> So why should they care about the long term of a project?

Because your future networking potential—and therefore future job prospects—depends on being liked by your peers, who may not choose the same moment of departure as you would. Follow standards and work towards long-term maintainability not because you see yourself at the same company in 2 years but because your coworkers might see themselves there and you want them to like you and feel good about recommending you to their network.

The co-workers that matter the most for networking are the ones playing the same game. They will move to new companies more quickly and try to rise up the ranks more quickly. They will know how to write a good referral because they want to maximize their chances of referral bonuses. They will have the ear of the EMs and Directors because they know that maximizes their own career options.

Saying you're right about which referrals matter (which I don't accept, but I'll play along): you're presuming that not only are these people playing the same game but they're willing to help along someone else who they know has no interests but their own at heart.

Why?

Why would they want to help you along? They burn capital referring you, they burn even more when you make a mess of things. When you leave a burning husk behind everywhere you go your own network of people who trust you is minimal, so you're not an asset to have around them. Why would they want to help you instead of finding people to con who can actually be an asset to them? In this entirely self-centered world you've put together, what's in it for them?

> you're presuming that not only are these people playing the same game but they're willing to help along someone else who they know has no interests but their own at heart.

Referring people for no other reason than that you know them works great, since it will implicitly happen in reverse too. See e.g. the Freemasons.

> They burn capital referring you? They burn capital referring you, they burn even more when you make a mess of things.

They burn capital if hiring you seems like a failure, they win if it seems like a success. That means your incentives are aligned. No-one gets dinged for hiring someone who implemented a couple of buzzwords, left after a couple of years for a higher position elsewhere (or got promoted into management), and then the project they were on failed a few years further down the line for unrelated reasons. Quite the opposite.

Personal pride? I flat out don't respect a developer who refuses to do anything right because of nebulous hatred of any and all employers. No they don't care about you, no that isn't a good reason to go full apathetic.

It's not hatred. It's self-interest. The very heart of capitalism. A rational response to incentive structures.

You're the one sacrificing your own self-interest for pride and are upset that others refuse to do so.

edit: And I get it, I don't optimize my own career like this, focusing more on what I enjoy to work on at the moment. But I don't begrudge people who do optimize nor do I claim to be better than them. If anything they are acting in a much more rational and organized way to their goals than I am.

"More rational" is subjective. There are values and incentives, other than money and specific kinds of self-interest, that can bring satisfaction and joy.

And why should someone be respected if they are intentionally making others lives more difficult like that. That's just hypocritical.

Moving to a new framework that will look good on everyone's CV isn't making people's lives more difficult, quite the opposite.

It's not hatred but indifference towards the employer. That indifference is mutual. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I get it.