4 ms·

>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 bec

>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.

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.