
Is There a Shortage of STEM Workers? - Futurebot
http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/is-there-a-shortage-of-workers-in-stem-fields
======
elevenfist
This bears an uncanny resemblance to the great depression, the dust bowl era,
and "The Grapes of Wrath." Back then, companies distributed fliers advertising
fruit picking temp. jobs. Americans would travel hundreds of miles just to
fight with 3000 other unneeded people for such jobs.

Today we have companies making websites telling people to "learn to code" and
advertising that there is a shortage of tech workers. People invest their own
time, and pay for bootcamps for a shot at a job.

And the similarities don't end there. Agriculture owners would offer services
like groceries and laundry to those who worked on their plantations...

~~~
sceptic05
In some ways it's actually worse in that programmers seem completely oblivious
to what's happening to them.

They allow the media to call them "coders" and will actually argue with you
when you point out how the term is being used to marginalize them. They
actively support the boot camp movement and code.org initiatives. They give
talks at conferences[1] and write blog posts saying there's no such thing as
programmer talent and that programming is easy and anyone can do it (could you
imagine a doctor or lawyer publicly asserting likewise about their
professions?)

My advice to devs: make as much money as you possibly can now. Take VCs and
tech companies for all they're worth and don't leave a penny on the table,
because these people are fixing to crush you under their boot.

1
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486391)

~~~
xienze
> They give talks at conferences[1] and write blog posts saying there's no
> such thing as programmer talent and that programming is easy and anyone can
> do it (could you imagine a doctor or lawyer publicly asserting likewise
> about their professions?)

I think it's more akin to someone saying "anyone can paint" or "anyone can
make music". Sure, on a very superficial level that's true. Anyone can make
crude sketches or learn how to play Chopsticks. But a true aptitude for
programming is the same as a true aptitude for art or music: not everyone can
do it at that level.

~~~
jonesb6
Except software engineering is both a science and an art. The statement
'anyone can make art' is widely accepted, but what about 'anyone can do
science'? While anyone can pretty much do science the "I'm bad at math" or 'I
suck at computers" rhetoric demonstrates a deep institutional feeling that
science is fundamentally limited to only the most intelligent individuals.

Thus by limiting SE to only being an art it devalues the skillset, proving
OP's point IMO.

------
Jerry2
Here are the summary passages:

>The story is then not that there are too few STEM workers, but that employers
will say they can’t find workers in order to increase the bargaining power
that they have and hopefully lower their labor costs. Employers are
increasingly pushing for policies shift training costs onto the public and
expand H1B visas, which Hiltzik mentions. Some STEM employers are so desperate
to reduce labor costs they even collude to keep down their employees’ wages.

> The data indicate that Hiltzik is right to suspect that the STEM shortage is
> phony. The real story is that employers want to pay workers less.

~~~
vellum
Also:

> So when employers complain about not being able to find workers, what they
> really mean is that they can’t find workers who meet their specific
> requirements at the wage they are willing to offer.

e.g. Onsite work, "culture fit", low wages, interview hazing....

~~~
wlesieutre
Don't forget about "familiar with every piece of technology we use because
it's cheaper when employees paid for all their own training instead of leaning
anything on the job"

------
mrdrozdov
The article argues that the reason companies complain that there are not
enough STEM workers is so that they can pay existing workers less. It also
says that an excess amount of STEM workers are created.

I think this Stack Overflow post helps clear up the mystery here. It shows
that the only STEM category with more job openings than students is Computer
Science. It also mentions that the problem is still not so clear since almost
half of programmers do not have a Computer Science degree.

Stack Overflow post: [http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/are-
there-...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27590/are-there-more-
open-jobs-than-available-developers)

~~~
sceptic05
These discussions are unbelievable.

If there truly were a shortage of developers, then their wages would be
rising, yet they aren't, as the report in the article notes.

If I complained about a "shortage" of Ferraris while only offering to buy them
new at the price of a Honda Civic, no one would take me seriously. But when
Fortune 500 companies make the same complaints about labor, that they can't
find great programmers while only offering $85-115k, the government responds
with corporate welfare in the form of the H-1B visa. If there's really a
programmer "shortage" at the wages offered, then employers should have to do
like the rest of us and either pay more for what they want or do without and
quit whining.

Disgusting that even here on HN people make excuses for this.

~~~
RachelF
Exactly, there is no shortage of STEM workers, but there is a shortage of
cheap STEM workers.

~~~
jaydz
I'm sure many companies want cheap labor, but other companies cannot find
enough of the type of STEM worker they desire.

------
dnautics
I think the problem is thus: There is not a shortage of STEM workers.

However, I don't think this is a conspiracy to drive down wages, but a
miscommunication. There is a shortage of _good, competent STEM workers_.

Ironically, complaining that there aren't enough STEM workers runs the risk of
pushing a training glut, and as less qualified but equally credentialed labor
enters the market, the cost of finding these workers increases, then there are
more complaints about "not enough STEM" and we enter a reinforcing cycle.

The solution is to improve training quality, but that is difficult to measure
or plan and thus not as appealing to political solutions, which is to just gun
supply.

~~~
djur
I don't think there's any evidence of a shortage of good STEM workers. There
is a shortage of good STEM workers at the price businesses are willing to pay
for them. There's less of an issue overall in the software world, though --
companies pay more for programmers, and there's less of a shortage.

------
squozzer
We should not kid ourselves. The STEM shortage is a cynical fabrication. It is
essentially war conducted with political, economic, and propaganda weapons.
Against us. Keep that in mind when you decide to do something about it.

------
srinivasan
Given the compensation mix in Silicon Valley (benefits, employee stock-based
compensation), comparing hourly wages with other occupations is not apples-to-
apples.

Additionally, STEM vs Computer Science jobs has been discussed before.

