A little history lesson: back when President Lyndon Baines Johnson was creating the Great Society programs, a number of companies approached him about a national apprentice program that wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime. Those companies proposed that they set up training centers for professions with a serious labor need, paying room and board for the entrants, putting $50/month in a savings account, with the proceeds given when the apprenticeship was complete, and with guaranteed employment upon graduation. Union bosses had a fit, and leaned on LBJ not to support the idea. The result was a taxpayer-funded job training program with no guaranteed job at the end.

Interesting thought...A couple of guys I know have retrained on our dime and did get better jobs. On the other hand, haven't needed to myself. I've had many experiences that transfer to other jobs...seem to be able to always find something. Took a couple of garbage jobs in 2009 and worked my way into the gig I'm doing now...ya just gota do what you have to do. (not in the trumpet sense though)--got principles.

I have about ten jobs to do at my farm. I do not dare trying to hire anyone ever again, the last six or seven having proven to be lazy or thieves.

What incentive did I offer for them to avoid thievery or sloth? Ownership. My wife and I have no worthwhile heirs, and I would be happy to leave my farm to someone interested. Those related by blood have expressed interest that's less than zero.

Given the suggestion of such an opportunity, why on earth would someone not learn from me and be prepared to take over? Instead the more active of them stole stuff, and the less active did nearly nothing.

No, I'll take that back. One afternoon I set two boys to putting stuff on shelves. When I cam back 15 minutes later they had used up two cans of wasp spray trying to shoot wasps out of the air. One of them later stole the $50 I had in cash, ready to pay him.

Retraining might make sense if there were something to retrain. The oner's I've seen must have MISSED THE TRAIN when they were five years old.

Why involve government in it at all?

In reality government is already doing both.

Anytime you involve a taxpayer you are enlisting an unwilling participant to solve a problem that someone else's. Taxes are collected with the threat of force if you do not comply. Let those who want a job and industries willing to educate the workers meet and work out those details. When money is collected by force there is no way to stop paying for a "system or solution" that is not working, even if it does work there is no way to make it fair to those who had to pay for it.

TRA and TAA are programs that attempt to do this for workers who lose their jobs due to foreign trade.

the people want to be cared-for and not coerced into
looking for a job at all. . and they get away with it. . the
politicians have spoiled sooooooooo many voters into
voting for their continued sustenance that it may mean
the end of this nation as-founded. -- j
.

there are no industries that need people at this time because people can not afford to buy anything. in case you haven't noticed retail stores all over the world are closing due to a lack of customers.

Is that government's job? When my father started his career, he had a broom in his hand. After he showed up on time for a while, they tried him a loading and unloading boxcars. Then they taught him how to run a press brake and punch press. Then they taught how to set up the dies on all of that machinery. They eventually tried him in the fixture finishing department, where he retired from after 26 years of service. All of that training was provided by the employer to gain more productivity from a proven employee. Additionally, even the job starting with a broom had an economic ladder for the employee to climb.

When a politician says we need to create x#jobs per month...I disagree. We need to create about 90M careers (jobs with ladders to climb). Any less than that and we end up with millions of disillusioned people with no upward mobility responding to the pandering of the politician of the moment.

These days most businesses don't hire in that manner. If they are looking for a machine operator they may seek them at the temporary sourcing company. If they need a welder, or a machinist they will seek a graduate from the tech school or see about buying a robot. The time honored position of salesman has been largely replaced by IT and website sales. Even executives are hired from business schools with MBA degrees already intact. Largely, business operates with little past experience or personal growth along the career path.

How did it get this way? I believe largely through incentives. It's cheaper to hire a degree than to train. It has less tax burden to use a robot than a W-2 laborer. There is less "office politics" in hiring an executive from a business school or through a head hunter. So, my remedy would be to examine and change as many incentives as needed to encourage businesses to train and promote from within. That economic ladder is the backbone of American progress and American marketing. Upward mobility is the American dream.