Yes everyone benefits from a fully educated/trained population but employers directly benefit from having some members of the population trained in specific skills. I don’t know how it is in the U.S. but here in Canada there are routinely articles in the paper about employers bemoaning a supposed "skills shortage’ and how they can’t find people to hire with the necessary skill set required (which is somehow never actually defined) so they have to be able to hire from outside of the country. They complain that universities and colleges aren’t producing graduates with the necessary skills (again never defined) while they post job adverts requesting 2-5 years relevant experience. In other words they want tax payers, prospective employees, competitors, and/or another country, to foot the bill of providing their new employees with the requisite 2-5 years of experience and then they will just poach them instead of doing the training themselves. They are passing the buck. If they want new employees with 2 years of experience specific to their particular industry and needs then they should help shoulder the costs. Co-op programs could do this. One of our top engineering programs factors in 24 months of work experience over the course of 8 terms of education so that by the time the student graduates (in 5 years) they have the requisite 2 years of experience in addition to the academics. Students alternate 4 months of school with a 4 month co-op placement, and the student is paid for their work. Most graduate debt free and have the necessary practical training in addition to theoretical knowledge and so called “soft skills”. Other programs incorporate longer work terms of up to 12-16 months. Obviously this model won’t work for every major but many would. It’s no different than doing an apprenticeship. Teacher’s education and nursing in particular already follow this model. In Germany many white collar jobs like working in banking are treated as apprenticeships with both school and on-the-job training.