
U.S. predicts zero job growth for electrical engineers - Futurebot
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3017196/it-careers/u-s-predicts-zero-job-growth-for-electronics-engineers.html
======
ashwinaj
There are two kinds of H1B petitions:

1\. Genuine candidates: I'm going to quote the extreme, people like Satya
Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Vinod Khosla etc. came to the US on H1B and there are
a lot of other "superstars" on H1B or naturalized citizens. More practically,
there are thousands of other talented people from all countries who work on
H1B. So the argument that H1B should be done away with is absurd, unless the
US doesn't care about staying atop of the technology sector. Also, H1B workers
get paid the same as local workers; there is a minimum wage requirement that
has to be satisfied by the company applying for the H1B. So if you buy the
allegation that wages are being depressed by H1B workers, why don't you take a
peek at the bulletin board of your break room (which have H1B applications
with salaries posted) or online and lodge a complaint with the state
department of labor rather than posting bigoted comments?

2\. Candidates hired by "staffing" companies: Blanket applications made by
these "staffing" companies which may or may not have actual jobs. These are
the applications that need to be stopped/scrutinized by USCIS (they have
tightened this during the recession 2008-2010). It's arguable there is a
genuine requirement for staffing companies, but these need to be scrutinized
thoroughly.

~~~
staticint
_Also, H1B workers get paid the same as local workers... So if you buy the
allegation that wages are being depressed by H1B workers, why don 't you take
a peek at the bulletin board of your break room_

The idea usually is that the presence of an H1B means that someone local does
not exist to do the job, which means that a company would otherwise have to
pay _more_ than the going rate to poach someone else from another company.
Then the company losing the employee has to pay more to poach from somewhere
else, and so on, until eventually everyone who is suitable for such a position
is making more.

The fact that H1Bs are paid what the locals are paid is exactly the issue
people have when they talk about wage suppression. It is in much the same vein
as when Apple/Google/et al. agreed to not steal each others employees. It is
not like those employees were exactly hurting for compensation, but they
theoretically could have made more without that treaty between companies.

~~~
rtpg
The company leash is by far the biggest wage suppressor. Remove that, and of
course the visa holders will get paid the "right" amount, because if they're
not they should be able to switch jobs easily.

For reference, this is how it works in Japan, for example. A company can
sponsor your visa (which is basically some paperwork). But you get a fixed
period in which you can work, and you can change companies without having to
do anything except signal a company change to the immigration office. Very low
friction

~~~
henrikm85
I switched jobs on H1B recently and I don't see what you think the leash is.
The process takes about two weeks and as far as I can tell there is no
realistic risk of losing the H1B even if your (about to be) former employer
fires you and the new company butchers the transfer [1].

As a side-note, me changing jobs fairly dramatically increased my salary. I
could presumably (I did not negotiate with old employer but a colleague did
when he was about to leave) have gotten the same salary at my old place just
by showing the new offer. I don't really see where the difference to a citizen
is in this whole exercise.

([1] this is so because even if in the worst case you were kicked out of the
country you could still reclaim the remaining time on the H1B so the worst
case is still limited and I know of zero such cases.)

~~~
fpgeek
My understanding is that the real leash is the H1B to green card process. The
process is slow and complicated and switching companies often requires you to
start over (not to mention opening doors for other problems).

~~~
nine_k
It's also rather expensive, and the sponsoring company paying (most of) the
fees really helps.

------
secondtimeuse
To pre-empt anticipated comments Job Outlook "Growth" is change in number of
people employed: From the source here are the numbers for other disciplines.

Software Developer Job Outlook, 2014-24 17% (Much faster than average)
[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/s...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/software-developers.htm)

Computer Hardware Engineers Job Outlook, 2014-24 3%
[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-
engineering/computer...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-
engineering/computer-hardware-engineers.htm)

Database Administrators Job Outlook, 2014-24 11% (Faster than average)
[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/d...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/database-administrators.htm)

statisticians Job Outlook, 2014-24 34% (Much faster than average)
[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/statisticians.htm](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/statisticians.htm)

computer-and-information-systems-managers Job Outlook, 2014-24 15% (Much
faster than average [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/computer-and-
information-s...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/computer-and-information-
systems-managers.htm)

Yet the article conveniently uses cherry picked data for arguing against H1B.
The majority of the H1B are being awarded for above categories and not for
electrical engineering.

The simple explanation is that it's cheaper to manufacture components in
Taiwan, Korea and China. H1B is not causing electrical engineers to lose jobs,
it's the fundamental economics of production that are stacked against the
occupation.

