function in a prescribed range. I don't feel like you can call economics a black box, but you could say that no one understands those particular problems you put forth because we don't have enough data (and enough correlation) to really determine what that change to a bunch of subsystems has on the system, especially when other factors (bull/bear market, global uncertainty, etc) will probably have a biasing effect.
Tyson doesn't have the academic credentials that Hawking or someone like Richard Feynman does. The power of Hawking and Feynman is that they both were at the top of their fields, but took the time to make the foundations of their science accessible to the common man. Tyson has done great things, but he's not quite there.
I feel like managers should be able to contribute. Managing a good team isn't that hard, though managing a bad team (or a good team in the midst of a ton of bad processes) is a nightmare.