Most of us do better work around good, familiar colleagues (once we find them) than at the place with the biggest TCO budget, and many of us prefer to work somewhere that invites our best work more than one that let us buy the fancier trim line on our already-luxury car.
The cultural distinction isn't "valuing skill" vs "valuing loyalty" - it's a worldview of radical individualism vs interdependent pragmatism.
No it doesn't. This is about companies needing to hire a skill and valuing it more than your current employer values it. Companies don't hire people who are already performing well in their environment, because they're a new hire.
> Most of us do better work
I'm not talking about this. I'm saying, say, a web developer working for a scaleup with a global customer base is going to be worth paying more for than a web developer working for a company with a customer base of up to 1000 businesses.
> many of us prefer to work somewhere that invites our best work
This also irrelevant - I'm not saying what people should choose; I'm saying that moving for a raise is you finding somewhere that values your skills more right now.
> it's a worldview of radical individualism vs interdependent pragmatism
This is just silly biased phrasing. It's not about individualism at all. It's about hiring. Unless you think hiring individuals is radical individualism, and only complete teams should be hired, like the NFL.
This sounds like the Peter principle.
That's just what will happen in companies that value skills more. If other companies value loyalty more, then their employee profile will look different.