I'm not normally a fan of government intervention but we've wound up requiring massive amounts of it anyway. At least if the top talent was producing tangible things we'd have something more to show for it than an ever larger deficit.
However, I am confused about one thing...
"Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical sciences"
I'd need to read more about this study. Are social science majors included in the STEM numbers? Are botany majors included? If so, this would weaken the claim that we are overproducing "STEM" workers.