3 ms·
Yes, but competing employers can do exactly what you do, and offer applicants more pay. By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the sub
by ETH_start 4y ago
Yes, but competing employers can do exactly what you do, and offer applicants more pay. By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the subject employer paid for.
>>The fact that you pivot immediately into an irrelevant argument against income tax has no bearing on the companies using debt as a way to force employee retention.
Taxation is in fact how we solve the problem of trading liberty for security in the absence of indentured servitude. To elaborate: people need economic security, and many are willing to submit to tax obligations, or in the past, to indentured servitude, to get it.
So it's entirely relevant to the question of whether this kind of training for debt arrangement is consistent with accepted social mores, no matter how much you may want to over-simplify and wrap up the discussion.
- AlexandrB 4y ago> By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the subject employer paid for. Boo-hoo. Companies benefit from things they don't pay for all the time. Not to mention pushing their externalities (like pollution) on the rest of society. Trying to capture all the benefits of money you invest while dumping your costs/externalities on others is the definition of greed. If you had a friend like this, they wouldn't be your friend for very long. But we seem to tolerate it from our "corporate citizens".
- ETH_start 4y ago>>Boo-hoo. Companies benefit from things they don't pay for all the time. Your derision is not going to change the financial logic that incentivizes companies to free ride on other companies' expenditures on training, and disincentivizes companies from making such expenditures. You have to adjust policy to how the world works, because the world will not adjust to make your policy work.