Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#21

Post by ahomescu1 »

acchow wrote: post #16
ahomescu1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FTA: "unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses" Which is counter-intuitive to me, considering how heavily regulated those other professions are (and their numbers restricted).

Curious, what do you think the employment rate among physicians is? I'd be surprised if it wasn't 100%. The issue is regulation - employment only takes a hit outside the protected professions. There are 13,605 taxi medallions in new york city. What do you think the employment rate among taxi drivers in NYC is?

I'm also considering the people who would be in those careers, if not for the heavy regulations. For example, how many people in NYC would be taxi drivers if they could, but aren't allowed to be?

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#22

Post by ahomescu1 »

austinz wrote: post #17
ahomescu1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FTA: "unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses" Which is counter-intuitive to me, considering how heavily regulated those other professions are (and their numbers restricted).

It actually makes sense, I think. The bottleneck (bar, qualifying exam) keeps the supply artificially low, so those who pass and qualify are always in high demand (low unemployment). Those who don't pass either try again, or after a while go into other fields and no longer consider themselves prospective doctors, lawyers, etc. It's sort of like the effect where, during a prolonged recession, unemployment numbers 'dro…

Sure, I should have specified that I'm also counting people who have the skills and training, but aren't allowed to practice (such as people who failed the medical or bar exam). It makes sense to me to consider those "prospectives" as unemployed in their profession (especially since those professions take years, in some cases as much as a decade, of specialized education, all before the exam itself).

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#23

Post by enewc »

stale2001 wrote: post #4

What world is this article living in? I got a job making $100k as a software engineer, right out of college (top-tier I guess). And then I realized that I was worth more than that, and 8 months later I'm now switching over to a job making $150k in total compensation. And TBH, I was middle of the road compared to my classmates.

First of all your, viewpoint is restricted to EE/CS. Any of the other pure sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. do not enjoy the same luxuries.

Another important distinction to make is that there are almost no science (i.e. research) jobs any more. Most technology jobs are just run of the mill programming, not actually investing in research.

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#24

Post by jkrems »

jonrimmer wrote: post #10
stale2001 wrote: post #4

What world is this article living in? I got a job making $100k as a software engineer, right out of college (top-tier I guess). And then I realized that I was worth more than that, and 8 months later I'm now switching over to a job making $150k in total compensation. And TBH, I was middle of the road compared to my classmates.

Why do you think all these silicon valley CEOs are throwing their weight behind schemes to get kids and adults learning how to code? It isn't because they really believe there's some social or personal value in being able to program, it's because they want to flood the job market with developers and so crash wages. What's sad is that many programmers are actually buying it, and volunteering their time to help support…

CEOs who think just throwing more developers at a problem will solve it are what natural selection is for.

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#25

Post by voidfunc »

jonrimmer wrote: post #10
stale2001 wrote: post #4

What world is this article living in? I got a job making $100k as a software engineer, right out of college (top-tier I guess). And then I realized that I was worth more than that, and 8 months later I'm now switching over to a job making $150k in total compensation. And TBH, I was middle of the road compared to my classmates.

Why do you think all these silicon valley CEOs are throwing their weight behind schemes to get kids and adults learning how to code? It isn't because they really believe there's some social or personal value in being able to program, it's because they want to flood the job market with developers and so crash wages. What's sad is that many programmers are actually buying it, and volunteering their time to help support…

You speak the truth but I don't know how to prevent what is going on. I've also come to the conclusion most developers are too shortsighted to see their own career demise in 20 years.

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#26

Post by ethikal »

acchow wrote: post #5
stale2001 wrote: post #4

What world is this article living in? I got a job making $100k as a software engineer, right out of college (top-tier I guess). And then I realized that I was worth more than that, and 8 months later I'm now switching over to a job making $150k in total compensation. And TBH, I was middle of the road compared to my classmates.

Software engineering is an exception in the science and engineering camp. FTA: "Because labor markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields, industries, and time periods, it is easy to cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in specific years and locations. But generalizing from these cases to the whole of U.S. science and engineering is perilous." But, surprise su…

Doesn't the article specifically point out that software engineering isn't encountering a shortage?...

"It is true that high-skilled professional occupations almost always experience unemployment rates far lower than those for the rest of the U.S. workforce, but unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses, and surprisingly high unemployment rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious “shortages” such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science (7.8 percent) and information systems (11.7 percent)."

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#27

Post by waterlesscloud »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #18
Spooky23 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're in a hot market in a hot locale. You probably pay an arm and a leg for housing. I'm in a second tier city with more limited options. I know folks who successfully start CS grads in the $50-60k range, mostly from state schools. Someone with a good track record is anywhere from $80-105. Sounds awful, but a 2000 ft^2 house can be found around $200k in a nice area. McMansions are $400-500k. I ended up moving back…

At many levels the national discussions are distorted by failure to understand regional costs of living and taxes and the matter of finding acceptable schools. People talk about the 1% without realizing that two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents in markets like NYC and SF. My grandfathers with skilled tradesman wages were able to support stay at home wi…

"two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents"

No. This is a gross exaggeration and extremely out of touch with economic reality.

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#28

Post by michaelochurch »

Well, there is a shortage of competent software engineers willing to sacrifice as much as corporate executives think they should, for what corporate executives think such people should be paid.

In the same vein, there's a shortage of supermodels who want to fuck obese, unemployed men with halitosis and general poor hygiene.

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#29

Post by aviraldg »

jkrems wrote: post #24
jonrimmer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think all these silicon valley CEOs are throwing their weight behind schemes to get kids and adults learning how to code? It isn't because they really believe there's some social or personal value in being able to program, it's because they want to flood the job market with developers and so crash wages. What's sad is that many programmers are actually buying it, and volunteering their time to help support…

CEOs who think just throwing more developers at a problem will solve it are what natural selection is for.

More developers might not solve a problem faster, but they will drive down wages (even for skilled developers)

Re: The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

#30

Post by mjn »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #27
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At many levels the national discussions are distorted by failure to understand regional costs of living and taxes and the matter of finding acceptable schools. People talk about the 1% without realizing that two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents in markets like NYC and SF. My grandfathers with skilled tradesman wages were able to support stay at home wi…

"two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents" No. This is a gross exaggeration and extremely out of touch with economic reality.

That was my reaction; I'm not sure how someone could have any historical knowledge and think that. My grandparents were, I think, fairly typical middle-class Americans. They raised 2 kids in a ~1200-sq-ft house in the Los Angeles suburbs, which was considered pretty big. Ate out only on special occasions, maybe 8-9 times a year, never just because they didn't feel like cooking. Did not have "help" to mow their lawns, clean their house, or watch their kids. Bought new devices rarely: it was a big deal to get a TV, and a big deal to get a washing machine. Owned one car, bought used. They sure as hell didn't take extended beach vacations.

I would wager the couple making $300k in SF are not living like that. Hell, I used to live a lifestyle much better than my grandparents did back when I lived in the Bay Area, on a lot less than a six-figure salary. I didn't have kids, but I also didn't even make $50k, and yet I still ate out multiple times per week, not per year.

I know nobody making over $80k in the SF Bay Area who I would not be comfortable calling at least upper-middle-class. The people who think otherwise mostly live in an insane bubble in which they only know people in the top 10% of the income distribution, and have absolutely no idea what a middle-class American lives like.

Post reply on HN