4 ms·

Be careful trusting data from the EPI, a left/labor/economic-protectionist think tank. It will be selectively chosen and spun to advance their core idea that do

by gojomo 14y ago

Be careful trusting data from the EPI, a left/labor/economic-protectionist think tank. It will be selectively chosen and spun to advance their core idea that domestic/union laborers need constant government rescue, via things like immigration restrictions. (Of course data selected by think tanks with other ideologies deserves skeptical reading, as well.) As was pointed out last time the EPI scored a press hit with their claim of stagnant IT wages (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4880332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4880332), they appear to be leaving out the very real possibility a younger/earlier-career mix of workers -- a demographic bulge -- makes their broad wage averages look worse, even while each individual cohort is better off. And, when in this latest study they highlight how many college graduates who fill IT positions have non-IT degrees (Figure F: 38%+), or of all IT workers have no degree at all (36%, p. 8), they should realize that one way to deal with a skills shortage is to make-do with less-skilled/less-trained people, but then pay them less while they learn or simply play-out-of-position. (This making-do also creates the early-in-career demographic bulge mentioned above.) On the other hand, when the EPI looks at the fact many STEM majors don't wind up working in STEM jobs (Figure D), it is spun as: "For every two students that U.S. colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired into a STEM job." From that wording you'd think the streets are filled with woeful idle STEM graduates! But maybe, given the still very low unemployment among all with college degrees (and especially technical degrees), these graduates found something else they preferred? Or maybe they really weren't very good at or happy with their exact STEM degree area? It requires the EPI's factory-floor mindset, where STEM degree recipients are cogs that could (or should) be dropped into closely-matching STEM jobs, to make this natural dynamism sound like we might have way more idle STEM graduates than we can use.

samirahmed 14y ago
for those who need clarification of what counts as STEM for immigration purposes http://www.ice.gov/sevis/stemlist.htm http://www.ice.gov/sevis/stemlist.htm http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/stem-list.pdf http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/stem-list.pdf
- qiqing 14y ago
  Thank you for that list, Samirahmed. That was substantially more broad than I expected. TIL - STEM as defined by the government apparently includes: - Agricultural Animal Breeding - Livestock Management - Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering Technology/Technician - Explosive Ordinance/Bomb Disposal
jmspring 14y ago
I won't go into EPI numbers, any study -- left, right, or center -- there is always a bias. There is a simple fact in the STEM debate, however, there was a period in time where companies invested in people, trained them, and established a relationship with the employee based on mutually beneficial growth. Today, that is long gone. There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path. There are amazing individuals that want to establish or work for businesses in the US that may be victims of the process, at the same time, there are average individuals getting work visas that could just as well be handled by a local (possibly skilled, possibly w/ a bit of training). Companies no longer invest in the average individual, after a certain point it is all about the dollar. I think any immigration policy around STEM in this country needs to include some incentives for training and investment in current citizens.
- smackay 14y ago
  The mix of interests of governments, companies and individuals are never going to be perfectly aligned. Indeed greater transparency on the motives of companies can only be a good thing - then nobody is disillusioned when they act in ways which are apparently at odds with other groups in society. The problem is how do individuals create institutions which are supportive and sustaining. The two options so far have either been government or unions, both of which, given their track record, are discredited to different degrees. For STEMs some form of professional society (non-political union) along the lines of the American Medical Association would seem to be a good approach. However this carries significant risk of degenerating back into the morass of competing factions and once more the interests of individuals lose out. Perhaps a step up from the current levels of organization, based on technical interests, e.g. The Professional Society of Python Developers or Amalgamated Interests Of Developers in the Finance Industry, similar to the original Friendly Societies, might provide a more robust model that meets the long-term interests of its members.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > "There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path." I think it is very easy for companies to lose their patience with people who have not kept up with technology and need to be retrained when, on the other hand, a large portion of the people that they are hiring are kids with no experience who trained themselves with current technologies and require less handholding with those current technologies. So basically let's say 25% of your new-hires are out of school and ramp up in a few weeks. What do you do with the other 75%? Hire people who have more industry than the young 25% but require more training with recent tech, or look potentially outside the country for some more of those 25% types?
illuminate 14y ago
"Be careful trusting data from the EPI, a left/labor/economic-protectionist think tank." Thankfully there are no thinktanks that are willing to fudge the existing data to "prove" the opposite to serve their interests.

by gojomo 14y ago

samirahmed 14y ago

for those who need clarification of what counts as STEM for immigration purposes http://www.ice.gov/sevis/stemlist.htm http://www.ice.gov/sevis/stemlist.htm http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/stem-list.pdf http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/stem-list.pdf

qiqing 14y ago
Thank you for that list, Samirahmed. That was substantially more broad than I expected. TIL - STEM as defined by the government apparently includes: - Agricultural Animal Breeding - Livestock Management - Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering Technology/Technician - Explosive Ordinance/Bomb Disposal

jmspring 14y ago

I won't go into EPI numbers, any study -- left, right, or center -- there is always a bias. There is a simple fact in the STEM debate, however, there was a period in time where companies invested in people, trained them, and established a relationship with the employee based on mutually beneficial growth. Today, that is long gone. There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path. There are amazing individuals that want to establish or work for businesses in the US that may be victims of the process, at the same time, there are average individuals getting work visas that could just as well be handled by a local (possibly skilled, possibly w/ a bit of training). Companies no longer invest in the average individual, after a certain point it is all about the dollar. I think any immigration policy around STEM in this country needs to include some incentives for training and investment in current citizens.

smackay 14y ago
The mix of interests of governments, companies and individuals are never going to be perfectly aligned. Indeed greater transparency on the motives of companies can only be a good thing - then nobody is disillusioned when they act in ways which are apparently at odds with other groups in society. The problem is how do individuals create institutions which are supportive and sustaining. The two options so far have either been government or unions, both of which, given their track record, are discredited to different degrees. For STEMs some form of professional society (non-political union) along the lines of the American Medical Association would seem to be a good approach. However this carries significant risk of degenerating back into the morass of competing factions and once more the interests of individuals lose out. Perhaps a step up from the current levels of organization, based on technical interests, e.g. The Professional Society of Python Developers or Amalgamated Interests Of Developers in the Finance Industry, similar to the original Friendly Societies, might provide a more robust model that meets the long-term interests of its members.
jlgreco 14y ago
> "There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path." I think it is very easy for companies to lose their patience with people who have not kept up with technology and need to be retrained when, on the other hand, a large portion of the people that they are hiring are kids with no experience who trained themselves with current technologies and require less handholding with those current technologies. So basically let's say 25% of your new-hires are out of school and ramp up in a few weeks. What do you do with the other 75%? Hire people who have more industry than the young 25% but require more training with recent tech, or look potentially outside the country for some more of those 25% types?

illuminate 14y ago

"Be careful trusting data from the EPI, a left/labor/economic-protectionist think tank." Thankfully there are no thinktanks that are willing to fudge the existing data to "prove" the opposite to serve their interests.