If you want experienced, wildly competent workers, you'll have to pay for them. If you're not willing to pay for the experienced workers, you'll have to train inexperienced workers. Also, the requirements you're listing for the job is probably ridiculous, and your screening process is probably broken.
Now that I have over 5 years experience in my field, I'm rolling in offers and have my pick.
I've had managers complain about lack of loyalty in employees. I typically fired back suggesting that if you take new graduates out of school and actually invest in them, you'll have a much stronger core workforce that is likely far more invested into the company then random mercenaries you pick off the market. Apparently I don't get management theory though...
Once the balance shifts to (my personal feeling of) inequality, I have no problem (or choice?) but to move on. Gone are they days of "lifers" with company provided pensions that could possibly make that decision (to move) harder (a la IBM full term careers).
"I'm great to work with as long as I get my way".
People who want 'loyalty' are really looking for people who will stick around when things get tough - perhaps pay cuts, wage freezes, benefits reductions, longer work hours - etc. If you stay through those, without complaint, you're "loyal". Being "loyal" as long as "I'm treated fairly" isn't really what they're after.
There are also other ways to compensate an employee that does not necessarily involve a cost, such as flexible hours or work from home.
[1]: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/479628.Influence_Rev_
Unfortunately, I worked for five years through "when things got tough" - random layoffs, no raises, decreasing benefits. How loyal does one have to be to satisfy your definition?
The problem is that training requires long-term thinking. The entire problem is our economy has devolved into short-term thinking. Not much training and long-term in a quarter.