[mynyml]

I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Companies that make use of transferable skills instead increase their chances of a new hire quickly picking up where the previous employee left. e.g. a web dev, in a FOSS shop that uses well known best practices.

[arach]

> I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Great point!

[halostatue]

Or they—like my company—have complex code bases in complex languages (C++) that mean that you're not going to be an effective developer for anywhere from 3 - 6 months after hiring. It has nothing to do with training you for our specific needs, but everything to do with the fact that in a mature codebase there's lots of moving parts that can easily be broken, and there may be older choices that may not make sense because you weren't around when the choice was made.

Candidates with short-term employment backgrounds aren't a problem, per se. We want you to be a long-term employee because you like it at our company and want to contribute to something meaningfully. We don't want to be a short-term paycheque job.

[strlen]

Why not just ask the candidate what makes this job different from the previous ones?

If the answer is something along the lines of "I'll want to gain knowledge of and practical experience with C++, but the previous jobs wouldn't let me work in anything besides Java and scripting languages", it's good indication that are looking for a long-term home and not just a higher salary.