If 50% of High-Ticket Sales Roles Vanished Overnight, Would That Be a Bad Thing?

For context, here’s what I argued in my last post:

Far too many HT companies are pushing buyers onto sales calls at 20% ready… then blaming reps when they have to drag them the other 80% of the way, which is why “[endless] follow-up” becomes the holy grail of what makes a sales rep great.

I argue that the problem with many remote sales roles isn’t that reps “don’t follow up enough.”

But rather that we’ve built a casino that rewards speed-to-calendar instead of certainty-to-close.

Insert Dean Kozora, who made an interesting point.

He essentially argued that if we shift more of those 12 touchpoints onto the front end (marketing, nurture, indoctrination), cost per call shoots up. We’d have fewer sales jobs, higher standards, and way more scrutiny.

Fair point. But here’s where I get stuck:

Question 1: Is deleting half the sales jobs actually negative, when a lot of those roles are low-quality churn-factories anyway?

Question 2: Even if cost per call goes up… wouldn’t, for example an 80–90% close rate balance the scales and make the whole machine more efficient and healthy?

I Like Dean’s perspective because it forces us to ask a bigger question:

What’s matters more, preserving the volume of sales jobs? OR fixing the system so the jobs that do exist are of the highest caliber (and consequently harder to get)?

What do you think?