> less than a third (28%) of all STEM trained workers age 25-64... Ah, opening with a moving the goalposts argument. Good one. I guess now a career in a field

> less than a third (28%) of all STEM trained workers age 25-64... Ah, opening with a moving the goalposts argument. Good one. I guess now a career in a field includes people that never once worked in the field? > And the numbers are probably even worse now. Yet more belief over evidence. > Over 100K people at tech companies lost their jobs in 2022, over 250K in 2023 and more this year Of the 35 or so million STEM workers [1], this is how big? And you ignore hiring during those years? Of course, BLS (and NSF, FRED, DOL, ...) all project STEM job growth to outpace other job grouping by a large margin in the upcoming years [2]. Ignoring valid evidence or only looking at one side is not a good way to form beliefs. > Ignore this at your own peril. Again the doom and gloom not based in reality. I'm nearing retirement, as are a lot of people I have been in for our entire careers. I make near 7 figures, as do many of those I went through a career with. One person in the group recently asked why such a low percentage of workers are our age. I pulled out annual grad numbers and numbers of jobs in the field. What made our group low is that nearly all of us that were in the field 30-40 years ago are still here, but the field exploded, so as each new group entered, the older ones became a smaller subset. This completely explained the % you find by age in all STEM fields I have tested this on, which is several. So go ahead and try it. It's a simple explanation, matches BLS numbers for the past 40 years, and certainly doesn't support your half life of 10 years. Another way to check the inanity of your claim is simply look at how many jobs there are in STEM, and the number of grads, and compute what happens with the 10 year half life you claim. This is yet another way to check the claim fails. Of course, you are the same person that outright lied and had to make up non-existent compilers that never did what you'd claim. Did you ever find one you can present? Or did I bust you completely last time on that lie? Here's a simple subset to ponder: the median age for STEM workers is around 45.5 for women, 47.4 for men [3], which, if your 10 year half life is true, means on average people join STEM fields around age 36? This is clearly nonsense. If most people join around low to mid 20s, which seems much more likely, and (not accounting for the job size explosion. which only pushes numbers even more in my favor), and assuming a reasonable retirement age ~65 (Census backs this up for STEM), then, well shit... I guess there is not really any appreciable attrition, despite your unmeasured anecdotal beliefs... Maybe the half life is not 10 years. Please explain how your half life claim with the with median age of STEM worker... Maybe you can use your 128 bit fixed point SSE mystery compiler that never existed to check it. [1] https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforc... [2] https://blog.dol.gov/2023/09/08/new-bls-employment-projections-3-charts https://blog.dol.gov/2023/09/08/new-bls-employment-projectio... [3] https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Women%20in%20STEM%20Special%20Topics%20Report%20FY%2020%20Final.pdf https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Women%20in%...