I think the comments by "Lowell & Salzman L I E" rebut this well: The methodological problem in the study is it, surprisingly, uses the narrow employment desig

I think the comments by "Lowell & Salzman L I E" rebut this well: The methodological problem in the study is it, surprisingly, uses the narrow employment designation of "science and engineering occupation". The National Science Foundation specifically warns, �??The S&E labor force does not include just those in S&E occupations. S&E skills are needed and used in a wide variety of jobs.�?? However, the study used a 4.8 million figure for science-related jobs, which is the number for those in occupations formally defined as S&E, even though nearly 13 million workers say they need at least a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in science and engineering fields in their jobs. In other words, the study reached its conclusion primarily by ignoring about 8 million people in US labor force. That appears to be reason the study arrived at the claim that US has about three times as many S&E graduates as S&E job openings each year, even though there is no evidence of massive unemployment among recent graduates in these fields. The broader problem with the study is it assumes a "bean counting" approach to what is dynamic in nature. After all, there was not even an Internet economy two decades ago, so to assume that we have plenty of talented people, assumes that we have created all the innovations we need and, therefore, American companies should stop trying to invent and innovate. A market economy can never have too many talented people, since, as we have seen, smart employers and entrepreneurs will utilize this talent to improve all our lives. * -- Pages 10-11 of Talent Search: Job openings and the need for Skilled Labor in US Economy, NFAP Policy Brief, Mar 2008 http://nfap.com/pdf/080311talentsrc.pdf http://nfap.com/pdf/080311talentsrc.pdf