~~~
ones_and_zeros
According to these reports, starting salaries for CS graduates are about 4%
lower in 2015[0] than in 2014[1].

The recent OPT moves by DHS is proof enough the government is all too willing
to help employers in any way possible and isn't interested in actually helping
citizens and green card holders fill these jobs.

[0] [https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedFiles/Content/static-
assets/...](https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedFiles/Content/static-
assets/downloads/executive-summary/2015-fall-salary-survey-executive-
summary.pdf)

[1] [https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedFiles/Content/static-
assets/...](https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedFiles/Content/static-
assets/downloads/executive-summary/2014-september-salary-survey-executive-
summary.pdf)

~~~
npalli
For CS graduates, I see the 2014 Salary as $62,103 and the 2015 Salary as
$65,004. Which is actually a 6% increase. The 2014 was a 6% increase over
2013. So more than 10% increase in two years. What are you seeing?

~~~
ones_and_zeros
I'm comparing computer science majors, which is the majority (80% in 2015) of
those in the computer science category. I think this removes outliers like
someone getting a bachelors in computer science with a major in financial
engineering at Cornell making 200k on Wall Street after graduation.

2014 67,500. 2015 65,004. Down about 3.7%, which adds up over time.

Either way, from my point of view, the software "profession" is dead in the
water unless real change in the industry and our government happens.

~~~
npalli
Well, even in that case, the 2014 salary was a 6.4% raise over 2013. Unusually
large increase. So, it certainly "didn't add up over time". Also, strange to
read about software profession being dead in water. Pretty much all estimates
from BLS show it to be the fastest growing job segment. Which fields (apart
from healthcare) are doing better that software?

~~~
no_wave
Software is the fastest growing field, but when you factor in 1.5% and 1.6%
inflation in 2013 and 2014 (and use the salary numbers discussed in this
thread), you get a real decrease of 1% between 2013 and 2015. So you're
getting a salary decrease for the fastest growing profession in the US - a
terrible sign. Why shouldn't salary be allowed to increase, especially when
rents rose 27% in San Francisco?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why shouldn't salary be allowed to naturally increase

Because cost of labor (including salaries) compete with returns on capital,
and, well, people who favor "capitalism" rather than, say, "laborism" tend to
hold political (as a consequence of economic) power.

------
nashashmi
In response to a comment claiming outsourcing was the issue, I responded with
this and thought it relevant to post here:

FWIW, the very cap on H-1Bs plus the decreasing attraction of coming to the US
is the very reason ALL companies are going overseas.

I once did a research on outsourcing and the pivotal reason I found for
outsourcing was not the "cheapness" of the foreign markets, but the decreasing
flexibility and opportunity to continue development at home, and this decrease
was dominated mainly by inability to find people to do the work. It may seem
hard to believe but it isn't once you add up all the pieces. While factory
workers may seem abundant and easy to find, finding upper-level factory
operators across various disciplines from IT to Management to Operations was
very difficult. Conversely, the two places where they were the easiest to find
was China and India in that order. After all, who wants to work in a factory
when they grow up anyways?

So what do companies do? They go above and beyond plus bend backwards to make
overseas operations feasible. This problem is not just limited to factory
workers, or electrical engineering, but any industry that has a hard time
finding good quality workers. My industry of civil engineering is probably
going to go next.

I could write an entire paper on this, but I will stop here.

~~~
coliveira
You are buying a completely flawed argument. The reason there are fewer and
fewer American factory workers is that nobody is going to pay for a degree for
which there are no jobs. If you are in the US and you have to decide on a
degree, would you go to do factory-related work, knowing that companies are
moving oversees as soon as they can?

The only way to get workers for a particular field is to have investments in
that field, especially in a country where citizens have free initiative. If
the industry and the government continue to subsidize companies that open
factories outside the US, it is not a big surprise that they will have trouble
finding workers for this kind positions. This is the logical consequence, not
the cause for this big shift. The cause is that big business want to take
advantage of cheap labor and no regulation at third world countries, while at
the same time slashing the taxes they need to pay in the US.

~~~
nashashmi
> [If] you have to decide on a degree, would you go to do factory-related
> work, knowing that companies are moving oversees as soon as they can

This is a case of which came first: the chicken or the egg? One industry that
seems to have rebounded significantly is computer science. In 2003, after the
bubble burst, few were pursuing CS. A huge insatiable demand followed
afterwards mostly from the emergence of Google, and people started pursuing CS
in hordes once again. And today, companies still have an insatiable appetite,
and pursuit of employees has encouraged companies to go abroad once more.

