One thing that occurred in the 60s and 70s that doesn't happen now is that companies actually invested in their employees and had significant amounts of trainin

One thing that occurred in the 60s and 70s that doesn't happen now is that companies actually invested in their employees and had significant amounts of training available. Hell, even in the 80s, before divestiture, I recall AT&T sending my parents (who both worked for the phone company) to classes on a regular basis. My dad sometimes teaching a class or two in Illinois (he'd be gone for a week). Then and now, it takes curiosity, drive, as well as time and availability to continue to learn. For some of us, it is easy, for others that may have significant commitments, etc, taking time to learn something during what may be private/family time is hard -- people similar to this group had the opportunity to learn as part of their job back in the day. My problem with US immigration policy isn't about those that come here to study, get an advanced degree and then start at a good role at a company (or start something). The problem I have is that many many companies are looking for a capable body at the lowest possible dollar and don't want to invest in their employees. IBM is a classic example of going from the former to the latter. Before I am comfortable opening the doors wider, I'd like to see a bit of balance brought back. We already see the fraud of the private "for profit" universities -- Heald (for instance) -- making promises, taking money, and not amounting to much. We aren't going to go back to the day of companies investing as much in their employees as they did in the 60s-80s, primarily because we are at a different point in time and a number of people move around regularly. All that said, we are missing methods and structures to help those I mentioned above (those hardest hit in the various bubbles) to facilitate growth and learning.