You don't even need an incentive. You don't have to hire people at will. You can make them pay a huge penalty if they leave.

Unless you're talking about the equivalent of at-will employment (as far as salary and benefits are concerned) with the firing/leaving restrictions of a contract, "contract work" is absolutely not equivalent to what employees typically get in an at-will arrangement.

My experience looking at contract work is "yeah, I'm not really interested in being my own benefits manager unless you're willing to pay me $25/hr more to do that work in addition to my regular job".

> Unless you're talking about the equivalent of at-will employment (as far as salary and benefits are concerned) with the firing/leaving restrictions of a contract, "contract work" is absolutely not equivalent to what employees typically get in an at-will arrangement.

I'm not really sure why you felt the urge to say this, but perhaps you should be aware that "contractor" status contrasts with "full-time employee" status, not with "at will employment".

At-will specifies who can terminate the contract and on what grounds. It's not relevant to the contractor / FTE distinction.

Sounds like good way to filter out your good candidates.

Is it? We observe that candidates are unable to find jobs and employers are unwilling to hire candidates. Does it make more sense to address the employers' concerns, or to accept that, for "structural reasons", there's no such thing as entry-level employment?

A huge penalty for leaving the firm that trained you (within a certain time period) is already the norm in other areas. It's also the entire concept of vesting.