I think I objected less to the length of the career, and more to the reason why the career is so short. In sports, you are very physically limited, you eventua

I think I objected less to the length of the career, and more to the reason why the career is so short. In sports, you are very physically limited, you eventually hit your physical peak and then get replaced by someone younger and faster. The reason that the players are OK with this is because they get paid an absolute ton of money and can quite possibly retire after those 5-10 years. In business this isn't really the case. Of course, there are a few developers who will get embedded in their particular way of thinking and may end up antiquating themselves out of a job. But in general most people carry on learning, or promote into management or another aspect of business. Essentially, there are a lot of good reasons to be treating employees like long term prospects. Another one that springs to mind is the concept of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. We're constantly told that people are more motivated and do better work when they are intrinsincally motivated, rather than extrinsically. Yet, if you are treating your workers like disposable commodities; or if you as an employee are hopping from job to job every year; Where's the intrinsic motivation? If you're working at a job for 10 years or more, now I can believe that you will be motivated to see the company succeed. That your goals and the companies goals are aligned, because a significant proportion of your life and the companies life are intertwined. Just like family. N.B. Of course, if you don't expect your startup to be around in 3 years time - whether acquired or bust - then by all means go for the sports analogy. But I think in the wider business world, it'd be a mistake.