... they learn and then leave, because if you were able to pay them the market rate you would've not been training them in the first place (considering the context of your comment).
Another advantage of training them yourself is that you shape them into precisely what you need. They know your systems, your work culture, your priorities, and are continuously adding to their institutional knowledge.
Imagine you were hired at a company, trained and mentored in a whole new skill set, given work you enjoy and find meaningful, working with people who encourage your further development, and were shown appreciation for your efforts and abilities.
Would you leave at the first opportunity to get a raise? Unless I really needed the money or was severely underpaid, I probably wouldn't.
> Two managers are talking about training their employees. The first asks, "Yeah, but what if we train them, and they just leave?" The second responds, "What if we don't train them, and they stay?"
And the military
Just like you can't sell jewellery for less than the cost of the gold you had to purchase to make it.
That's exactly why "hire people at lower qualifications, and educate them in house" is not a viable option in this case either.
> ... they learn and then leave, because if you were able to pay them the market rate you would've not been training them in the first place (considering the context of your comment).
As an employer, you're going to have to pay market rate for the skills you need, one way or another.
If you do that and your employees still want to quit after their training, then your organization has more dysfunctions that you need to fix.