
What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last year - forgotAgain
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9245494/What_STEM_shortage_Electrical_engineering_lost_35_000_jobs_last_year?source=rss_keyword_edpicks&google_editors_picks=true
======
patio11
Partly this is due to edge effects in measurement (how conversational are you
with the BLS SOC?), exacerbated by "software eating the world."

Similar people doing similar things for society are suddenly software people,
not hardware people, despite the fact that the software they're writing
targets a physical device rather than an anonymous Turing machine in the
cloooooooooooud.

Consider the employment profiles of "companies selling electronic locks" in
2002 versus 2012. These days it probably ships with a microcontroller. That
means, congrats, software people now outnumber hardware people, at least as
the BLS measure things. (If you really want to get wonkish, read up on what
the tiebreakers are if your work implicates multiple SOC classifications. If
you spend more time with a mouse in your hand than a soldering iron you're
probably going to get bounced out of engineering occupations entirely, a
result which is -- to put it mildly -- not a 1 to 1 mapping with our intuitive
understanding of the claim "US employment of engineers just decreased by 1.")

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
The article says there were only 19,000 net new software jobs and unemployment
in that category remains high.

~~~
bmj
Actually, the article says the rate for software developers is 2.7%, and is
referred to as "elevated."

Would it be fair to say that some percentage of that percentage probably
aren't qualified to find work as developers, and that contributes to the
elevated number?

~~~
potatolicious
Based on my experience interviewing at 3 separate software companies, I think
that's fair to say.

Looking at any shortage by the number of applicants or job-seekers assumes
that the bulk of the applicants are qualified to do the work.

This is not even remotely true in practice. A _large_ proportion (over 50%,
honestly) of the developers I've interviewed in my life can't tell the
difference between a tree and an array, much less apply them intelligently.
The majority cannot articulate the performance and storage differences between
arrays and hash tables. These are the most basic qualifications for writing
code.

Without excluding this massive, massive pool of yahoos, I don't think the
statistics here are ultimately that meaningful.

~~~
napoleond
> These are the most basic qualifications for writing code.

That seems like a very strong assertion. I don't have formal CS/data
structures training; I've read about all of these structures in the past but
probably wouldn't be able to answer your questions about them to the level you
seem to expect. (I could _tell the difference_ between a tree and an array,
because they look different, but frankly I have no idea where it would make
sense to use a tree; they aren't offered as a native type in any of the
languages I use day-to-day and I've never missed them. I know a bit about the
difference between arrays and hash tables because it's one of the most common
criticisms of PHP, but again; to the extent that I use PHP--and I avoid it
like the plague--their implementation of "arrays" using hash tables has never
once affected me. It is the least shitty part of that language.)

So anyway, I confess my ignorance. And I'm very open to learning more about
the structures you're talking about (seriously). But I (and many of the
programmers I know) have been successfully writing programs that work for
people who want it (and gladly pay for it) for a relatively long time without
meeting your most basic qualifications.

~~~
potatolicious
You're overestimating the level I expect.

When I say that someone can't tell the difference between an array and a tree,
I really mean someone _does not know what a tree is_. The number of interviews
I've conducted where the candidate has _heard of_ trees before, but cannot
articulate, even in a basic way, what they are, is depressing.

To be more clear, the basic level I'm expecting is "it's a way to store data,
where one object has children objects, which in turn have children objects",
or something along that theme. Really, if you articulate in some way that it's
stuff pointing to other stuff, you're already further along than half the
people I've interviewed.

A _lot_ of people can't even get that far.

These questions aren't designed to defeat you, they're questions that have
depth so that you can get some idea about the candidate's level of
understanding of data structures. Once you get past "it's an object with
children" we can go deeper - what is the complexity of fetching an object out
of a tree? What of sorting? Disadvantages and advantages in application? Cycle
detection? All of these are nice to haves - but the basic requirement is that
you have to know what a tree is.

~~~
napoleond
Cool, okay that sounds pretty reasonable. Although I've successfully
interviewed candidates without even asking them about trees, and they turned
out just fine. I think there is a general tendency (and I don't intend to make
assumptions about your specific case) towards overestimating the level of
computer science knowledge required to crank out operational code for 99% of
programming jobs. I think it's important for _teams_ to have that knowledge
within them, but not necessarily replicated through every individual member.
(I know, I know, "A players" and all that... but the best teams I've known or
been a part of, in programming or otherwise, had a couple of A players and a
lot of B's who had the _potential_ to be A's.)

EDIT: I'm more distressed by the number of applicants I've come across who've
never written an SQL query, or have no idea what a database schema should look
like (never mind noSQL stuff). I generally prefer working with programmers who
understand and appreciate big picture design principles over the ones who
sweat the details (because in my experience the former are usually able to
pick up details pretty quickly, while the latter are not always able to
appreciate the big picture design decisions being made) but in bigger teams
there is presumably room/requirement for both types.

