> To the extent they have any control, they try to make their employees happy so they’ll work for less money and not leave.

I think this is definitely overly charitable to corporations. Meta and Amazon both had pretty explicit policies that a modest level of employee churn was desirable, particularly when it involved folks leaving large quantities of unvested stock on the table.

▲

spongebobstoes 6 hours ago | parent [-]

some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers

▲

alexwennerberg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers

It means having coworkers who are constantly in competition with you for survival. It's a nightmare.

	▲	ketzo 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, and some people are still happier there! Different people can have wildly different expectations for a work environment, and wildly different tolerances of social discomfort.

▲

swiftcoder 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> when it means having more talented coworkers

I'm not sure it is really correlated? It causes a lot of the high-performers to jump ship pretty regularly too - the company is perfectly happy replacing an expensive veteran with a college hire

	▲	mpyne 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If the net inflow of talented coworkers to the company with churn (including hi-po churn) still exceeds the level of talent you'd get at the company with stagnant workforce levels, then maybe you'd still find it preferable. High churn doesn't necessarily mean low average talent, especially if the skills you need to be a high-performer are not specific to any one company.