Re: US National Debt / Deficit

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

If a worker does not need to be trained then a company can afford to pay more because they have less training costs.

For example if a company expects two workers to stay with them for two years, one will need to go through training for two months and one will need essentially zero training. The first worker will have zero productivity during training (and will likely have reduced productivity immediately out of training). The company would be able to afford to pay the second worker ~8.3% more then the first worker as they do not need to bear the expense of training the worker (this is disregarding the reduced productivity that is mentioned above). This would result in it being less likely that the worker with existing training will find a better job/salary offer with a competitor