<rant>

Too true. So many companies, even younger ones, hold onto some stupid concept of paying your dues. Even the "great" companies give the employees who contribute 10x as much a 20% raise instead of a 10% raise...and that's AFTER a bunch of political bullshit to make sure you get recognized. Seriously? That's why even a tiny bit of effort to go out of your way to reward great people can have outsized returns...because nobody does it!

At most places there is just no concept of rewarding people according to how much they contribute. That's why talented people have to move all the time, because of stupid institutions that think a moderate increase in compensation is adequate for a massive increase in value. Ugh.

My current employer is actually really good about this, but so many places fail so completely they make me gnash my teeth in rage.

</rant>

I would imagine that the internet, Facebook and constant connectivity to friends and colleagues has helped perpetuate this phenomena.

20 years ago you would occasionally here about someone who got a raise or promotion, relatively speaking. Nowadays you are connected and aware of what all your friends are doing and how they are moving on up in life. That easy ability to compare yourself with others:

e.g. "I graduated with Bob and I know I'm as good as him, if not better. Why aren't are moving up as quickly as him? Maybe I should demand a raise or look elsewhere for work if they don't appreciate me like Bob's employer appreciates him"

We today are also far more aware of when friends and colleagues change jobs so people perceive that changing jobs is a frequent occurrence and therefore change jobs more often, which then furthers the perception of job changing frequency in others. It's a virtuous or vicious cycle depending on what side you're on.

No, it's a real effect: entry level positions start at lower purchasing power then they did in the past, many requiring FREE unpaid internships. This coupled with anemic raises that do not match up with those in the past, mean companies do not reward the young to stay. This occurred before the 08 crash as well.

Yes, it is more visible what's going on in associates lives, however, real wages for young workers are declining in absolute purchasing power.

The lack of high responsibility positions opening up from lack of top of the workforce people retiring is not helping this issue any.

Totally agree with you. I wasn't saying that it wasn't a real effect. I was just suggesting that awareness may also be contributing to this changing social norm in addition to the issues you pointed out.

Exactly. In fact, I look at companies as Candidate hoppers. In the US, it is employment at will which means they can fire me anytime (except a few circumstances which could land them in legal trouble). So nothing wrong being a job hopper in today's market. But until you stay at one company, give them your best. Do not be married. May be if there were pension plans anymore. May be if their really was something known as job security. It is a myth.

Upvote for the term "candidate hoppers". That word should enter the vernacular.

The one thing I particularly like about the startup world is this rare focus on hiring the best and creating an environment that shows you value employees. One of the easiest ways to determine whether a company is a candidate hopper is to see how the quality of life is at the company. If it is low, it means that they aren't trying hard enough in general to try to keep people around.

@ malandrew. thanks and yes. You can easily spot a candidate hopper by how they treat their employees, consultants etc. It is so sad that many of the giant corporations that I have worked for so far are in that category. Yes you might have a great boss or co-workers but overall, the culture of the company reflects and disappoints.