In your argument of subsidization, cheap labor, laxed regulation being the
culprits of job loss, you are ignoring the friction of traveling abroad and
the loss of legal power that comes with outsourcing. There are many advantages
and disadvantages to outsourcing. The end result once it all sums up is you
get a different product, and a different business. These are not easy things
to accept, no matter how much money you save.

And as for your suggestion of a solution, current events have thought me that
you swing your strengths in ways where the enemy longs for what you and
ignores the advantages they have. Industrial China makes us feel we are weak
because our costs are high. And China feels weak because we have the knowledge
and technicality to achieve more than what they have. Let's stick to what
makes us unique and swing that strength in ways that others feel weak.

------
madengr
I have been an EE for 20 years. I think one of the things driving it is the
increase in productivity. I can do a lot more with my RF/Microwave design
software than 20 years ago, so I am now probably doing the work of two people.

There is also consolidation with complexity. How many 5G chipsets do you need
when 95% of the phone market is held by two manufacturers? Hardware is
expensive to develop and takes time. Investors/companies want cheap and fast,
and are unwilling to fund R&D.

------
heapcity
People with Engineering / Comp. Sci. Degrees are not in short supply.
Exceptional engineers and programmers are. Its almost like the difference
between kids who want to play football and the people with talent to make it.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
A lot of programming jobs don't require rock star programmers.

~~~
adevine
While this is true, I have found that a developer who can do the following to
be very rare:

1\. Take a set of requirements, and first identify those reqs for any
underspecified elements, or elements where the underlying tech would limit the
functionality.

2\. Implement the reqs according to the now agreed upon spec

3\. Provide adequate documentation and tests for the new implementation.

4\. Perhaps most importantly, and rarely, implement the reqs in a manner where
the code is not brittle (some small req change doesn't require a huge
overhaul) and where other developers can quickly get into and understand the
code.

That is, even if you don't need a rock star programmer, if your code base is
going to live on for more than the life of the person originally writing it
you are going to find that people who can fulfill this role are quite rare.

~~~
coliveira
All of these things could be easily overcome with better training. The way I
see it, the software industry in the US invests close to nothing in training
and expects to receive "talented" developers by just selecting a small
proportion from a large pool of candidates. This is a lazy and irresponsible
way to create a workforce. The time and effort they spend in interviewing
could be very well spent on teaching best practices to new employees, so they
would be much more productive, instead of just expecting that they somehow
"grok" these concepts from the get go.

~~~
zeroxfe
> All of these things could be easily overcome with better training.

I think 1, 2, and 4, requires lots of real world experience in addition to
training.

> The time and effort they spend in interviewing could be very well spent on
> teaching best practices to new employees

Assuming that just teaching best practices is all that is required, which I
strongly disagree with, a lot of companies (especially startups) don't have
the time or the resources to burn on extensive training. The marketplace is
fiercely competitive, and they typically need people on the ground right away.

> the software industry in the US invests closing to nothing in training

Many large tech organizations (Google, Microsoft, etc.) invest a huge amount
in training. The time it takes for a new hire at Google to get productive is
usually about 6 months to a year. All still, they have a high hiring bar that
focuses on very strong fundamentals. (They also work very closely with
universities and colleges on direction, curriculum, and funding.)

~~~
coliveira
Your arguments clearly contradict each other:

"The marketplace is fiercely competitive, and they typically need people on
the ground right away."

" The time it takes for a new hire at Google to get productive is usually
about 6 months to a year."

It cannot be both ways as you please. Either these companies are investing in
training or not. If they are, then things like requirements gathering,
creating specs, and providing tests should not be something difficult to do.
This is a very important part of the job, but is not a part that requires
super-intelligence.

Everything points to the fact that these companies do not invest in training
and are just trying to select a small number of people out of a large pool.

~~~
zeroxfe
> Your arguments clearly contradict each other

They don't. It's kinda disingenuous to pick phrases out of context to make a
point.

But let me clarify anyway:

\- smaller companies typically cannot afford to train, they need people on the
ground right away.

\- larger companies typically do train. Almost every large company I've worked
with has dedicated training groups, programs, and staff.

\- experience is more valuable than training, which almost all companies
filter for

~~~
coliveira
These phrases came directly from the context of your arguments, so they are
not out of context.

You first point proves what I'm saying. Your second point is doubtful, because
large companies are the ones that spend the most time in useless interviewing.
The training you're eluding to is tool training, which is essential in a place
like Google where the programer has to spend most of his time working on
closed technology.

