If you don't understand this, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to work for a living. Is the flexibility to change jobs at will worth a 30% chance o

If you don't understand this, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to work for a living. Is the flexibility to change jobs at will worth a 30% chance of being out of work for 2 years when you get laid off during a bust (when no one else is hiring either)? Most people would say no. The reality, one that more people are accepting these days, is that every employer offers pretty much the same work environment and pay, whether a product of collusion or parallel evolution. Ceteris paribus, as it usually is, security is a perk. As a more concrete answer to your question, professional athletes do it all the time. The elite among them get the longest-term contracts, and actively push for them. There are other jobs as well that involve guaranteed terms, many of which don't have the unique attributes (limited prime years, injury risks) associated with being an athlete. Those same athletes' coaches, for example. Actors. Corporate-to-corporate contracts often have minimum terms and guaranteed spend, too. Why would the company offer such terms? I think the OP covered that pretty well. Turnover is expensive.