IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

A Framework for Assessing the Economic Benefits and Costs of Workplace Literacy Training

Listed author(s):

Many individuals are grappling with the issue of whether to provide workers with training that upgrades the workers' basic academic skills. The corollary questions that flow from this issue are how to provide the training, how much training should be provided, and who should pay for the training. Workers are interested in this issue because they want to sustain productive, well-paying careers that will support adequate standards of living. Not receiving training may jeopardize their careers and earning power. Employers are interested in this issue because their economic role is to maximize corporate profits for stockholders. In most companies, worker productivity is the most important factor in determining output levels and profitability. Public policy makers are interested in the issue because if productive workers lose their jobs, the public may end up supporting them through income maintenance payments and financing job searches through the employment service. On the other hand, if basic skills-deficient workers get training and keep their jobs, they will continue to pay taxes that support government activities. Educators are interested in the issue because they want to improve the educational system to reduce future basic skill deficiencies and because they may be involved in the upgrading of current workers. The question that is at the core of this issue is easy to state. What should an employer do about a factor of production, be it physical capital such as a plant or machine or be it human capital, that has become unprofitable? For human capital, that is, skills and knowledge, the lack of profitability may stem from the fact that the worker's basic skills were never adequate or it may be the case that technology or workplace demands have surpassed the worker's skill levels. For both physical and human capital, the choices that employers face are limited. They can invest in upgrading the factor of production; they can continue to employ the factor and bear the losses; (Note: I am using the economic cost concept of opportunity costs. A basic skills deficient worker may be paid $8.00 an hour and be productive enough to produce $8.50 worth of product per hour. However, a trained employee or a younger employee may be willing to work for $8.00 an hour and be able to produce $10.00 worth of product. The opportunity cost of not training the worker would be $1.50 per hour even though the firm would not be losing money on the worker.) or they can replace the factor. From an economic and business management theoretical point of view, the answer is easy. Employers should choose the option that maximizes their rate of return. That is, they should choose the option where the difference between the (discounted) future benefits and the costs is the greatest. From a practical point of view, estimating the benefits and costs may be extremely difficult. Furthermore, it is undoubtedly the case that the best option will differ for different situations. There may be cases in which employers would reap large returns from modest investments in workplace literacy training. On the other hand, there may be cases in which employers would be better off by accepting the turnover and hiring costs of replacing workers. In short, it is impossible a priori to prove that it is to a firm's advantage to provide workplace literacy training. It, too, is impossible to prove a priori that it is to a firm's advantage to shed workers with basic skills deficiencies. From a public policy point of view, it should be recognized that society may benefit or bear costs from employers' decisions about inefficient or outmoded factors of production. Thus it may be the case that from a firm's profit-maximizing perspective, it is not advantageous to provide workplace literacy training. But from the rest of society's perspective, provision of the training, is beneficial. In such cases, public policy should facilitate financial subsidies to firms. The purpose of this paper is to present these arguments theoretically to identify the key factors that influence the employer's and society's choices; to discuss some empirical evidence from earlier studies about the payoff to individuals and firms; and to provide policy recommendations.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: This material is copyrighted. Permission is required to reproduce any or all parts.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in its series Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles with number 96-42.

in new window

Date of creation: Apr 1996
Handle: RePEc:upj:weupjo:96-42
Contact details of provider: Postal:
300 S. Westnedge Ave. Kalamazoo, MI 49007 USA

Phone: 1-269-343-5541
Fax: 1-269-343-7310
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Kevin Hollenbeck, 1993. "The Economic Payoffs to Workplace Literacy," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles 93-21, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
  2. Barron, John M & Black, Dan A & Loewenstein, Mark A, 1989. "Job Matching and On-the-Job Training," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, January.
  3. Laurie J. Bassi, 1994. "Workplace education for hourly workers," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 55-74.
  4. Lazear, Edward P, 1979. "Why Is There Mandatory Retirement?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(6), pages 1261-1284, December.
  5. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
  6. Joanne Salop & Steven Salop, 1976. "Self-Selection and Turnover in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(4), pages 619-627.
  7. Joanne Salop & Steven C. Salop, 1976. "Self-selection and turnover in the labor market," Special Studies Papers 80, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upj:weupjo:96-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.