I'm seeing a false dichotomy here, in the language of governments, unions, and academia (the latter represented here by "persyn," etc.) and that of business.

The language of business and the language of government weren't that far apart in the not-too-distant past. Business found that language inadequate to the levels of obfustication it needed, and government, which for some reason also feels the need to muddy clear waters cheerfully jumped on that bandwagon. Plain-language activitsts from Orwell on have been running behind, waving their hands, trying replace "implementations" with "setups."

I think it speaks to where the language-users are getting their ideas from -- lots more people work as low-level corporate drones than work in coal mines, in our immediate social circles. Lots more people are therefore exposed to and comfortable with bureaucratese. It's part of the background, for them, and they don't think about it, any more than they think about whether to call a plebiscite a referendum.

I would argue that the language of academia is equally alienating, though, even within the group.

Also, people who are insecure with their own language will almost always adopt what they perceive to be prestige language in an effort to cover what they see as their own inadequacies.