Postdocs are usually expected to move to a different institution, because most institutions don't have that many people working on the same topic. If you keep working with your former PhD supervisor, people may question whether the merits you claim are truly yours and not your supervisor's.
Conversely, I think it's problematic for scientific creativity how homogeneous behavior across institutions has become. I don't believe it is a result of this cross pollination requirement, but rather causality probably goes the other way. Many old professors at MIT were true lifers, from undergrad to PhD to faculty. Postdocs were often skipped entirely, or looked more like a 1 year visiting researcher gig.
Regardless I don't feel there should be a viscerally negative reaction to individual institutions having clear characteristics. It's true that objective evaluation is hard, but it's hard anyway honestly.
You say this as if the expectation is only one postdoc these days.
When you believe you're the best, you are probably going to be biased to hiring internally...
It's more likely that $RANDOM_UNIVERSITY wants to hire from MIT than the other way around.
If you are looking at the maximum tier, then there is no k+1 to draw from. So, you end up drawing from your tier, and, especially if your tier has few schools in it, you end up with a disproportionate representation of self-hires.
I understand why the bias against not moving exists, but interestingly, despite the supposed taboo, lots of programs self-hire for faculty (at least in CS) [1]:
> 7.4% of professors have a Ph.D. from the same university that they are teaching at. MIT in particular has a high rate of self-hires, with 36% of their professors having MIT Ph.D.s themselves.
It makes me wonder if this is a case where prior wisdom has not caught up with modern practices.
[1]: https://jeffhuang.com/computer-science-open-data/#cs-faculty...