3 ms·

Why do you assume your kids will be unemployed?

• VLM 13y ago
  The point of the article was only half the grads can get jobs in STEM right now. Then you factor in the usual ageism so those with jobs in tech only really get half a career at best, maybe less, of course other STEM fields aren't as discriminatory as tech. Then factor in the intense desire by .gov and .biz to drive down wages by increasing H1B. Then factor in the median (median not mean) american inflation adjusted income has been in decline for about two generations in a mostly consumer based economy (oh oh). A rising economy might not lift all boats but a sinking one doesn't help much either. Then factor in an intense push to increase the STEM labor supply in K12 by STEM school initiatives and so forth. If the odds of employment in the field are 50:50 now, I would estimate in a decade or two it seems reasonable to be worse than 25% employment. They could very well be in the top 25% of their class, but that sounds like risky odds to me. If you were aiming at underemployment vs unemployment I do somewhat agree with you. There are already issues with receptionists and admin assistant jobs requiring advanced education, and seemingly all the waitresses I've met have a bachelors degree in "something". Anecdotally in the 70s when aerospace engineers with PHDs were driving taxicabs, I suppose a masters would at least guarantee a school bus driver job, making the education and training hugely wasteful because it has nothing to do with the job, but at least the employee gets to eat and may or may not have healthcare insurance. From that point of view I do agree with you that having a STEM degree means maybe they'll at least be able to get a job stocking shelves at the food store or something, and the kids without STEM will be unemployed completely.