back office

After reading multiple threads on front office vs. back office, the phrase that I see often is "You always want to be in a revenue-generating position when you start your career."

Just curious to see why this is so. Why is front office looked upon so much higher than mid/back office? Now if we are only comparing positions within an Ibank I would understand this, but I have also seen this phrase used when comparing positions in different industries (for ex. audit vs, finance at an Ibank; many have said that audit would be better than the Ibank because it's revenue-generating, regardless of the fact that pay in finance is much higher).

Sorry if this question sounds asinine. Would like to hear your guys' opinions.

Lets pretend that not necessarily everyone wants to achieve a front office position. I interned at the same prominent PE/Hedge Fund for 3 summers and experienced both the back and front offices. The people in the back were much more fun, they helped me when I needed it and were more laid back. The people in the front were obviously more up tight and didn't have time. I think it is a measure of risk. The back office people make good money, live very well compared to the average middle income american, front office people are looking for more. The back office people know when they have taken enough risk and are comfortable with their life. It annoys me when the back office gets shit on as much as it does because I am seriously considering getting into it rather than the front.

Oh, major burn here for first year Goldman people. Last week GS let go 3,000 employees, but now it's 'say hello to the back office' for first years.

http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/goldman-sachs-gs-moving-the...

Can anyone confirm this? If it happened to you would you take your chances and defect or stick around?