That's essentially the tone I for from the article. I'm not sure where he thinks his "seasoned" data scientists come from but you can either:

- Train them yourself and then pay them a fair market value (that means actually giving them a raise!), or - you hire them from elsewhere.

Saying that you don't put effort into training tells me there are worse underlying issues, and I certainly don't want to work for you.

I work for a company that puts a lot of effort in training and education into their workforce (they paid for my BS and paid my salary while I got my MS). For gripes that I have about working for them, they take care of their own, mentor their, and make sure they are fairly compensated (to include raises). I have been working for them for the past 8 years, and I intend on working for them for the foreseeable future. That doesn't even mention that they also give me a great work life balance, and want to see me work up the ranks internally.

Seeing articles that only reenforce that I have it pretty good where I work.

Hey - I am not saying not to hire or train junior people, rather hire them as analyst or data-engineer. There is much less of learning gap in these positions, and from there they should have a path forward to a data-scientist position. This rather than hiring them as junior data-scientist and essentially just paying for their education.