As per these Law.SE questions (one, two), judges whose decisions get overturned on appeal experience no repercussions other than getting their egos hurt and, sometimes, name-shame/outrage in the media.
It seems a bit strange that modern democratic societies haven't adopted some mechanism to incentivize judges to avoid making errors (or "errors", meaning when they are not quite inadvertent). Like, for example, if a judge gets overturned 3 times, they lose their job forever, and lose the right to receive their special pension.
Generally, poorly-performing employees get fired, and the more important the job is, the less tolerance is there for mistakes. Judges are effectively employed by taxpayers to do justice for them, and the job is very important (if not critical) and very highly paid.
So, why is there no mechanism to keep judges genuinely striving to do their job to the highest possible standard i.e. making as appeal-proof decisions as they possibly can?
The only reason I can think of is that, if there was such a mechanism, then appellate judges' impartiality may become affected by how their decisions would affect the judges whose decisions they review. E.g. if an appellate judge knows that, should they overturn a decision, the original judge would be fired, and they may have some personal interest to get that judge fired (or, conversely, keep him), then their impartiality is tainted.
Is that why? Or what else am I missing?
Clarification after seeing the comments:
Of course being overruled on appeal does not always mean doing something wrong. Like some have pointed, the appellate court could simply overturn their own precedent which the lower court was only following. There could be fresh evidence at play and maybe some other good reasons why the lower court's decision was reasonable at the time.
So, the scope of the question should be read narrowed to the cases where the lower courts make errors of law which were objectively avoidable in the first place.