I think a lot of it is that, in a modern world where we don't have kids out in the fields or milking the cows, we want something for them to do before sending them off to college (for which they need prep but probably not 12-13 years of it). And, on the other side, companies aren't really incentivized to do a lot of training of employees who will probably be gone in 3 years anyway. And the employees are often not really rewarded for doing training rather than their day job.

The military example is probably instructive because that's a case where a long-term career in a given military is relatively common.

> The military example is probably instructive because that's a case where a long-term career in a given military is relatively common.

Figures from the last decade [0] show that half of all British Army recruits will have left after four-to-five years service, and only 23% make it to ten years.

One reason (not the only one) for the military emphasis on training is they can't fully utilise their skills in peacetime, unlike most other professions.

[0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Fair enough though I'm guessing those are still fairly high numbers compared to industry in general. People with over ten years are probably something of an outlier at most companies these days so 23% still seems like quite a few.

>One reason (not the only one) for the military emphasis on training is they can't fully utilise their skills in peacetime, unlike most other professions.

That makes sense. I attend conferences and the like which is training to some degree. But training in the sense of actual courses of some sort wouldn't be a lot of use to me at this point in general.