After mocking student debt cancellation, @oren_cass offers his preferred policy in the Times--subsidized apprenticeships, with employers getting $10k from the government for each trainee enrolled. For a few reasons, I'm not sold.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/fix-america-economy-climate-health

1. The supposed market failure is that employers don’t offer the right level of training programs because some benefits will spill over to rivals as trainees leave. But trainees will be loyal to their employers, and it’s not easy to bring firm-specific skills to a rival.

2. If the spillover is so rampant that it justifies a training subsidy, $10k likely won’t induce a firm to assist its rivals. There are more direct ways to prevent spillover, e.g., one-year commitment in return for enrollment in training.

3. If we are going to subsidize non-college training programs, employers shouldn’t be the hub, as they are conflicted. Employers will overemphasize skills most suitable to their firm, and they will try to prevent mobility of former trainees, which is key to lifting incomes.

4. We can assist one class of workers (with some college exposure) and another class of workers (without any college exposure) at the same time with different programs. We don’t need to play politics over which class is more American or more worthy.

https://prospect.org/day-one-agenda/six-stupid-arguments-against-forgiving-student-loan-debt/