~~~
waps
How do you know SQL and not know what a tree is ? How about we ask a simple
SQL design question that you can't answer without knowing about the
datastructures : what operations does an index accelerate, and which are
unaffected and why ... How do you answer that without using the word
hashmap/hashtable ?

~~~
napoleond
It is entirely possible to use a database without understanding its internals.
Look, I'm not encouraging incompetence--not by a long shot--I'm just
challenging the assertion that everyone who "writes code" (the words
'potatolicious used, which started this sub-thread) needs to have the same
knowledge base.

I've worked with a lot of academics who write code for math and stats without
any real computer science knowledge (including no more than a rudimentary
understanding of the most basic data structures). I have a business mentor who
makes millions of dollars with a piece of legacy web software he wrote himself
--I'm certain he could tell you that certain fields are indexed in the DB
because the SQL performs better that way, but I doubt he would use the word
hashmap/hashtable at all and that doesn't undermine his credibility in my eyes
one bit. I have friends who write embedded code all day but couldn't write an
SQL query to save their life; that is obviously fine for what they do, and it
doesn't make them any worse of a programmer.

My example in the parent comment was obviously relating to web programmers,
where the necessity of being able to write a usable SQL query is of far
greater importance than the ability to explain how the database is actually
executing that query. All I'm saying is that if we are able to deflate our own
self-importance just a little bit (and accept the idea that the role of an
employer might also be to act as a mentor), suddenly the pool of qualified
applicants becomes bigger.

------
planetjones
> Claims of shortages of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)
> workers "have no support in fact and no connection to reality, "

Have to say that's the evidence I find in much of the developed West. I
watched a program in the UK last night where they were flouting the Government
encouraged idea that over 100K _new_ STEM graduates were needed a year - many
of my friends leaving University with STEM degrees or thinking of enrolling on
such degrees haven't bothered because job creation at that scale doesn't
exist.

With outsourcing and offshoring by the bucketload it's refreshing for this Ron
Hira guy to point out the reality for many.

Added link to summary of TV program if anyone is interested:
[http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-16/tonight-is-britain-
back-i...](http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-16/tonight-is-britain-back-in-
business/)

~~~
moocowduckquack
I think that many of the powers that be in the UK are very wary of a
manufacturing economy. I suspect they equate it with an organised labour
movement and that was part of the ideology behind the push for a post-
industrial economy in the 1980's.

I always found the idea of a post-industrial economy rather perplexing as it
relies on the idea that we can design and manage the manufacturing of the rest
of the world, but the skills required to do that are dependent on having
manufacturing experience, which will die out in a generation without an
industrial base in which to get the required skills.

~~~
arethuza
"very wary of a manufacturing economy"

Like the US, the UK still manufactures loads of stuff - it's just there aren't
many people employed doing it and it's a much smaller percentage of the
economy than it used to be.

e.g.
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figure...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/)

------
scottjohnson
It seems to me that the true motive behind talk of a supposed STEM "shortage"
is to flood the market with new STEM workers in order to drive down labor
costs (i.e. wages).

The problem is not that STEM workers can't be found, it's that they can't be
found for the wages business owners want to pay. And what they want to pay for
skilled labor will always be: "less".

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
It's one of the few areas of our modern economy that reads like it's straight
out of Marx. It's straight up capital vs. labor.

~~~
davidw
And like Marx, it's bad economics. And actually it's not really as simple
capital vs labor, but also includes a component of US based labor vs "take
rrrr jooooobs" foreign labor.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Are you implying that workers shouldn't have national interests? You appear to
be snorting at the idea as if it doesn't make obvious sense. Are you some sort
of open borders weirdo? I mean, it was obvious to César Chávez that
immigration hurt workers and he wanted it stopped.

~~~
davidw
> Are you some sort of open borders weirdo

Being from the US, with an Italian wife and a daughter born in Austria, and
working with people from all over Europe and the US, yes, I suppose I am some
kind of "open borders weirdo" in that I tend to see the value in other people
as something inherent and not depending on where they happen to be born or
what their passport says.

Granted, I don't think Lichtenstein should probably open its borders 100% to
India tomorrow, but in general I don't believe there is a fixed amount of
labor to go around:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy)

Immigrants have brought a lot of great things to the US and elsewhere. For
that matter, the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there
were far fewer people.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in
nations and rooted associations and loyalties. The value of the latter must be
taken seriously. Jonathan Haidt has excellent research on how a substantial
fraction of people appear to be congenitally blind to these concerns.

> the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer
> people

The era of strongest wage growth and increase in living standards coincided
with the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965
immigration act, resuming immigration. In that interval net migration was
roughly zero. It's tough to argue the USA was badly suffering for want of more
foreigners in that time.

