3 ms·
It usually only makes sense to invest in a good you own. An employer might train a worker, only to have the worker jump ship to a competitor immediately after r
by yummyfajitas 11y ago
It usually only makes sense to invest in a good you own. An employer might train a worker, only to have the worker jump ship to a competitor immediately after receiving training.
Historical labor force norms made it more difficult to change jobs which mitigated this problem. In a sense the employer owned the worker and training made sense. Workers now own themselves, so it's up to the worker to invest in their own training.
Do we really want to go back to the older era?
- nradov 11y agoNo we don't want to go back, but there is a middle ground. The employer can loan workers the money to pay for training, and then forgive the loan after the worker completes a year or two on the job. That's how my former employer funded part of my graduate school tuition and it seemed completely fair to me.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoI have no particular objection to schemes like this, though I'd certainly be wary of offering such a scheme as an employer. I'd be worried about some rabble rouser spinning it to the media as indentured servitude.
- NeutronBoy 11y agoIt's fairly common. Employers are often more explicit - they'll pay for the training, but if you leave the organisation with 6 months-1 year of completion of training then you have to pay them back for it.
- Animats 11y agoInstead of forward, to slavery?
- jbotttt 11y agoImplying the past is worse and the future better is a misstep[0]. As others have been saying the problem goes away when you have viable careers in X. At some point it will better value to train someone, though I imagine that point is further away then training yourself. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress