The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The cost of job training should be the exclusive business of employers.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 73583
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Only business should provide job training. If an employer needs their employee to have certain skills, it is no one else's responsibility. When the government pays for job training that is crony capitalism i.e. an improper subsidy for business.


Hello and thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate,

I'd like to jump right in by addressing what seems to be your two main points contention which are

1) It should be the sole responsibility of a business to provide training to potential employees


2) Government funding of job training necessarily constitutes crony capitalism.

My response is:

1) I do not believe that it should be the sole responsibility of employers to provide job training for a number of reasons. The first is that government subsidies for particular types of job training are not mutually exclusive of, and therefore can be done in conjunction with, private occupational training of individuals. Secondly, Government subsidies of job training allows companies to make a better profit, as some of the spending which would otherwise go to training can instead be recouped and used to help the company expand or pay other operating expenses.

2) Although I am sure there are some examples of ill distributed government spending, on the whole I believe that "crony capitalism" has been kept relatively low here in the US. To the contrary, government spending on training individuals for particular sectors presents a potentially effective salve to unemployment and skills shortages facing America today, jobs such as electricians and metal workers who are baby boomers circulating out of the workforce and into retirement. Germany is a particularly useful example of how government spending on vocational training can be and continues to be effective and warranted.


Debate Round No. 1


First I must criticize my own proposition. It seemed to imply that the individual has no responsibility for his or her own education and training. In fact, no one in the world has a greater incentive to go out and pay for education and training to obtain a better paying job. By contrast, you have no interest in paying for my job training.

Next you have argued that government supplied job training CAN co-exist with private activities and that business will profit from government supplied job training. Of course private and public training CAN co-exist; the main issue is whether they should co-exist. Private training like McDonalds University adjusts its training program according to the economy, growth in the industry, the need for additional managers, and probably a thousand other variables. The results of their efforts means close to 100% success for employment of the trainees. Even if you can find examples of government and business partnerships to provide employee training, there is hardly ever the same success rate nor the ability to modulate the program in accordance with the constantly changing world. I completely reject your argument that subsidies improve profits. OF COURSE they improve profits, who wouldn't profit if the government is paying your operating expenses? The smartest people in the world spend immense effort trying to allocate where their money should be invested for the greatest possible return and still they fail much of the time. I certainly don't want a bunch of politicians trying to decide which companies should get government money even if it is for the allegedly worthy purpose of "job training."

Your next point suggested that job training in Germany was working well. I looked at your article and it seemed to support my side. Each individual who joined the education program was required to "apply" to private companies who provided the student with both the training and a salary!

For my final point I would like to distinguish between the role of education in society and job training. We as a society may possibly benefit from an educated population. The reasoning is that individuals would be better able to participate in the decision making required by a Democracy. However the level of that education is limited to the ability to read and write. Beyond that, society does not benefit from any individual receiving a higher education. Almost all of the benefit of advanced training and education goes to the pocket book of the individual receiving that training.


A number of quick responses to my opponent since I logged back in so late lol.

1) I do not posit that individuals are incapable of seeking jobs or training for their own benefit, I only state that it would be most beneficial to society if there were some sort of further financial incentive i.e. government subsidies or training programs into in demand jobs such as the declining skilled labor jobs my opponent ignored.

2) I argue that certainly private and public training should exist, those thousands of variables that pro speaks of can also readily be dealt with by a government entity, unfortunately opp conflates pure privatization with efficiency, this is simply not true and there are numerous examples from contemporary sources and history back to the gilded age of America that shows that taking an entirely laissez faire approach to business is detrimental to society and has in some cases lead to significant financial crises. A governmental agency which is set up to operate flexibly, will respond to situations flexibly. Therefore prop should approach the situation not from the perspective of complete privatization, but rather the perspective of streamlined and flexible government.

3) pro agrees with my contention wholeheartedly that subsidies have a positive effect on business profits and that point should flow to my side: "OF COURSE they improve profits, who wouldn't profit if the government is paying your operating expenses?".

4) Prop also has worries about politicians becoming too involved in determining the composition of a workforce, I say that this would be a negligible issue because determination of subsidies/ training programs would be determined by a panel of experts from both the public and private sector to determine where subsidies should go and how much, this is certainly more efficient and equitable than prop's advocacy for total privatization.

5) I agree with prop's final point, mainly because it supports my contention that individuals should get this job training in skilled labor such as machining, metalworking, electricians work, etc. a four year education is not suitable for everyone mainly because our society now has a significant demand for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) jobs and skilled labor as opposed to a less useful "liberal arts" education which typically leads to individuals who were English or humanities majors finding no jobs or getting jobs for which they are "overqualified".
Debate Round No. 2


DanAtLaw forfeited this round.


Considering prop has FF'ed all points should go to me. Thank you for an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.