If you're interested in looking at some hard data on this, you might look at a recent RAND study. http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/index.html http:/

If you're interested in looking at some hard data on this, you might look at a recent RAND study. http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/index.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/index.html This study is mainly focused on PhD level degree recipients and compares salary and career prospects with "the professions" (jd, mba, md, dds, etc). By this standard, the study concludes that there is no shortage. Mr Wadwha is segmenting the "engineer" population differently - including all degree and experience levels, but also treating different micro-slices of the STEM workforce differently. This makes sense, and I think he's right - it does show that the issue is very complex. If you've read my posts in the past, you'll know that one thing I find exasperating about Mr Wadwha is that he almost always includes the word "xenophobia" when describing people who look askance on visa programs designed to bring more engineers and scientists to the US. I respect Mr Wadwha's point of view (since I agree with him to some extent that we need to be open to global talent), but I don't think he gives enough credit to the people who oppose these programs. When a RAND study finds that there is no shortage of engineers or scientists, and that poor wage and job prospects are the main contributor to low levels of interest among US students, then it is immensely reasonable to question whether we should hand craft an immigration policy designed to bring more scientists and engineers here, as opposed to a more general, profession neutral system. Accusing people who hold this point of view of xenophobia adds nothing to this discussion, and drags it into the mud, as far as I'm concerned.