I call BS.
This excuse is used to keep the status quo going. If an employee is looking to switch jobs after a short period of time, then some of the blame may be occurring on your end - either you are not paying enough or the work environment is toxic/defective.
For example, you and a applicant agree on a wage that may be a discount since you're going to have to invest training time into this person. The problem arises after year 1 (or whatever time period that is long enough to see returns) that you haven't raised his salary enough to keep up with his/her productivity/profitability. The issue then becomes that the person is underpaid, and can easily get offers elsewhere because you haven't provided a clear path for salary raises, promotions, etc. That is not the workers fault, it is a management problem on your end, and you can't really blame your workers.
Wish I had mod points.
I went to a job interview once, where it turned out to be a tech support job (advert sounded reasonable). In the advert, they were giving "extra credit" for those who have a Masters Degree, which I have.
During the interview, the interviewer asked what did I wanted to be doing in 5 years. I was honest and said maybe in a more traditional "software dev role" or have much greater responsibility.
The interviewer balked at that answer and said "we're not hiring for those positions NOW" - I replied you asked in 5 years, where I saw myself.
I also asked what their pay budget was.
I threw it back in his face - I asked him why someone with a Master's degree take a tech support job with crappy pay and no hope of promotions? They ended up changing the advert.
It sounds like Microsoft used this for too long and caused a lot of infighting and back stabbing in the long run.
I can understand why Yahoo! wants to try it - new management, and they want to cut the dead weight. Hopefully they do not do it for too long.
By the way, the belief that healthcare can only be provided by government or by employers is a false dichotomy. Better than either if people simply pay out of pocket for routine expenses and maintain insurance only for catastrophic, unplanned expenses, just as they do for gas and oil changes vs. collisions.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been saying this for years. There is a reason why you can get a basic oil change for $30 at a quick lube place - you aren't dealing with a large, inefficient bloated system, some of which is mandated by government. I see my doctor for medication adjustments every 6 months. My appointments last 15 minutes at the most, and I spend more time waiting and getting my vitals taken. My insurance is billed $300. I have a tough time wondering why it costs so bloody much. I would much rather pay my doc $30 cash for her time and she would rather not have all the billing overhead.
I expect a certain level of service when I go to a hotel - i.e. If I go to a big high rise, I will expect that they have space for me, different room options, dining/bar, pool, business facility, etc. Because of this, it makes sense to regulate hotels differently - fire and electric codes for example.
This is quite different from someone ocassionally renting out their basement to a visitor.
For all the belly aching, there is some truth to this.
I did most of this, and my parents even were able to chip in to help with my education
Wish I had the mod points.
GDP growth is merely one metric.
I don't think they are a separate issue; I think student loans, education and future employment are related. At some point, our government decided that having a college educated populace is a Good Thing (tm) and offered monies for students to continue their education. I can't say that I disagree with that premise all that much as education is a noble goal.
The issue I am pointing out is that when these kids graduate, they can only get "level 1 help desk" type jobs once they graduate with good grades from a 4 year CS or IT program, and have large amounts of debt. They could be smart and breathe computers but not have the "5-7 years experience."
I think you would eventually run into the same problems if you offered "free" associates degrees in technical fields. Instead of wasting students money, the government would be wasting the money - you'd still have the same problem of "sorry, you don't have 5-7 years of experience."
I agree that the student loans in this country are messed up.