4 ms·

That's always true though, e.g. in the Irish potato famine there was no lack of food, just food that people could afford. If STEM talent is expensive, that mea

That's always true though, e.g. in the Irish potato famine there was no lack of food, just food that people could afford. If STEM talent is expensive, that means there is not enough of it and we should encourage more. It will be bad for the people who would have gone into tech anyway, but good for the people who would have got lower paying jobs otherwise. We should also be encouraging people to go into other high paying areas like medicine, law or finance. But I think STEM (and medicine) have the highest positive externalities so that is another reason to encourage STEM jobs.

zekevermillion 11y ago
That makes sense, that labor shortage like food shortage is a distribution problem.
greenyoda 11y ago
"If STEM talent is expensive, that means there is not enough of it and we should encourage more." Who gets to determine whether it's expensive or not? The large tech companies can certainly afford to pay more for tech talent. Apple alone is sitting on a couple hundred billion dollars in cash. Google, Facebook and Microsoft also make billions in profits each year. It's not like these companies are in any danger of becoming unprofitable. The fact that we're creating more STEM grads each year than we have jobs for seems to suggest that we already have too many of them, not too few. And nobody is complaining about how expensive executive-level talent is. Why don't the big tech companies complain that there are so few people qualified to be CEOs that they need to pay them tens of millions of dollars a year?[1] [1] http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2013/06/18/top-paid-tech-ceos/ http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2013/06/18/top-paid-...
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  >Who gets to determine whether it's expensive or not? The real test is: are there people who could be doing this job, but aren't (and are making less money because of this). If this is true, then the market is not in equilibrium and it is appropriate to label STEM employees as "expensive". High wages are not good in themselves, and neither are low wages. What is good is when markets operate properly and resources (including human resources) are allocated in the most efficient way. That might involve more people going into STEM fields, and tech salaries going down as a result. In other fields, like medicine, people would come up with all sorts of excuses to protect the benefits that their in-group receive, to the detriment of other potential workers. I think that in tech we are uniquely able to go beyond this flawed thinking.
  - lsc 11y ago
    The market is a tool, and a very good one for solving certain problems. But it is folly to think that it carries moral weight, or that it can tell you what "the good" is.
  - AdieuToLogic 11y ago
    I'm not following your logic. You orginally said: > If STEM talent is expensive, that means there is not enough of it and we should encourage more. (aside: correlation != causation) Then "greenyoda" said: > The fact that we're creating more STEM grads each year than we have jobs for seems to suggest that we already have too many of them, not too few. To which you replied: > The real test is: are there people who could be doing this job, but aren't The answer to this appears to be "yes", for the reason "greenyoda" states and the article presents: > Teitelbaum stresses a fact of the labor market: contrary to the warnings from a variety of panels and roundtables, public and private employers who might hire STEM workers have not been creating enough positions for all the people currently being trained to fill them. Perhaps one of the reasons STEM talent is expensive is because there are many which acquire degrees in these fields, yet few which are skilled in performing to expectations? EDIT: clarified the origination of the last quote.

zekevermillion 11y ago

That makes sense, that labor shortage like food shortage is a distribution problem.

greenyoda 11y ago

"If STEM talent is expensive, that means there is not enough of it and we should encourage more." Who gets to determine whether it's expensive or not? The large tech companies can certainly afford to pay more for tech talent. Apple alone is sitting on a couple hundred billion dollars in cash. Google, Facebook and Microsoft also make billions in profits each year. It's not like these companies are in any danger of becoming unprofitable. The fact that we're creating more STEM grads each year than we have jobs for seems to suggest that we already have too many of them, not too few. And nobody is complaining about how expensive executive-level talent is. Why don't the big tech companies complain that there are so few people qualified to be CEOs that they need to pay them tens of millions of dollars a year?[1] [1] http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2013/06/18/top-paid-tech-ceos/ http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2013/06/18/top-paid-...

JesperRavn 11y ago
>Who gets to determine whether it's expensive or not? The real test is: are there people who could be doing this job, but aren't (and are making less money because of this). If this is true, then the market is not in equilibrium and it is appropriate to label STEM employees as "expensive". High wages are not good in themselves, and neither are low wages. What is good is when markets operate properly and resources (including human resources) are allocated in the most efficient way. That might involve more people going into STEM fields, and tech salaries going down as a result. In other fields, like medicine, people would come up with all sorts of excuses to protect the benefits that their in-group receive, to the detriment of other potential workers. I think that in tech we are uniquely able to go beyond this flawed thinking.
- lsc 11y ago
  The market is a tool, and a very good one for solving certain problems. But it is folly to think that it carries moral weight, or that it can tell you what "the good" is.
- AdieuToLogic 11y ago
  I'm not following your logic. You orginally said: > If STEM talent is expensive, that means there is not enough of it and we should encourage more. (aside: correlation != causation) Then "greenyoda" said: > The fact that we're creating more STEM grads each year than we have jobs for seems to suggest that we already have too many of them, not too few. To which you replied: > The real test is: are there people who could be doing this job, but aren't The answer to this appears to be "yes", for the reason "greenyoda" states and the article presents: > Teitelbaum stresses a fact of the labor market: contrary to the warnings from a variety of panels and roundtables, public and private employers who might hire STEM workers have not been creating enough positions for all the people currently being trained to fill them. Perhaps one of the reasons STEM talent is expensive is because there are many which acquire degrees in these fields, yet few which are skilled in performing to expectations? EDIT: clarified the origination of the last quote.