Decoupling your employment

There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).

Additionally it is far easier to move in the US. There are no immigration requirements, language barriers, major cultural differences, different education systems, certifications (sometimes states differ) or similar impediments. Many states are "at will" meaning that employment is not protected to the degree it is in many other countries. This means that mobility can happen from both employee and employer sides.

I don't think job hopping is due to being self centred (in the pejorative sense). The US tends to be very productive which means employment and employees are more able to move around to meet needs. That they do so is not a bad thing.

I've known couples where one works a big boring established company in order to bring in the healthcare while the other works at startups. They would both prefer to work at startups but by the time people approach 40 there is likely to be some health issues forecast if not already happening. (Even the fittest people wear out body parts!)

And if anything economic policies have been discouraging mobility. Higher house/ing prices makes people sticky and diverts income into unproductive use, but seems to be a goal. (We'd all be better off with a lot cheaper housing costs.) The lack of competition in communications (largely due to regulatory capture) means that remote participation is a lot less effective than it could be. And of course health care is dysfunctional and expensive, although the care received by some of the people some of the time is world leading.

I included the Ayn Rand quote because it's simply the most straight-forward and succinct summary of what my blog post was all about.

In the context of your blog post, the Ayn Rand quote is arguing for MULTIPLE clients and MULTIPLE jobs to avoid dependence on any one client or employer. Your post argues for choosing ONE single particular job, with ONE single, specific employer, using criteria not based on employer benefits. I don't see what one has to do with the other.

Definition: For simplicity, let interests = job + gym membership.

With these definitions, a Randian rationalist wouldn't consider getting an employee gym membership. Which seems to be what the author is advocating.

Companies offer these things because they think, on average, employees will say "More than they cost the company to provide."

This post essentially reminds people that they should factor in the switching costs for all of these things. It also notes that those switching costs may increase super-linearly if multiple service agreements expire at the same time due to a change in employment.