I don’t think you can say it’s a myth if it’s a “cost of doing business” though. Companies are incentivized to reduce costs and risks that do not provide a retu

I don’t think you can say it’s a myth if it’s a “cost of doing business” though. Companies are incentivized to reduce costs and risks that do not provide a return. If an employer can hire someone experienced with a solid track record, and reduce any risk of them needing further training or not working out for other reasons, how is that any different (from a pure business perspective) then any other cost or risk reduction strategy? I’m not saying this is how it should be necessarily, but it’s the reality for employers in the existing system. The way contractors are currently used isn’t really anything like an apprenticeship, and functionally couldn’t be as contractors are usually required to produce specific results on a timetable. That’s not to say that contracts couldn’t be used to create this kind of relationship, something like a “work-to-hire” agreement, or a co-op/internship with more well-defined way to transition to full employment. From a legal perspective though, that could involve the same (or new) risks, especially when it’s a new and untested kind of business relationship.