Let's say you train someone whose salary is [x]. After training, their market salary would be 30% higher; [1.3x].
Are you suggesting that if they end up with a hypothetical 10% raise, to [1.1x] because [.2x] was spent on training?
That's absurd. You can't just walk out on the street and hire a person who is already trained for [1.3x]. You have to devote resources to the hiring process, which are probably nearly as expensive as training up a junior dev, all things considered.
I honestly think the difference in the second example is that the expenses in the second example are paying the kinds of people who make stupid personnel decisions like this.
I'm obviously cynical about the whole thing, but it seems that MBA-style thinking is almost deliberately evil. I have friends who have gotten MBAs from top schools, and friends who work in management consulting for the Big 4, and I've talked at length with them about their feelings about business practices that they implement and support. I literally have never gotten an answer that justifies philosophical objections to their work, beyond perhaps "well, it's just the way it's done."
I think it's a myth that organizations have to behave in a deliberately sociopathic manner in order to be successful. I mean, to a certain extent being a sociopath is an advantage, but I really don't think that's really a necessity.
On the flip side, I acknowledge that I am not very good at divorcing who I am from what I do. It's why I've made a career helping non-profits and social enterprises. I'd probably be a healthier person if I were able to get less invested in what I do.
Either that, or the company makes cuts somewhere else which -- all else being equal -- puts it at a competitive disadvantage. Budgets are generally zero-sum at a particular moment in time.
> You have to devote resources to the hiring process, which are probably nearly as expensive as training up a junior dev, all things considered.
If you can prove that to the bean-counters, by all means spread the good word.
However even if true you must consider a third potential outcome: You train up the junior employee, and then they don't stay with your market-rate offer for whatever reason, and you have to incur the hiring-process costs anyway for the empty senior position.
That scenario is always be more expensive than the other two, and it can only strike junior-trainer companies. Senior-poacher companies don't have to even worry about the odds of it occurring.
Consider the costs associated with recruiting for a single role. You have to either advertise a role/filter out candidates or engage a recruiter (which costs time or money). You have to interview a number of people, taking time (money).
You then have to onboard that person, and choose a salary based on your limited knowledge about them. And even then you could still hire a lemon (although admittedly it could go the other way and you hire someone better than expeceted). You then have to wait for them to become productive in the new organisation.
You also have much better information about someone who has worked at your organisation for a longer period of time and can therefore tailor their salary better to their skills than for someone who you know nothing about.
Spending money on training is a predictable cost vs. an unknown future cost of hiring. And yes, people will also appreciate it as an intangible, which if you are 'mercenary' you can enumerate as a supplement to a certain amount of salary.
There isn't much of a "raw mercenary economics" argument for training (which the MBA types prefer), you've got to talk about intangibles like loyalty, goodwill, social connections, etc.