Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most useful skill and knowledge is still learned on the job. The "education" is just a selection process. It selects for the ability and intrinsic motivation to learn. If you were running a factory or a building construction company, wouldn't you want that in someone you hire? Are there high school dropouts who have the ability and intrinsic motivation? Of course there are. Many drop out due to poverty and family/c…
> It selects for the ability and intrinsic motivation to learn. You are confusing obedience and willingness to jump through hoops with the motivation to learn. People largely don't need school to learn most things. I would argue that most good learners actually hate school. It would be challenging to self-teach your way to advanced math/physics but that does not concern the vast majority of education. Being motivated…
You can call it obedience or whatever libertarian talking point you like, but the ability to negotiate social systems is an important skill for functioning in society, whether as an employee or entrepreneur.
It's always been the case, even before industrialization. The most effective STEM workers are the ones who understand the social context they work in, not the narrowly technically focused STEM nerd.
> Someone having a specific diploma doesn't mean he is actually competent in practice. It is just more likely that he isn't absolutely terrible, but that's mostly risk [h]edging (sic)
It's absolutely risk hedging, and that's just how most employment works. Most employers are not looking for special snowflakes, that would be really inefficient. They want a likely average competence above a certain level, which varies by industry and company.
> That's the whole point of a business. Assume risks to merit the potential payoff.
If you think business are interested in assuming any more risk than absolutely necessary to improve maximize financial outcomes, you haven't been in business much. We live in an era of lean operations (for better or for worse), and it's only getting leaner.
Companies want to solve the problem they focus on (i.e. build a farm combine), not run a basic education program for understanding the units of torque values on the bolts that hold it together.
> Why do you think the cost of job training should be assumed by the public when they will not get any of the private benefits generated.
The public gets taxpayers and a population who can afford to raise a family, which is essential for the continuation of "the public".
> What is need is relaxed employment regulations, so that if it doesn't work out, it is not too expensive for business to let go of poor prospect.
We already have relaxed regulations today. The existence of noncompete and at-will employment agreements means that even highly educated workers can be fired without cause.
Furthermore, many companies try to hire people as contractors for as long as they can get away with it in the labor market. The number of 1099 workers is growing lately, largely due to reduced labor leverage.
Relaxing employment regulations isn't going to make employers invest in education. They would sooner invest in automation (like automated paint shops for car manufacturing), which is what they have done for generations now.
Back to to the original point, automation is a major why they don't have need for less educated workers anymore, as anyone who has visited a modern factory can see for themselves.