I guess it depends on the developers and how they choose to commit. On my team we don't commit unless we're ready to push, so we aren't creating 100s of commits for every feature or bug fix. Some developers seem to think they need to commit every 2 seconds for every tiny little change. That's just seems like a waste of time to me, and it also creates the need to squash and do more stuff with git. Anything that distracts me from writing software and putting work into the code is a distraction, and git is a distraction. I don't really want to deal with git as often or as much as some developers seem to use it constantly to commit everything...
Dunno for me it's great to commit if I just made substantial work but it's not ready yet. It's assuring that my work won't be accidentally lost if I mess up. Especially it's great to commit at the end of the day or if I just wrote tests which all pass. Stuff works, I can move on, and forget about it. Next day when I write more code, and something breaks (but worked yesterday) I can easily see the diff between yesterday and today and see what changed and where I'm currently at. Commit messages remind me of what I did, step by step. Then I push to the dev environment and if QA finds bugs, I commit new changes which fix the bugs. It's also great for the reviewer - they only have to look at the single bugfix commit, the rest of the code is fine (already reviewed). I don't find a use for squashing, modern tools allow to see several commits as one diff.
