I think I have a bit more respect for such behavior.  Mercenary behavior and making work decisions based on the potential resume-building impact is a completely natural response to the ways in which the job markets have changed since the 90s.<p>Everyone can, and should, consider how a job will help them advance their own careers.  This is exactly why I quit COMPANY_X.  At the time, their codebase was entirely based on not one, but <i>two</i> obsolete technology stacks.  If I didn&#x27;t leave quickly, I would have been locked into that narrow ecosystem for the rest of my life, at a &quot;flattened&quot; company with almost zero opportunity for career advancement.  It would have been almost like someone deciding to move into COBOL programming starting in 2016.<p>And I have been frequently laid off as a result of startup failure, acquisition redundancy, or just the company&#x27;s loss of contract work.  There is no longer any loyalty from the typical employer to the typical employee.  If you can manage to work your entire career at a single company, you are an extreme outlier, because at many, if an accountant predicts you will be unprofitable next week, you will get laid off on Friday afternoon, with no severance package.<p>So asking yourself &quot;would this look good on my resume?&quot; is something you should do very frequently, even if you are currently content where you are.  We wouldn&#x27;t need to chase after buzzword-related experience if HR didn&#x27;t look at those buzzwords when hiring people!<p>And anecdotally, the name of a previous employer <i>has</i> helped me to get hired at another company.  After COMPANY_X, my future co-workers told me at the interview, &quot;COMPANY_X is great!  We know they hire only high-quality people, and we also know that the best all want to leave after about two years.  PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 used to work there!&quot;