I respectfully disagree. I think the security today comes from ME. It's based on my work ethic, my ability to add value to the company, my desire to learn (in the past 15 years I've obtained an engineering degree, an MBA, a CMA (certified management accountant), and become Six Sigma certified.), and so on. Given the relatively low unemployment rate today of around 4.5%, companies really want to keep their good workers, so they are relatively secure.
There are always exceptions, such as when the general economy goes into recession or downturn and you are in a "volume-dependent" position...then sometimes companies must let people go.
I work for a large company with 35,000 employees. We have "forced ranking". Each employee is evaluated on a scale and "ranked" against his/her peers. The goal is to put 10% of the employees into a "top tier", those are the ones who get the large raises and promotions. Then they put 80% into a "middle tier", and those folks get raises about equal to cost of living, and still get promotions, but on a more "spread out" time table based on their abilities/desires. Then they put 10% in a "bottom tier". Those 10% are put on "work improvement" plans, and they must meet with their managers quarterly to discuss. If you are rated in this bottom tier two years in a row, then the company MIGHT let you go if they need to reduce staff headcounts.
Although there are things I hate about this system (It causes rivalry between peers), the one good thing is that being fired for performance (as opposed to being fired for doing something illegal) is never a surprise...you know at least a year in advance that you are "at risk", and you have the opportunity to improve.
I've worked for my company for 20 years, and I've never once said "Gee, that guy was a great employee and they fired him". More likely I've said things like "I'm glad they got rid of him, he was lazy and always trying to push work onto others, never fixed any problems, and didn't have any initiative."
Dave