There was famously an inflection point 40-50 years ago where wages decoupled from productivity to the downside. I'm sure it wasn't perfect before then, but things did change.

My theory is: when it started being a bad thing to have any cash reserve.

With some reserve on the side, a company can survive bad times and not fire people. This is the kind of behavior employee will appreciate and make some diehard loyal.

But this available money is money not making more. So that's a bad thing these days and so the only easy variable available to survive is to remove excess workforce. It took some time for people to understand loyalty has been one-way only but now employers are reaping what they've sown.

The balance of power between capital and labor fluctuates; qualitatively it definitely felt different ten years ago. For whatever reason labor seems to have much less power today. Not zero, just less. It isn't that companies used to be more loyal out of some moral obligation. They were forced to be more loyal by market dynamics that used to be more favorable to labor.

30 years ago and prior for a generation or two. Employees had pensions instead of 401ks where tenure built up a guaranteed fixed income payment at retirement. Now we're all tied to the stock market.

Oh, and back then a single income could support a working-class family to buy a decent house, two cars and maybe send a kid or two to college.

20-30 years ago in private sector. Still is in government.

>When was it different?

The British Army passed on promoting George Washington. Twice.

Nothing changes.

The thing that changed was perception. People no longer believe loyalty to employer is worthwhile, just as they no longer believe hard work is what gets people rich.