[BLKNSLVR]

It's such a seemingly self-contradictory view and I love that you're sharing it because it makes complete sense in the world of ill-logic in which we find ourselves.

Loyalty means nothing as an employee now (and for a while) in the same way that existing customers don't get the perks that new sign-ups get. Employees are being viewed more and more the same way as customers; is this an extension of "if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail"? It worked for customers, which are people, why can't it work for employees since they're also people and therefore afflicted with the same psychological pressure points.

It's all a calculation of the individual status: Is their leaving going to cost them more than staying for a lower-than-CPI "raise"?

The "churn" cost to the company doesn't seem to be a KPI in most places. "Seat-filled = seat-filled" may be the equation, with no preceding multiplier as to the knowledge or expertise held in each seat.

[npteljes]

I wonder when loyalty to a company meant anything? I mean, I'm sure there are, and were companies where it did. But was it ever a norm?

[BLKNSLVR]

Good point, it's probably always been just a story and after a certain amount of bitter experience we eventually realise it is not true.

A persistent, rolling wave on the sea of fiction that eventually breaks on the shores of the gritty-sanded beach of experience behind the dunes of which is built the school of hard knocks.

[DeathArrow]

I think it meant something in the West long time ago. And it still means something in Japan. But to have employees giving you loyalty, you have to give them something else in return.