~~~
pmiller2
Stock options at most companies are the equivalent of lottery tickets, and
should be valued at or near 0. Many companies offer a 401(k), but with no
match. Don't even get me started on "unlimited vacation"....

Besides health insurance (which really ought to be considered a basic
requirement rather than a "fringe" benefit), catered meals, and a flexible WFH
policy, what do Silicon Valley/SF companies even really offer in terms of
benefits?

~~~
srinivasan
> if there were a real shortage, wages would be expected to grow. This is
> because employers would compete over a small number of workers, and they
> would need to raise wages to attract those workers.

This is the crux of the article's argument, and I disagree. In a shortage,
employers would need to raise _compensation_ , not necessarily wages, to
attract workers.

(a) You're missing my point. The study cites hourly wage data for years 2009
through 2014. How large, or even how common, were sign-on bonuses (not perf
bonuses) in 2009, and what are they at now? Sign-on bonuses are trivial to
value. Any fair study would make an attempt to include that data - this one
doesn't.

(b) How common were were shuttles, day care, onsite yoga/fitness lessons,
gender reassignment surgery, egg freezing, and whatever else in 2009? These
things do have some value - to me at least, it's the amount of _post-tax_
money I would have spent for these amenities elsewhere. People are unlikely to
use all of the benefits of course, but the basket has grown.

Health insurance as a benefit can't be considered to be a "basic requirement"
and ignored, since plans vary a lot in coverage.

(c) While the stock of "most companies" might be worth nothing, those
companies tend to be small and short-lived. Regardless, the majority of
engineers work at larger established companies, and most of those working at a
startup that might fail in a month are doing it out of choice.

TL;DR I am making an argument against the merits of the study. Rise in total
compensation, and not rise in wages, is what matters.

~~~
pmiller2
No, I'm not missing the point at all.

* Signing bonuses, I'll give you; they are trivial to value and probably should have been included.

* I would doubt that most companies are offering shuttles, day care, or any of these other benefits. Of that list of more esoteric benfits, my company offers yoga and Pilates classes. I'd value them about as highly as catered lunch (if I took advantage of them), because that's about what it would cost me to go do that stuff on my own.

I guess I'd go even farther on health insurance, then, and say that for a
valued professional employee, _good_ health insurance should be a basic
requirement.

You know what the most common tech company "benefits" have in common? They
allow people to stay at the office longer.

* Finally, stock and stock options. Ok, if you're going to give me straight up liquid stock, I'm going to value that as a part of my compensation.

But, options are literally worth the paper they're printed on until they're
exercised. And after that, unless the company has gone public, they're still
hugely illiquid. Exercising them can be an issue in itself, depending on the
strike price. And, then there are the taxes to contend with.

Let's just say I don't put a lot of value in stock options, in general.

~~~
srinivasan
Of course companies want their employees to work more. And I'm from the
"exercise your RSU's immediately" school of thought as well.

All I was pointing out is that imo, the study is flawed in its central
argument.

As for the benefits, while it is true that most _companies_ don't offer all of
those benefits, it's offset by the fact that the larger companies do. Most
large companies have shuttles now, for instance. So, the % of engineers who
have these benefits is higher now than it was in, say, 2009 :)

I think that benefits that are actually used are more valuable than they
appear to be because they are untaxed. But of course, depending on what your
indifference curve looks like, you might well prefer post-tax cash to pre-tax
benefits.

------
puppetmaster3
In a free market, the other way to state this: Is STEM workers underpaid?

~~~
sceptic05
YES. If corporations couldn't get the government to import cheap labor, and
especially cheap labor subject to deportation when terminated by their
employers (and thus extremely easy to abuse), they would have no choice but to
increase our wages.

Meanwhile, there are actual laws that prohibit you from importing prescription
drugs from countries where they're sold for a fraction of the cost they are
here, even when those drugs were originally manufactured in the US! What about
the free market? Unbelievable.

~~~
bediger4000
_What about the free market?_

In the case of pharmaceuticals, there probably isn't a free market at all.
Regulatory capture has happened, and we're seeing the end result.

In other things, the idea is "globalization for me, but not for thee". That
is, ship US IT jobs to India or Viet Nam or where ever, but keep lawyers and
doctors scarce in the US, and forbid bringing in cheap subsitutes. Or perhaps
region codes: keep prices high in US and western Europe, but allow lower
prices for Africa and South Asia, via DRM.

~~~
iofj
For a doctor with a valid work permit for the US, becoming a US-certified
doctor (allowed to practice medicine) is essentially the same process as for
any US doctor.

You're basically interviewing to study under an existing doctor in a
particular specialization for a period depending on the exact specialization,
but minimum 2 years and I believe up to 5 years (you have to interview and get
hired for this job). After that, assuming the guy/woman you studied under
supports your application, you get your medical licence. The issue is
interviewing successfully without support from a US institution.

For a lawyer it's much simpler : either you interview and get hired by a
company, or you take the bar exam. Exactly the same process as US citizens
(you do need a valid work permit - but that would be required for actually
doing any law work anyway - although it can delay things). I know 2 lawyers
doing cases in the US that aren't US citizens.

------
Roadgazer
Complexity of tech is growing, and complexity level difference gap in stem
skills is growing as well. Thus its always a race between the need and skills
availability, rather than total number of workers. But yeah,The real story is
that employers want to pay workers less.

------
tdaltonc
I want more people working on building __T __he _F_ uture. That means we need
more people getting STEM training.

This undergrad-level analysis of the labor market is a side show compared to
that.

