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: c

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.