[wheelerwj]

how did you arrive at that? are you implying that if it was feasible it would be done already?

Microsoft could invest 40-50k a year into people who qualify for retraining either in house or at local universities and still come out ahead.

[JumpCrisscross]

This implies it would be profitable for you to loan these people $40 to $50k to get this training and then (a) profit off the loans and (b) turn around and sell the finished product (the upgraded workforce) to Microsoft. It's the logic of subprime houses for subprime people (or, more sensitively, the diamond in the rough mindset).

[mseebach]

> are you implying that if it was feasible it would be done already?

You brought up the fact that there are 12 million workless, as a counter to Microsoft's desire to hire H1-B labor. If that's not to suggest they could fill those positions, what's the relevancy?

> Microsoft could invest 40-50k a year into people who qualify for retraining either in house or at local universities and still come out ahead.

Uhm, 40-50k a year is more expensive than full-time Harvard tuition. That does change the argument a little bit.

[wheelerwj]

cool, so MS can send 6000 people to harvard for a CS degree while having them work on some menial code/internship in the mean time.

[mseebach]

Yes, that's at least 12 times more expensive then the $10k.

[wheelerwj]

but its half as much as the yearly cost of a hiring a new dev.