~~~
davidw
> the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965

Can you think of any other events in that time period that might have had some
effects on the economy? It's not exactly an experiment with a control...

> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in
> nations and rooted associations and loyalties.

I suppose it's a bit harsh, but IMO that kind of thinking is what breeds
mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become. My loyalty is to
my family, my friends, of whatever nationality they happen to be, and after
that it gets a bit vague. I'm lucky to have been born in the US, certainly,
but it's one country of many, with good things and bad things.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
American involvement in WWII destroyed a massive amount of wealth and lowered
living standards for years. It was a huge set back, and I don't know why you'd
seem to be implying otherwise.

> mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become

A cohesive citizenry with a voice in policy leads to illegal spying? WTF?

------
debacle
My father in law is an EE. He was forced out of his job a few years ago (in
his mid fifties). From what it sounds like, many of his similarly aged
coworkers face the same treatment - if you don't hit a certain level of
management by the time you're middle aged, promotion paths become closed to
you and eventually you become marginalized, because there are so many new
graduates coming in willing to work for close to half of what the experienced
EEs command for salary.

He wasn't able to find another EE position, except at a small company as a
part-time tester. He's retired now, mostly because he gave up trying to find
fulfilling work.

~~~
robrenaud
Is it the case that an EE with 30+ years of experience isn't much, much better
at the job than a fresh grad?

~~~
xradionut
Good, experienced EEs are worth 10 or more recent grads. Especially those that
know RF and/or embedded programming. But then again I'm in a area that has a
large number of EE's.

------
ausjke
I was a H1B before, and I can tell you that I was not paid less, if not more.
Most of my H1B peers are well paid as far as I know, you can tell that by how
fast they purchase the house and cars and start a STEM-professional new life
in USA. The low-paid H1B steals good-quality-STEM-engineer-job theory does not
hold water for me.

The STEM shortage is so true, while I agree outsourcing saves money, H1B are
most often not, more likely, it's because the company can not hire the right
STEM candidates and they have to go through the painful H1B hiring process,
while paying for their very expensive immigration attorney bills to keep them.

More high-quality STEMs, less outsourcing, are the real solutions for a
booming local job market. When we have more good STEMs locally, the H1B will
become a non-issue.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
This is matter of statistics, not personal anecdote. All reporting on the
matter I've seen indicate H1-Bs in IT earn sub native wages, and employers
easily get around the rules to hire cheap foreigners.

Anyway, as a matter of national policy it's remarkably short sighted to import
large numbers of skilled workers to a large nation like America. Can't people
see that addressing any "shortage" this way perpetuates it? People have got
the memo loud and clear: If you are a technical worker you are a fungible
commodity of little status. Your prestige and earnings will be attacked with
immigration policy, visas, and outsourcing. Why go in for this as a career if
you have options? The most able will go elsewhere.

~~~
ausjke
The ugly truth is that, without H1B policy, the big corps will more likely do
more outsourcing,which is worse. I agree some big foreign IT agencies are
hiring cheaper H1B, those are normally pure-software jobs, the EE/H1B looks
different to me, in that, H1Bs are not cheap, if at all. I am EE. I checked
again and again, the college graduates here fail to do basic math is beyond
imagination. I hope STEM can help to better that, in fact I'm leading a local
math club as a volunteer to do just that.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
> do more outsourcing,which is worse

Why would outsourcing be worse? The detailed analyses show that bringing
people here has large costs externalized to tax payers. People use schools and
when eligible chain-migrate low skill relatives.

If businesses feel the business environment the citizenry of America have
built up is not worth the costs, well I'm fine with them choosing other places
to operate. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is import a new citizenry.

~~~
ausjke
In the long run, the engineers trained via outsourcing will become strong
competitors, while USA have nothing to compete against then. USA can not have
all the local graduates do architecture-design or marketing/project-
management,that will doom the country soon or later.

