>Staying with one company is nice, but they simply don't reward loyalty.
So do you think companies should be rewarding loyalty? I can certainly understand that, from an employee's perspective, it might be good to be prepared to find a new job. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that employers should be planning to get rid of good employees on a regular basis.
"At some point, the cost of retaining – be it through salary increases, motivational programs, or creating a Neverland with free food, free toys, and exuberant goof-off time – exceeds the cost of turnover"
See, all those things are nice, but they don't address the "self-actualization" problem. I'm also wondering if part of the problem is that there are so many inept workers, that the really talented ones are constantly trying to get away from them.
Also, just consider what he says about these magical graphs that he presents (for which there is really only anecdotal evidence): "After stretching, there’s only two ways to further optimize the value apex: by accelerating the value-growth curve and terminating it as close to the as the apex as possible." This just seems idiotic to me, but maybe he just didn't think very carefully about the statement. If you terminate them at the apex, especially for a graph like that, then you're not getting the most value out of the employee, because a better measure is the area under the graph. (Think about taking the left half of his "value apex" graph and take twice the area of that, compared with the total area of the original graph--if you're constantly training new workers, you're probably getting less value out of them)
