Exactly, and most companies have shown they couldn't care less about keeping talent around. If they did, they would have spent a modicum of effort figuring out exactly why people like software engineers leave, which they don't seem very interested in. I've only ever experienced a single exit interview, and it was too little too late. I'm sure if I had said "low pay, shitty codebase, unreasonable deadlines, moving goalposts, no standards, management gave themselves raises during a layoff" that said feedback would disappear into an unlabeled file folder or a trash can.

Exit interviews are mostly just a formality, there is rarely any honest feedback given anyway.

I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see commitment, not leaving at the first sign of trouble. It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent.

> I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see commitment, not leaving at the first sign of trouble.

This goes both ways though - employees want to see commitment too - not layoffs at the first sign of trouble (or, often, no trouble at all, but just opportunity to improve short-term numbers by outsourcing to cheaper locations). Want people to stay for a long time with your company? Perhaps you should advertise a policy where you don't lay off staff even if company is in the red.

Notably, government agencies don't do layoffs, and people working there are much more loyal than people in the private sector, even though government pays less.

I’ll institute a policy of no layoffs if folks get paid the same as government jobs.

In all seriousness though this perspective is a double standard. Hiring managers can’t typically setup these policies, and when you leave after a short time they get screwed.

Then while the job market for this industry is fluid, you’ll need to find other ways to entice people to stay.

It seems that in a hot market hiring managers are each other’s enemy- they’re competing for labor, after all. They are providing incentives to get your workers to jump. So maybe the framing shouldn’t be employers vs. workers.

Then companies should reward stellar talent with raises that go beyond inflation and COL changes. Not job hopping is leaving money on the table. As you say, "It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent" then one would think that companies wouldn't be penny foolish and properly reward talent instead of giving tiny 3% raises to star performers. Stock options are great way to reward and encourage commitment.

If all you want is money go the FAANG route. There are a lot of people who grew up in the 90s/00s who are now hiring managers and they screen for passion not profit.

Make no mistake that we work to get paid.

But the motivation for working does have a tangible impact on the work product. This is why companies don’t want to hire people who job hop a lot. It’s not to save a buck. If I wanted to save a buck I would outsource.

> It costs a lot to acquire and hire talent.

Probably because of your attitude towards it and throwing away people that follow the industry average churn rate.

Reminds me of someone who complains about how hard it is to find a date but has criteria tolerances for partners that would make aerospace engineer blush.

How do you know it's only the first sign of trouble?

Regular employees don't have the possibility to change companies from the inside, leaving is the only option.

Well, technically there is another option: unionization.

Don't companies currently prevent the creation of those?

That sounds like a strong reason to unionize, then!

Employees are finally starting to give employers the level of commitment they've received for decades, which is approximately none. We're all better off for it, in my opinion.

Something might be a red flag for an employee which causes them to immediately want to move on.

Companies look for red flags and pass on employees all the time.

Relatively, it's more expensive for employees to take a job then leave.