This is a tough question, because I would generally prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage levels. The problem here is that employers in high tech are asking for special consideration - granting green cards specifically to STEM degrees. Unfortunately, this puts us in the position of playing favorites through government - we're deciding that there "should" be more engineers than we're getting at current wage levels.
It feels a little strange to me, since I don't really think "should" is a useful question. But I can see why/how the government would want to get involved - markets aren't perfect, and engineers are particularly valuable, as they tend to create wealth rather than just shuffle it around.
I'm probably not the greatest guy to ask, because I have an MS in engineering and I've seen how brutal the PhD programs are. I see that the nine of the top ten professions ranked by pay are medical specialties, with CEO as the only non-health related one there. I understand that law isn't as great at the middle and low level, but at the elite level, I do think it pays very well with more career stability than engineering - and with a degree program that has a vastly higher completion rate than almost any form of graduate study in STEM fields (and much easier undergraduate preparation as well).
So how high should wages be? I guess I'd say that wages should go high enough that getting a grad degree in engineering is a good way to get on that top ten list.
But of course I'd say that, that's my degree. You shouldn't be asking me, but you shouldn't be asking the people who want to hire engineers either. Ideally, we'd butt out and try to let the market handle this.
I'm not fundamentalist about it - truth is, I would support a general skilled emphasis in our immigration system. But specifically targeting a narrow band of the workforce, under the notion that there is a "shortage"? That smells. And after digging into the evidence, I think the "shortage" is really just a rational response to market signals.
I understand your point, but if you prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage level, you should be for much looser immigration. The government regulating immigration is anything but free market. If the government were to loosen requirement for STEM immigrants, that is having freer market, not less.
This is a huge disagreement between us. If you loosen immigration in general, then you may have freer markets. But if you loosen them only in a narrow segment of the economy and while restricting mobility in others, you may end up creating severe market distortions that don't resemble a free market in any way.
If almost every country and profession had equally liberal immigration policies, then yes, I'd agree. But we're not doing this evenly, and I think this is why so many people who hold a favorable general view of immigration nonetheless object to these targeted visa/green card programs. As it stands, I think that adding a green card to every STEM degree (but not every JD, MD, MBA, DDS, etc) will end up creating market distortions that will probably just further deter US citizens from entering this field, amplifying the cycle of "shortages" and perhaps eventually creating exactly the "crisis" that the policy is intended to address.
I am not making judgment on whether or not if freer immigration is good for economy or not. I am not making any qualitative judgment on the issue. And you may be right that it may create severe market distortions. I don't know and that's not what I am disputing.
I am only stating that freer immigration is having freer market, even if freer immigration were to be applied to small group of STEM people.
Consider what I am saying with taxation. If the federal government were to exempt income tax for a portion of population making less than $50,000/year, then this is having a freer market, not less. Yes, it will lead to reduction in government revenue. Yes, it may lead to deteriorating public infrastructure. But it is still free market policy.
There is an externality to letting in more people though. The hiring companies get all the upside in form of more workers, but the public as a whole takes on the downside risk of supporting them if they're unemployed, retraining them if they're unemployed, integrating them culturally, etc. The public commits to educating those peoples' kids for free for 12-13 years and at subsidized prices for college, supporting them if they ever use welfare services, etc. It's not a clear cut: "more free, less free" situation, but a "who pays for it?" situation.
I actually agree with you on that point. If having a freer immigration policy leads to populating a country with people who aren't for free market, is the freer immigration policy actually a free market policy? It's a difficult question for sure.
the issue msft is trying to address is the scarcity of tech people in general. They could certainly pay more and fill their positions, but paying more wouldn't create 10k new engineers (or however many positions they need filled).
Someone Goldman, JP Morgan, etc, manage to fill their entering classes just fine each year. You think those companies have a stellar public reputation? No. They just pay enough to attract the kind of people they want.
