If this were true they would pay more. Because a % prefer security of staying rather than leaving if they kept the numbers closer they could keep more people. Cost of acquisition thumbs the scale in favor of that for sure.

Am engineer. Can confirm. Things that I can't prove definitively contribute to this in engineering but pretty sure do to one extent or another.

• pensions. We used to have them. Now most don't. 401k is portable. Companies never adjusted to a guy wanting to stick around for the pension.

• hr/recruitment. They get paid more and have more work if there is more change. So they don't let raises get to high and then obfuscate the costs of bringing a replacement in (starting out inefficiency, cost of hr/recruitment, etc.)

• safeness. The thing you describe as feeling insecure and wanting to "commit" to a company. They know they will keep some % of the people like you. At a discount. So it helps balance the books. (don't get me wrong. I think after my last move I am going to be like you too. I make enough that I can be comfortable and live within my means and so the extra $ isn't as big a factor.)

It does get RELATIVELY cheaper but I'm sure no one actually told you insuarance would be less actual money ten years in the future.

You don't pay more because of other people. You pay more because the math the insuarance did is saying your probability of having an accident is going up.

That said in this instance it's mostly lazy people getting affected. In many cases related on this sub recently (and actually I haven't posted but in my case too) switching insuarance has not only negated the increase but often resulted in a lower premium than the old rate was before the increase. YMMV.