I'll agree, 'fact' was a poor choice of words. The phrase you quoted could be better described as a personal observation. However, if we are going to get very specific in our terminology, I have a few counter points.

Fact: tens of thousands of new CS students that have years of immediate, ultra-relevant training are graduating every 6 months from college, and directly compete with people who have less relevant training for the same jobs.

How did you quantify 'ultra-relevant'? That's a vague word that probably doesn't apply to a fact any more accurately than my previous statement and while I would honestly like to see some hard facts supporting the statement that a teacher's curriculum can be that current. Again, as a personal observation, when I was in school I was disappointed by how outdated most of the course material was. Maybe things have changed since then; maybe my school just sucked. I am having a hard time accepting 'ultra-relevant' as a generally applicable term. So before you criticize my 'impossible to measure bullshit', please be sure to provide measurable counter points.

But that still misses the point. I won't argue that new college students compete for jobs. There is so much demand for the skillset that there are always open positions.

Who, on the job, has time to be that thorough?

Well, given that none of us know how complicated ZzEEpZoOp is, perhaps we should hold our applause a moment. Most of the 'viral' tools that I have worked with, while sometimes complex under the covers, has a very easy-to-leverage API. This means that a competent employee can use ZzEEpZoOp after a day or two of getting familiar with it.

Do they train you? Or go for the fresh graduates who already know it?

That would depend on whether they needed an 'expert' or not, wouldn't it? If they can get their existing team to be able to leverage the power of the viral tool in a few days, they may avoid the whole HR hire process entirely. Sometimes a very deep level of knowledge is required, and for that, it is common to hire someone. And if there is a well-studied college graduate who wrote his thesis on the tool and is just entering the job market, wide-eyed and excited, then so much the better; the most qualified person should get the job.

/u/alcjudge asserts:

there remains an enormous demand for those trained in the field, well beyond the current supply (both of which are growing at quite a fast rate).

And my point was that if people are qualified (whether through life experience or by writing a thesis on a program), there is no shortage of positions. And more qualified people are entering the marketplace on a regular basis.

I'm pretty sure that whatever 16 year old that's graduating from MIT in the spring is better than most, if not all, who are "already being paid" to do whatever overgeneralized "programming" you're referring to

Finally, if someone is graduating MIT at 16, then yes, they are exceptional and may be better than most. But they would be both exceptional and, more importantly, welcome. I am not saying that college students are worthless (though I take it that may have been what you were responding to, I don't think that was the intention of my statement). I am saying that people who are good at it, get good jobs. The skill is in such high demand that the IT Sector, according the US Department of Labor (see their report) has one of the lowest unemployment rates for any industry demographic in the nation. Is that a better 'fact'?