With time, government intervention in economic policy has increased. This has led to the reconsideration of the existing interventions and policy structures, and the possibility of new ones. Since training of employees is seen as the prime factor that contributes to an increased output, governments are seeing this as an opportunity to improve the output of their industries. As a result, there is a growing debate about how governments should proceed with provision of general training to employees. One of the solutions is the provision of subsidies. This paper explores feasibility of such a measure in light of the human capital theory and provides arguments if it is justified.The costs and the skills gained from learning and being competent at a job have become an essential variable of productivity. According to renowned economists like Jacob Mincer and Gray S. Becker, if other factors are kept constant, personal incomes show variability depending upon the amount of investment in human capital (Marshall, 1998). Firms are investing more in human capital in order to increase the education and training of the employees. People have also started spending more time in upgrading their education and using it to increase their efficiency. The enrolment ratios of primary to secondary have risen such that all OECD boast of almost the same ratio. Tertiary enrolment ratios have also increased over the past couple of decades. Educationists and economists are sharing common goals to educate and empower the people in order to expand economic activity. Since the 1970s, there is more active participation in adult courses throughout the world. In Canada alone, the fraction of people who opted for adult training courses incremented annually from 4% in 1960 to 28% in the start of the 1990s.Many educationists adhere to the notion that formal schooling is nothing more than the tip of the iceberg and lifelong learning entails many other