Since we're speaking in generalizations, we get paid the big bucks because we took the time and initiative to invest in ourselves and not the other way around.
I get the idea, but I'll ask the same question that I keep asking our leadership when they complain about newish hires with "lots of experience" and "plenty of skills" who they decided to give lots of money to, only to find out that they can't deliver what they promised in the interviews:
"Why did we hire them? We interviewed them, and we made the decision to hire them. That's on us."
If we really want the best people, and to not have to pay to train them, it's on us to make damned sure the vetting process is good enough to weed out the folks who either lack the aptitude, or are not a good culture fit.
I've been told that having a more stringent hiring process would "scare off a lot of candidates". To which I always reply "That's the idea. Good."
?ÿ
Personally, I'd rather find folks who have the right attitude, and the potential to be great, and pay them really well while spending the time and effort to train them well.
It's way easier than trying to find that purple unicorn.
