This all makes sense to me, but how do you reconcile it with the fact that job tenure in Silicon Valley tends to be so short? (Like, people hopping jobs every few years?)
* If churn is lethal, shouldn't we expect the center of the software industry to be in a city where people take a more conservative approach to their careers, sticking with a single employer for 10+ years?
* If churn is lethal, wouldn't we expect a stronger focus on retention of software engineers? Instead, it's common to offer new hires generous packages, and common wisdom is that constant job hopping is the path to high compensation.
The most valuable software tends to be written by people who commit to their work.
The frequency of job hopping is inversely proportional to the time spent working on a career.
Gaming the system for a large salary early on without much experience only hurts the employee with burnout and getting replaced with better developed talent more deserving of the role.
There's the theory and there's reality: resources being limited and a finite employee can run things at any time, companies have to compete for their survival by hiring high while killing their competitors.
* If churn is lethal, shouldn't we expect the center of the software industry to be in a city where people take a more conservative approach to their careers, sticking with a single employer for 10+ years?
* If churn is lethal, wouldn't we expect a stronger focus on retention of software engineers? Instead, it's common to offer new hires generous packages, and common wisdom is that constant job hopping is the path to high compensation.