> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.