>It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of properly assessing the commitment that's being made

I've been on both ends of this, as an employee a few years ago and now an employer. I'm not sure if assuming the worst in all employers and putting in the bare minimum/acting unethically to avoid being "taken advantage of" is the optimal way to act.

It pushes away the good companies that will reward loyalty and drive, and attracts unethical companies who have an adversarial relationship with their employees.

Same goes for relationships - if you assume that the person you're going to marry is simply going to take your house and kids and build your relationship about minimising feeling stupid if/when it happens, you're not going to have a good time.

> It pushes away the good companies that will reward loyalty

Which are these companies that "reward loyalty"?

I can't name a single one in the US market. Every single company cares about one thing only: its bottom line.

They will retain any employee as long as it's good for their bottom line. Once it's not: adios.

I've never heard of a company retaining an employee due to their "loyalty". Maybe it was a thing in the previous century?

I don’t assume any intention from a company neither good nor bad just like I wouldn’t assume that a wasp meant to do me harm if I were highly allergic to it. A business is just an entity I work for to support my addiction to food and shelter.

I assume they hired me because I could help make them money. If one day that assumption isn’t met and they need to lay me off (been there done that), I call my wife, I call my network to tell them I’m in the market. There are no hard feelings.

Don’t be an asshole. If your employer is half-decent don’t just leave without 2 weeks notice and no replacement, don’t “put in minimum required effort” which is actually below minimum required, don’t sabotage the company, and don’t be strict when your employer has a true emergency situation (which is actually an emergency and not every weekend) and relies on you.*

But also don’t trust your employer. Require important stuff in writing and contracts, don’t expect your employer to give anything extra for hard work / overtime (unless it’s in contract), don’t rely on “promised” benefits or rely on your employer to do anything they don’t have to.

And also, if you get another offer which pays 200% after accepting, or one which requires you to quit immediately, you might want to break loyalty. IMO this should go both ways: the company and employer should expect the other party to “betray” them if there’s a huge bonus like that. In fact all of this goes both ways and company/employer should have a decent, “loyal” relationship to an extent, but never put too much trust into each other.

* the other exception is toxic workplaces where your boss is being an asshole to you. Although in that case you should be trying to leave ASAP

Don't be a chump. Employment-at-will means being an asshole is both parties' negotiated default. It says so in your offer letter unless you're at the very highest levels. Now, I have personally extended the courtesy of a multi-month notice to a manager with whom there was genuine mutual respect. But generally speaking, if a company mistreats me the only reason I'll give any notice is because I think it will directly benefit me. For example, maybe it will help to get a better separation agreement.

Is that mercenary? Yes. Do I like it? No, not really. But in the USA where I live it's virtually universal policy with private employers.

It's a good lesson. We spend most of our lives forming real bonds with humans. Corporations are not humans and interactions with them should not be treated as such.