Interesting. One critique of the paper---the notion that a higher level of equilibrium firing would making being CEO less attractive (and hence lower the talent level) seems wrong, or at least incomplete. First, more firing would make more space at the top, increasing the probability of getting the job in the first place. Second, in a world with more firing, getting fired would be less of a negative signal. Getting canned would still be bad, but my guess is that it would be more like losing an NFL head coaching job e.g., you become an offensive coordinator, coach in college, move to a different team etc.