>The usual response to "If you can't pay more, train them!" is that, once trained, they will leave to some competitor who can pay more. Then settle with a poor

>The usual response to "If you can't pay more, train them!" is that, once trained, they will leave to some competitor who can pay more. Then settle with a poorly trained workforce. A company in this situation either needs new talent or needs to train its current workforce to match the level of their desired new talent. There's no free lunch here. I'd argue it almost costs more money to NOT train your workforce, since you're settling for a less efficient process for the same amount of money that will only get worse when attrition (naturally) happens and you refuse to hire at a market rate.