Usually H1Bs' kids excel at school, and their parents pay tax on that. For
their poor relatives to immigrate 22+ years later(roughly 5 year for
greencard, 5 year for citizenship, 12 years for relative immigration waiting
period), it's a immigration policy issue, however it's still all legal, at
least 10X better than those who came here illegally.

Keep jobs local is vital, outsourcing R&D is so short-sighted, with more
STEMs, H1B will be irrelavant.

------
githulhu
And yet, if you read HN, most developers make over $100k and can find a new
job that pays more overnight if their current employer does anything that
offends them. What's the reality?

~~~
collyw
most developers _in the US_ make over $100k

~~~
dagw
If these[1] numbers are anywhere near accurate that simply isn't true. Median
income is $72,630 and 75th Percentile income is $92,510. So at best you can
say that perhaps the 20% highest earning programmers in US make over $100K.

[1] [http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-
programme...](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programmer)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
"Software Developer"[1] is three times as common and has a median income of
$89,280. Most programmers are actually classified as software developers.

[1] [http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-
developer](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer)

------
drpgq
Glad I took computer engineering in an ECE department. Although I'm not really
that surprised at these results as let's face it, the centre of electronics
hasn't been the US for some time.

~~~
lucasnemeth
Good point. The centre of electronics is switching to asian countries since
the beginning of the 21st century and ignoring the global economy leads to a
short-sighted analysis.

------
mcbaby
I don't think STEM reflects market demand as much as it does our new
understanding of 21st century skills. While the gov't loves the "college =
success" equation, I think it is somewhat valid for STEM students, as it
introduces a much more practical skill set and mind set to students.

------
tseabrooks
I feel like I repeat this anec-Data every time one of these posts comes up.
This is all fine and good, but I've never worked at a SW company (8 years now)
nor had a friend work in a SW company that wasn't constantly hiring. The
companies I've worked for pay above market and simply can't find people
they're willing to hire.

------
throwwit
Seems to be a philosophical shift in the working world & academia overall
today. Just need to look to last year, where the guy behind the Higgs Boson
said the publish or perish atmosphere today would've never lead to a theory.
Then there's also the Phd who fell through the cracks to work at a subway
before solving the twin primes conjecture. Somethings gotta get fixed.

------
nickthemagicman
It seems to me there's a big shortage of people in the less 'fun' tech jobs
like desktop support or QA or Java corporate development.

There's no shortage in the more creative jobs creating new apps, cutting edge
web dev, network engineering, game dev, etc.

The kind of stuff that inspires most kids to go into comp sci.

It seems, the big 4 get more resumes than they can shake a stick at.

I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.

~~~
roc
> _" It seems to me there's a big shortage of people in the less 'fun' tech
> jobs like desktop support or QA or Java corporate development."_

And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty
hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage
increases as demand exceeds supply.

~~~
shawabawa3
> And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty
> hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage
> increases as demand exceeds supply.

Isn't it possible the jobs just aren't worth that much?

There could be hundreds of unfilled positions, but not filling the positions
is only costing say ~$50k in revenue. It's not worth paying someone $51k for
that position

~~~
dangerlibrary
You have described an equilibrium condition in which, by definition, there are
not hundreds of unfilled positions.

------
mdpopescu
I believe that Greenspun's article at
[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/12/12/why-do-
people-...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/12/12/why-do-people-who-
chose-not-to-study-science-and-math-opine-on-the-virtues-of-studying-science-
and-math/) is very apropos.

------
michaelochurch
This "shortage" talk is the problem with engineers. They take peoples'
opinions and petty desires (such as business requirements and deadlines that
are arbitrary) and assume them to be objective truth. I worked at a startup
that was cargo-culting Scrum (badly) and people started talking about
"Iterations" as if they existed objectively and had real, phallic, meaning.
They don't.

Engineers insist on truth and struggle with the fact that most people who
succeed in human affairs are extremely dishonest.

"Shortage" just means, "we can't hire talent at as low a wage as we'd like to
pay". It is not an objective condition. It might qualify as a true shortage if
companies were reducing the pay of executives and non-techs to make space for
engineers, but that is happening almost nowhere.

~~~
lsc
>as if they existed objectively and had real, phallic, meaning.

Did you mean to do that? either way, it's pretty funny.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Did you mean to do that?_

Do what? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Yes, I know what the word "phallic" means.

~~~
lsc
I could read the comment both ways, really, but the sentence parsed awkwardly
enough to make me wonder.

It does sound like it could have come from an Agile consultant. "Are your
iterations flaccid?" But nobody actually talks that way... right?

