| > I wonder why this move away from on-the-job training has taken place. > One reason given as to why firms have reduced their training is because they fear that after investing in the worker, he might just bolt to a competitor which may reward him with better pay because it didn't have to budget for training. The underlying reason for this situation is a good question. While I don't know the answer, it should be noted that, once we have such a situation, it tends to be self-perpetuating. Workers have no incentive to be loyal to companies that won't be loyal to them, and vice-versa. The first one to try being loyal to the other, will often get burned. So dealing with these problems means that we have to fight not only the underlying reasons for the situation, but also the self-perpetuating characteristics of the situation. Not easy. Another note: HN has generally been rather down on the tenure system in American universities. While I agree that tenure has its problems, it does address some of the troubles you point out. Universities and professors (excepting those with temporary appointments) seem to me to be much less afraid to invest in each other than modern businesses and their employees are. Eliminating tenure may very well give significant benefits to universities; however, it also introduces the kind of problem that you are discussing. EDIT: Still another note: A recent post (I think it was on HN) discussed alleged secret agreements among various tech companies to avoid hiring each other's employees. This is yet another unfortunate outgrowth of this situation. |