3 ms·

If this article is correct, if firms aren't flexible enough to train workers with specific skills if they can't find anyone with that skill set that suggests th

If this article is correct, if firms aren't flexible enough to train workers with specific skills if they can't find anyone with that skill set that suggests that the firm is not filling jobs it needs and thus not as productive as it should be increasing shareholder value. That means that there is bad management and the board which represents shareholders should dump the current management and find management that is focused on doing what it takes legally to improve shareholder value.

jawbone3 10y ago
Why stop there? The only reason the board has accepted the bad managment is because the shareholders provide poor oversigth! The company should be confiscated and then sold at an auction to a select group of responsible shareholders!
Bartweiss 10y ago
Take the cynical view and recognize that this isn't a totally free market. Everyone has an incentive to kick back and let someone else solve the problem. Paying for training is usually a crappy deal, because someone else can use the same money to raise wages and steal your trained workers. You can address this with things like repayment-required contracts, but that's ugly and difficult for most jobs. Plus, you've got a better option: get it for free! So yes, you operate at slightly lower efficiency, but it's not because you're dumb. Instead, you're hoping that someone else (a competitor or ideally the government) will train up some employees you can then hire. Ideally, you get the government to push a career-training program in your desired field, producing a glut of specialized workers who not only don't need training, but keep wages down because they're only skilled in one specialized field. In which case, the management is perfectly sensible and 'sticky' wages in the face of a hiring gap make total sense.
- davidf18 10y ago
  Well, it makes the appearance that they are not employing and training people that are working to maximize shareholder value. The explanation that you present seems interesting but too complicated. If they lack employees and need to train them in order to improve productivity and thus shareholder value they should do this. I think there is a lack of transparency to shareholders that understand their management is lazy/incompetent. Also, in the article, it would be helpful to have the journalist interview some firms and ask them why they don't train people if they can't find them. Make it explicit.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    That would have been a really good addition to the article. We could probably tell a dozen different stories ranging from "surprising industry-specific complications" to "basic incompetence", and it's a shame the piece doesn't try to get an actual answer on which one holds.

jawbone3 10y ago

Why stop there? The only reason the board has accepted the bad managment is because the shareholders provide poor oversigth! The company should be confiscated and then sold at an auction to a select group of responsible shareholders!

Bartweiss 10y ago

Take the cynical view and recognize that this isn't a totally free market. Everyone has an incentive to kick back and let someone else solve the problem. Paying for training is usually a crappy deal, because someone else can use the same money to raise wages and steal your trained workers. You can address this with things like repayment-required contracts, but that's ugly and difficult for most jobs. Plus, you've got a better option: get it for free! So yes, you operate at slightly lower efficiency, but it's not because you're dumb. Instead, you're hoping that someone else (a competitor or ideally the government) will train up some employees you can then hire. Ideally, you get the government to push a career-training program in your desired field, producing a glut of specialized workers who not only don't need training, but keep wages down because they're only skilled in one specialized field. In which case, the management is perfectly sensible and 'sticky' wages in the face of a hiring gap make total sense.

davidf18 10y ago
Well, it makes the appearance that they are not employing and training people that are working to maximize shareholder value. The explanation that you present seems interesting but too complicated. If they lack employees and need to train them in order to improve productivity and thus shareholder value they should do this. I think there is a lack of transparency to shareholders that understand their management is lazy/incompetent. Also, in the article, it would be helpful to have the journalist interview some firms and ask them why they don't train people if they can't find them. Make it explicit.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  That would have been a really good addition to the article. We could probably tell a dozen different stories ranging from "surprising industry-specific complications" to "basic incompetence", and it's a shame the piece doesn't try to get an actual answer on which one holds.