Talents for now or for 10 years ahead?

Everyday we hear, many times, specialy consultants speaking about the "talent war", the "talent pypeline", what the Companies are doing to fill out their talent pool, etc and etc. And it seems that the story will continue for a long time. I have been working in HR since 9 years ago and the speech is the same. As in Business Administration, not the science, but the trends are important, until a new trend is on its way, we will listen about "talents". For me, there is something that is confusing, the concept of "talent" as they use it, is not clear, what is a talent? what is the difference between a talent and a trainee? for when you will need the talent to be ready? for how long are them at disposition to wait for the next career path?, If I were an investor, would I be worried about the talent pypeline 10 years ahead? Or would I worry about hiring talents to work for my company now, when I expect the results to be delivered so my stocks would increase their value right now? Where is the disconnection between the company Executives who make the strategic plan and the the Investors? The Company Executives are making their plain putting their focus on the "talents" for 8 to 10 years ahead. Are these 2 expectations aligned?When I was studying my MBA, the first class of Finance for Managers, the question from my Finance Teacher was, What a Company exists for? Among many answers, I took the risk to answer that a company exists to make the right decisions to preserve its existence. My Teacher told me, "you are wrong", the company exists to make profit for the investors. I think both of us were right, the investors need profit to live but if we worry only about making profit, the Company may not exist for the future and the investors don't want it neither. Now, making this clarification, I think we should think about talents for today and for tomorrow, not one or the other. We need the best talents to deliver results today but we need also to think about the trainees/talents to deliver tomorrow. The 2 things that cannot happen is to reserve the 30% of our headcounts to train "talents" and expetct that the other 70% of headcounts will deliver their best and comply with what is expected from the 100% of the workforce. Unless we create headcounts for the trainees of the future, and, recognize the rest of the population as they deserve for their results, we will not go anywhere. Trainees don't deliver results, they can contribute but with a lot of guidance, which means dedicated time from Management. Please tell me what Companies are only worried about the "talents" for the 10 years ahead, so I don't put my money on their stocks. Why are we investing so much money in talents anyway? The surveys show they are not attached to any company and they have learned that, they can make a career faster moving from one company to another than attached to only one company. Who are the companies spending money on, when they train talents? For other companies? Because they are being trained and leaving. I am almost sure the investors won't like to hear about this. If I were one, I would not.