Also, saying that companies filter for experience is not correct. Interviews
at most tech companies (especially the large ones) is done to eliminate large
numbers of people based on the solution of narrow-minded programming
questions. These questions rarely correlate with experience, in fact most
people that are just out of college can do so well or better in these
questions than an experienced engineer.

------
seanxh
I optimistic about such issue. I will say software is good occupation while
everything is blooming, but you can be more secure during the down time if you
are an EE. Furthermore, you can train yourself to be a good software developer
if you next to a computer and have internet access(of course you need
dedication), but you cannot be a good EE without knowing how to operate a very
expensive equipment(i.e PNA, MOCVD, etc). Disclaimer: I am a software
developer with a background in EE

~~~
madengr
Sheesh, I have a PNA in my basement lab. My wife can run all sorts of PVD/CVD
vacuum processes, dicing, grinding, bonding, etc. We seem both stuck in dead
end EE jobs.

~~~
seanxh
I understand your feeling. But speaking about dead end, that is exactly what a
concentration means while you pick a major in college, otherwise you can pick
liber art. If you change the perspective and think like a you are a software
developer without any other skill, you are in dead end too. I think the main
problem is laid on whether you like to learn more about other skill sets and
take risk to create something new from what you learned

------
Quanticles
I wonder if this is a side-effect of the current silicon-valley investment
scene. There are lots of low-capital startup opportunities, so who wants to
fund the high-capital startups in computer hardware? There have been very few
computer hardware startups the past few years, and that might have an effect
on overall innovation and growth.

------
MisterBastahrd
H1Bs should have to be paid at least 20% more than the local market average
for qualified workers. If people with their qualifications are truly THAT
scarce, then businesses should have to pony up more than the going rate given
their specializations.

------
tn13
IT/CS industry is the major consumer of H1B visas. IT/CS is also the industry
that relies mostly on outsourcing. Guess how healthy this industry is, guess
which computer major pays the most salary in USA today and so on and also the
consumers are happiest with the laptops, iphones, apps and Uber.

Now compare it with the heavily regulated industry of Healthcare. No one likes
paying hospital bills in USA, almost everyone works on wafer thin margins and
a constant fear of law-suites. Only the doctors and that too only few of them
manage to earn a fortune but everyone else is worse off. Far more importantly
USA has very inefficient and expensive healthcare system.

------
chejazi
First thought: does this account for the emerging DIY electrical engineering
community, e.g. the raspberry pi "gadgeteers" on kickstarter?

------
kelukelugames
Link to the report.

[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-
engineering/electric...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-
engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htm#tab-1)

------
TYPE_FASTER
A couple thoughts...robotics needs EEs. Growth in robotics will mean an
increased demand in the field.

Also, if you start in EE and study signal processing, you end up in a good
position to get into data science and Big Data.

------
draw_down
There is no STEM shortage.

------
1971genocide
I find it funny that we leave it to the economist to decide the fate of
research.

I remember in uni I found EE topics much harder and boring then Software
topics. Anything below C is a big nope. Verilog, VLSI, FPGA, anything to do
with embedded IoT.

Yeah america wont survive if kids today stop valuing EE topic just due to some
misguided economical models/interpretation.

The rockets that will land on mars wont be designed solely by software guys -
it will require a lot of EE innovations - if america gives up then some other
country will take its place.

Reminds of the movie Interstellar.

------
ydkditfi
Reminder that "STEM" was just a buzzword designed to flood the skill-intensive
labor markets with a generation of idealistic youngsters, all with the
intention of driving down wages.

There never was a labor shortage, or as it's occasionally framed, a "talent"
shortage.

~~~
jackcosgrove
STEM is misnomer. Ever met an unemployed or underemployed biologist,
ultrasound tech, environmental engineer, or statistician?

The real sweet spot is PI - physics and informatics. These roles are unique in
that they can be explosively productive and create more jobs than were there
at the start. PI, or "STEM" is more than a buzzword.

~~~
WesternStar
I'm confused if there ever was a field at the intersection of Physics and
Informatics, EE has got to be it. Shannon literally invented information
theory....

------
super2
First they came for the Auto workers, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not an Auto worker, and I felt they were overpaid and sort of
lazy.

Then they came for the Electronics manufacturing, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a line worker, and the line workers need to be in high-value
fields.

Then they came for the Electrical Engineers, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a EE, and it seems sort of racist to take jobs from Chinese.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

