3 ms·
> In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do I'm confused why you think not training employees constitutes "freeloading." Emp
by SamReidHughes 10y ago
> In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do
I'm confused why you think not training employees constitutes "freeloading." Employers are paying wages on an open market for employees that come pre-trained.
- rayiner 10y agoBecause the government subsidizes that training. If it didn't, there would be far fewer trained employees for employers to choose from, wages would go up, and employers would have to shoulder more of the burden of training.
- SamReidHughes 10y agoI guess that's the sense in which it was meant, and I missed that. On the other hand, that money isn't all pocketed by the employer -- it gets passed on through prices and quality to the employer's customers, and so on. The freeloading is enjoyed by the rest of the economy. (In fact, that freeloading effect is the justification most people give for publicly funding education.)