In addition to raising starting salaries (basically improving the lot of the same people these companies already love) or having formal training programs another option is to take more risks on people. Just because a person does not have 5 years experience doing what you want them to do does *not* mean they cannot do it and do it well if you just give them some time to be a bit slow at first while they learn on their own. Pretty much any intelligent person is capable of learning without formal training. Experience is always *paid* experience. Another job that you no longer have for some reason. That is a very specific requirement. So maybe a more experienced person at the company has to spend a little bit of time for the first 2-3 months for new hires to help them get up to speed. That doesn't seem like such a huge sacrifice to me.
These companies might ask,"But why should we do any of this? What is in it for us?" I guess the biggest advantage is paying lower salaries at least until the new workers gain a few years experience and can get hired at other places. So that's say 3 years of paying a below market salary for work that is probably at least comparable to much more expensive and experienced people. You are also introducing people to the labor market from which you hire from which will exert a downward pressure on salaries even at the upper end eventually, but that is a part of the big picture. Instead of one more dish washer or grocery bagger you have one more employable person in the labor pool relevant to the company.
If I were hiring people the only requirements I would have would either be actual competence at the job I wanted them to do (perhaps based on testing) or an interview and a short IQ test. I would *not* require them to have some kind of absolute proof that they are competent. I could find that out for myself soon enough. I would want to hire intelligent people who are willing to do the job and are capable of learning.
I graduated from university in the US in the early 90s and was unable to find any job even remotely related to my EE degree or even any tech related job and I looked hard for years. I never went to a single interview because I didn't meet the 3-5 year experience requirement that was the absolute minimum at least at that time. They wanted more experience than that of course, but they would settle for 3 years. A recent EE graduate with an IQ of 138 who is eager and energetic and hard working? They weren't interested. At all. I don't regret studying Electrical Engineering because I find the subject fascinating, but it certainly has never helped me even a little bit to earn money in my life. If anything it has hurt me when looking for jobs bagging groceries and washing dishes or if I'm lucky a construction job.
From my perspective the whole system just doesn't work. The system makes no sense. Companies don't train or hire unproven people because they don't have to. They are focused only on right now. The system takes no account of the future at all. Eventually those skilled; experienced workers they love so much will retire and/or lose their mental acuity. Will there be anyone to replace them? They are only hurting themselves by limiting the supply of intelligent, hard working people. The reduced labor supply means they pay more for the same workers from the labor pool that they've reduced themselves. I'm always curious how university graduates in technical fields got their first job. The whole thing sounds like a myth to me: this idea that any companies actually hire people with no experience for tech jobs. Hell, you usually can't even get a job as a waiter if you don't have experience.