> 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

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.