Neonchameleon
Legend
It may be a fact that the companies need skilled workers. It's also a fact that it is their responsibility to ensure they get them and no one else's. And that they are failing to actually do the work they consider they are supposed to because they aren't fulfilling their responsibilities. They are just sucking up skilled workers from the environment, trying to externalise costs. And I'm shocked, shocked that this doesn't work indefinitely.
Why are you so determined to help companies shirk their responsibilities? Why do you think it isn't the responsibility of companies to train their workforce.
After all if we followed your methods then no company could ever work out a new way of doing things and implement it. You'd kill innovation - after all people don't come ready trained for new methods that were created at a company. They can't. Because it's new - and on the job training is at first the only method of training available.
And indeed by ensuring that instead of training people in the jobs that were needed people get trained before they start in methods that were appropriate a few years ago you are actively harming innovation. If training is a responsibility that companies palm off on the workers and the government then there is a huge competitive disadvantage to training. If you want to do something the old way you have a cheaper workforce even if the new way is better, all else being equal. This is because any innovation you make for your workforce means that you need to train all new workers even if they come trained to industry standards. Whereas doing things the standard way means that corporate subsidies give you a pre-trained workforce. Any innovation you make doesn't just have to be better. It has to be better by enough to justify a training budget. If the company takes responsibility for its own training rather than externalises it it just has to change the training it uses, making the marginal cost much much lower.
Your twisted corporate morality and attempt to pass off responsibility is something that discourages companies to innovate.
I'm saying that this is moving the goalposts. If we're interested merely in what has positive effects then giving cash handouts to people in poverty has huge positive impacts on the economy - it gets spent and circulated fast. It's right up there with infrastructure spending with training coming in third place.
So if we're going by pragmatic effects on spending then Finland's approach is highly effective and you should be in favour of it based on the effects everywhere it has been tried.
If we're arguing on points of principle and responsibilities then you're arguing for a bunch of scrounging leeches to duck out on their responsibility to actually do the job they claim to want to - and instead to suckle on the government teat. And it is far far more immoral to let companies do this than it is to let people do this to put food on the table.
