
Next generation of software engineers need training, not retraining - kbredemeier
http://www.cio.com/article/3122964/careers-staffing/next-generation-of-software-engineers-need-training-not-retraining.html
======
dalke
Am I missing something really obvious?

The essay promotes boot camps, which is something I'm hesitant about because
the type of programming I do took far more than a dozen weeks to learn. But
sure, I'll accept they are useful.

But the funding model seems to be that people pay for their own training,
either directly or through financial aid. That puts a lot of risk on the
person.

Why aren't companies paying for the continued training of their employees?
Then they can spread the risk over many people.

Or is it one of those situations where it's cheaper to hire people that
another company has invested time and money to train, rather than do it
oneself?

If so, isn't this an example of a case where it makes sense to raise taxes
(esp. corporate taxes) to provide free or subsidized education?

~~~
flukus
>Or is it one of those situations where it's cheaper to hire people that
another company has invested time and money to train, rather than do it
oneself?

I've always like the quote:

P1: What if we train them and they leave?

P2: What if we don't and they stay?

