Yeah, no. The only people who care about the company are the execs who own enough stock to care and green newbies who haven't been burned yet by companies who do not care about them at all.
Nobody has pensions anymore, and as long as your 401k is in an index you don’t care if the building collapses after you walk out the door.
It’s been interesting to watch this dynamic in defense. There’s a lot of weird niche shit that’s absolutely critical and takes a really long time (and the right environment!) to become an expert in, but the turnover rate now is crazy. There’s an “old guard” (that has a pension) that kinda keep things running, but a LOT of them are retiring about now.
This concept of "caring" is just a new coat of paint on "we're not just a workplace, we're a family," a strategy to get your employees to volunteer for more responsibility in exchange for kudos (rather than the pay or title they would demand if asked directly).
You don't need to "volunteer" anything, or do unpaid labour—to care. All this attitude of "the world/company/country owes me big-time" is poisoning your soul, man.
It's not about entitlement, is about healthy boundaries around working life. There is no virtue in burning yourself out. Your manager who tells you that you're "part of the family" is not being honest with you. When your interests and your employer's interests diverge, it will turn out that it was just a workplace, after all.
Ask your coworkers who "care" what they think.
Actually you literally advocate for burning yourself out, you just use slightly different terminology.
> It's better to be naive and go from one corporate family to another with a caring attitude, attempting to make a difference, committing to hard work, and having your heart broken, ...
Burnout is the cumulative effect of "having your heart broken" over and over again. It's better to make a commitment you can sustain than to work yourself to the bone. It's not cynical to recognize that your employer will not return the favor.
> [Y]ou keep lecturing me...
Respectfully, you can't call me a "sorry bastard" who's "soul is being poisoned," joke about getting the sibling commenter fired for disagreeing with you, and then complain that I am the one being patronizing.
I was being sincere when I encouraged you to ask your coworkers what they thought. I think we're talking past each other and that you're filtering what I'm saying through a combative lens. I think if you heard it from someone you respected, it would make more sense.
Then he responded with an absurd response about how he should get me fired and I said he sounds like a child. Again, not a personal attack but a characterization of his tone. Which I don't see how anyone could take issue with. I'm being far more civil than him.
He gave me nothing substantial to respond to. All i can do is ask him to stop behaving like a child.
I mean, you did though.
> You sound like a child.
There's no daylight between this and calling them childish. But I fully acknowledge they were also at fault, particularly the thing about getting you fired, and the reason I didn't make any defense of or apology to you is that it didn't seem to be getting under your skin.
I would say that response fails to demonstrate maturity, and wasn't an appropriate response to your question. You don't have to take the bait. Two wrongs don't make a right, you shouldn't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment, etc.
If someone isn't giving you something substantial to respond to, you can choose not to respond rather than responding inappropriately.