@collegethrowaway3473 don’t forget the possibility of a PhD from a business school. Preparation at the undergraduate level really wouldn’t change if you wanted to be open to that path.
RSO’s can be loads of fun and in this case you would find companionship with others who like to spend their time thinking about economics, as well as stumble onto a particular field that really sparks your interest and enthusiasm. There might also be a strong “career development” aspect because professional schools and employers like recruits who engage in interesting intellectual stuff during their free time. Finally, it might give you a lot of insight into whether a PhD program is really for you (see the story below). To me, that would probably be the BIGGEST benefit of Oeconomica.
You might also look into whether this society is viewed similarly to something like “Law Review” as a serious academic organization for the best students in the department. If so, it’ll directly assist you with your PhD goals. If not - then you still might do it for the experience - but make sure it doesn’t substitute for the other things you need to do.
As you progress toward your undergraduate degree, keep in touch with faculty about your long term options and interest in a research career. They will be honest - perhaps brutally so. And that will be a good thing! Don’t be discouraged but do take them seriously: many smart young people feel inclined to pursue a PhD, but few are selected, and fewer still find a post at a top-notch research institution or think-tank upon completion. Even assuming you do succeed that way, your chances of getting tenure, all else equal, are pretty small. In addition to having math skills, you have to be a creative and original thinker of how to solve relevant economic problems - and you have to be able to articulate - in sometimes a pretty critical environment - why your ideas are worth pursuing. You have to be publishing constantly (approximately one original work every 12-18 months) and hitting doubles on a good amount of your stuff (hitting a home run - even in the “working paper” phase - will get you pretty far on its own). You won’t have all the time you need to do this, like you did as a PhD student, because you will also need to factor teaching and administrative responsibilities into your available time (although good institutions will typically go a bit light on those, in order to allow you to build up a body of work).
You won’t understand any of the above at this point - nor should you. But here is a pithy story that you SHOULD remember because it sums up exactly who is right and who isn’t for a PhD program (and yes, this is a true story, not just a legend or something they teach you in PhD-school):
A tenured grad-school professor in a highly reputable PhD program, a la Prof. Lambeau in “Good Will Hunting”, once assigned a super-interesting problem to his first year class to work on over the weekend. Everyone was buzzing about it, working hard, and totally engaged in the challenge. On Monday he did the “reveal” and everyone was like “Wow that’s so cool.” Later that day, a first year student came to his office and announced he was leaving the program. When asked Why?, the student responded that, unlike his classmates, he was NOT interested in the problem, nor the solution. He didn’t enjoy the challenge, nor the experience of trying to solve it with a deadline looming. He realized that he wasn’t cut out for PhD stuff. That professor helped him develop a key insight right away, long before he would spend wasted years slaving away at something he really didn’t really love doing. Now you have the chance to develop that insight as you progress through your undergraduate program. If you love it, go for it. If you don’t, find what it is you DO love - and do that instead.