<p>This is sort of a fun topic to tease apart. There are two assertions that people seem to be making that may be correct (and may not). </p>
<ol>
<li> People who have debt will be more loyal employees. Cynically,they won’t leave because their doing indentured servitude. People often think that of foreign employees on H-1 visas. On the other hand, they may be unexcited about the work as opposed to people who are there because they love it. These, like the people who are just waiting for retirement, who are trapped in their jobs. On the one hand, according to hbsurfer, you get a fraction who leave because their parents would pay for law school if they get bored. On the other hand, you probably get some people who go through the motions and are good enough not to be fired but are not excited about what they do. Not clear how to assess the magnitudes of each and suspect that the bias of the observer is likely to be huge in assessing the results if you even had the data, but maybe someone has actually looked at this very carefully.</li>
</ol>
<p>I guess you could look at how far new hires rose in the company over the course of their careers and longevity in the company relative to their HS/college work experience. It is complex, as the best people may leave because the market lures them away and the worst people may leave because they aren’t good at what they are doing. But, I suppose if you have performance data about employees that is comparable across parts of the company and years (strikes me as more likely to be a wish than a reality, but it’s not my field), you could get some insight into hbsurfer’s statements. hbsurfer, has you company looked at this data systematically? </p>
<ol>
<li> People who had to or, even better, chose to work during school are somehow inherently morally worthier. Otherwise, why would you possibly care, when looking at CFO candidates whether they worked in HS summers. By the time people have reached CFO level, you should have enough performance data to make judgments without knowing about HS work experience. (If you don’t, it is hard to believe that you can make the assessment hbsurfer appears to think he/she can make in paragraph 1 with any confidence at all). Again, unclear.</li>
</ol>
<p>However, the big statement that is being missed, is hbsurfer’s and mine: All else being equal. What POIH and others are reflecting is that all else is often not equal. The kid whose parents have the resources to invest in them, and often the connections to help them, will start in a different place than some other kids at each stage of the game. So, all else will frequently not be equal and the sons/daughters of those who have will begin at each phase at an advantage, on average, of those whose parents don’t. Example: a friend of mine is an eminent scholar and mentor of many others. He wanted one of his proteges to hire one of his kids. The protege said, learn Java programming. So, they hired a tutor and one summer, he learned Java programming. He’s reasonably bright and got a job the next summer (his HS freshman year), working for the protege who is also one of the world’s leading people in the field. That kid will have both work experience and no debt, but will have more impressive work experience than anybody else. After a few years, it will be very hard for anyone to have a resume comparable. I think he’s getting paid, but it is no way about working for money or hiring the highest skilled candidate from the outset. When hbsurfer tries to compare this kid to others, he’ll see legitimate work experience done without need [the highest level on the apparent scale of moral virtue] and extraordinary skills and experiences that no other candidate will have. He won’t necessarily see the helicoptering and connections behind the resume. This isn’t a knock on the kid, who is working hard and figuring stuff out. Brighter kids might have gotten the job, if the protege were looking for a HS freshman, but the protege wasn’t. All else just won’t be equal. That’s why POIH and others want to invest in building the resume and give short shrift to summer employment for the sake of summer employment.</p>
<p>Where hbsurfer is undoubtedly correct is if you have two candidates with the same GPA, test scores, leadership activities, etc. and one has worked throughout college and one has vacationed at the family houses, the former candidate is likely to more skill and talent or a better work ethic or both and be a better hire. The underlying capabilities and drive of the former candidate are likely to that much stronger because they had to be to get the same results as the person who didn’t also have to work. No issue there. </p>
<p>I think the question that is implicit here is whether all else is likely to be equal. Based upon my observation, all else is likely not to be equal as a general rule.</p>