Couldn't disagree more, and I would have thought HN would be one of the few places not to see that view. With startups the founders and early employees often (not always) see their company/product(s) very fondly, the natural response to having created something yourself if you care about it.

And it doesn't have to be a startup, it can be any job that you become attached to. I assume it's a mix of pride in what you have achieved and the parenting instinct.

Your suggestion is insulting to many, many people who really do care about what they are working on.

It's great that you're caring about the things that you do, but what's a corporation's primary goal? increase shareholder equity

Especially, I would think, in companies that received millions of dollars of investment from outside sources (VCs). (In exchange for amounts of control by those same investors)

Pride of creation is one thing, but I would caution you against using this as a blinder: the corporation is not (and can not legally be) loyal to you. [Edit: unless you provide more shareholder equity then the next person... and then only until the person who increases shareholder equity more than you comes along]

What you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with loyalty to any one or any thing. You are confusing a lot of different concepts, like pride, emotional investment, and personal loyalty with "loyalty" to a company. They are unrelated.

Ironically, this is precisely what those who seek to instill a misplaced sense of "loyalty" to a corporation want.

At least in very small companies you are working with and for a particular set of people. So loyalty and personal reputation definitely applies.

If it's loyalty to a person, then asking them to stay (even if they aren't happy) for $50k is a weak form of loyalty.

For stock ownership in a startup it makes more sense as they have to stay PLUS contribute to the companies success.

Loyalty to people != loyalty to a company. I'm well acquainted with the interaction between personal loyalty and employment. I've made career-altering choices out of personal loyalty that in a purely economic sense were not optimal.

But that loyalty is tied only to people, not to any company. If I'm not in a job because of loyalty to one or more people, it's got to be out of either economic factors, or because I find the work interesting/fulfilling. The entity it's associated with is irrelevant.

Loyalty to a country is commonly called patriotism. Are you denying that patriotism exists?

He isn't denying that people are loyal to companies. He's just arguing that it's misplaced.

You probably don't want to know what I think of patriotism, most people find my views on the subject to be offensive.

But I never said loyalty to abstract entities didn't exist, the implication is that it's horribly misguided.

Sorry then. I misunderstood you.

But then why is that loyalty misguided?

How does it particularly different from loyalty to people (which you seem to think isn't misguided)?

Employee-company relationships are strictly business: service for compensation (usually $). Loyalty here is artificial because at any point the contract is breached (service declines, compensation is inadequate) the relationship is terminated. A business cannot choose to remain loyal to an employee if it means bankruptcy.

Relationships between people rely on more flexible rules: networking, camaraderie, common ground. A psychologist would say that these are a trade of "services" of a sort, but since nothing is inked, loyalty plays a stronger role. Unlike a business, it is not unheard of that a person sacrifice their welfare/life for their spouse/offspring.

It is misguided to expect the type of loyalty in the latter in the context of the former.

Couldn't agree more.

A bit facile. Nationalism and Tribalism have been around for a long time... I'd argue that it's part of human nature.