If MSFT paid more, they would attract people away from other companies, they would attract people away from the banks and from the consulting firms, and they would encourage people to go into engineering instead of business or law or any of the other fields with more upside potential.
Engineering companies have this bizarre aversion to competing on salaries and competing for workers, as evidenced by all the no-poaching agreements and non-competes that go on. In banking, consulting, law, medicine, etc, salaries get bid up to deal with constrained supply. Blackstone isn't paying fresh grads $300k out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they think it's "fair" but because that's what it takes to get the kind of employees they want.
It's a market. The wages are too low if they can't get the number of workers they want, and they should go higher until they can get the number of workers they want.
But that's exactly what's already happening. What's missing from the equation is the "skilled" aspect. You can't just hire anybody. A tech firm needs to hire tech people who can do the job.
The current problem in the United States is that the supply of people is high but the supply of skilled tech people is low. So the problem you're facing is high-wages for skilled tech workers (even for immigrant tech workers) but no jobs for the high number of non-skilled people. What the US then wants is for lower (not poverty, but lower) paying jobs that pull from the high supply of unemployed, non-skilled people to allow them to gain momentum and skills through training. Throwing money at the skilled people doesn't solve the problem because it's already here.
MSFT doesn't have to hire just anybody. If they pay more than Google, etc, they'll draw people away from those companies. If they pay more than JP Morgan and Goldman, they'll draw people away from those companies. If they pay more than the law firms that significant numbers of CS people leave engineering for, they'll draw people away from those companies. If the whole industry raises salaries to compete, that will convince more people to go into engineering.
Here is MSFT's basic problem. The kind of people they want to hire often have better options. I left software engineering because I didn't like the constant layoff/hire cycle, the compressed salary scales at the top end, the need to get an MBA to go into management tracks, the lack of benefits, etc. In law I'm making more money even after student loans, and have far more headroom. I have an office with a door that closes and a secretary. I don't work exclusively with men. I work in a downtown high-rise, not some god-foresaken suburban office park. Based on my experience, I told my brother to stay out of STEM, and he took his physics degree to an investment bank. If some bright kid asked me to help him choose between CS and banking/consulting/law/medicine, I'd absolutely push him to the latter.
Tech companies need to get over their aversion to competing with each other for talent. They need to get over this "no poaching" "non compete" bullshit and stop trying to get the government to train their employees on the taxpayer dime. If they want to hire top-notch people away from other industries, they need to start paying competitive salaries and offering competitive benefits and amenities.
But it's not simply a question of money and having skilled people move to the highest bidder. The difference here is that we have high unemployment rates across the country, high unemployment for new grads, and a relatively small STEM workforce.
Throwing money at this issue only moves the same group of smart, educated, and skilled people from the same level of jobs. That's not the problem. The problem is that the supply of these talented people is small because the lower education is weak.
Finally, I think it's interesting you advised someone stay out of STEM but out of the "banking/consulting/law/medicine" you mentioned, only law is not explicitly STEM. Banking and consulting still have elements of Mathematics and Medicine is still very much in the realm of Science.
> Throwing money at this issue only moves the same group of smart, educated, and skilled people from the same level of jobs. That's not the problem. The problem is that the supply of these talented people is small because the lower education is weak.
You think the problem is that the math/science education isn't there? Please. There are a ton of universities across the country with great CS departments who would be happy to have a bunch of new students. The students just choose not to enroll in those degrees. If you want more students to enroll in those degrees, make the field more attractive for people.
> Finally, I think it's interesting you advised someone stay out of STEM but out of the "banking/consulting/law/medicine" you mentioned, only law is not explicitly STEM. Banking and consulting still have elements of Mathematics and Medicine is still very much in the realm of Science.
I didn't mean I'd encourage them to avoid STEM degrees. I think those degrees are very valuable. I meant I'd encourage them to take their STEm degrees to professions where they'd get better pay, better benefits, etc.