My point is that you're over-simplifying. You've given two "simple" solutions neither of which are actually responses to the post you were replying to by vbezhe

My point is that you're over-simplifying. You've given two "simple" solutions neither of which are actually responses to the post you were replying to by vbezhenar: 1. "Hire/retain at market rate". Easy unless you don't know what the market rate is, which you don't, because - as you say - incomplete information is an inherent feature of any resource allocation system including markets. Which is probably why vbezhenar phrased their claim in relative terms instead of absolute terms, whilst caveating that this is true for an "ordinary company" but maybe not for Google or governments. Theirs is an inside-the-market view. You're arguing that all you have to do to solve this problem is somehow step outside the market, and just know what the final price actually is for any given person. 2. "Hire in a different market". But that isn't an answer to the OP's point, it's an agreement with it. He's explaining why ordinary companies will refuse to train people. You're claiming the "solution" is to get out of Dodge i.e. not train people. It's not a refutation. There's no political axe grinding here. What's happening is not unique to SV tech firms. It's an inevitable consequence of CB monetary policy distorting classical market economics. The causes of the policy may ultimately be political, but the outcomes are inevitable.