Forbes (Opinion)
By Stuart Anderson
July 14, 2015
Perhaps
concerned that Donald Trump was getting all the attention on
immigration, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) last week repeated an
assertion on high-skilled jobs that
two Wall Street Journal editorials explained was a distortion of the
actual job market.
In
a recent press release, Senator Sessions stated, “Each year,
universities graduate twice as many students with STEM [science,
technology, engineering, and math] degrees
as find STEM jobs. According to the Census Bureau, more than 11 million
Americans with STEM degrees are not employed in STEM jobs – or three in
four STEM degree holders.” The problem with these statements is they
rely on a narrow bureaucratic government classification
and bear no relation to reality. Why would any Americans keep getting
science or engineering degrees if 75% of the people with such degrees
were unemployed or sweeping floors, as Senator Sessions implies?
Here’s
the problem: Senator Sessions is counting only individuals employed in
what the federal government considers STEM “occupations,” which is a
government definition
that does not count millions of people working in jobs that utilize
their science and engineering (S&E) education. (See this National
Foundation for American Policy report.)
As
the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators
2014 explains: “The application of S&E knowledge and skills is
widespread across the U.S. economy
and not just limited to S&E occupations. The number of
college-educated individuals reporting that their jobs require at least a
bachelor’s degree level of technical expertise in one or more S&E
fields (16.5 million) is significantly higher than the number
in occupations with formal S&E titles (5.4 million).” (Emphasis
added.) An April 2015 National Science Foundation report updated these
figures to show that 12 million people who require at least a bachelor’s
degree level of technical expertise in one or more
S&E fields are not included in the government’s formal definition
of a science and engineering “occupation” (the definition Senator
Sessions uses).
In
other words, the only way Senator Sessions arrives at his contention
that most Americans with degrees in science and engineering fare poorly
in the job market is by
ignoring 12 million people doing quite well with such degrees.
An
April 27, 2015 Wall Street Journal editorial commented on the use of
Census data by Senator Sessions and explained: “The problem is that
these numbers for STEM jobs
are based on definitions that are artificial and narrow.” (Registration
required.)
The
narrow government definition of STEM “occupation” would likely exclude
every American recipient of the Nobel Prize in the past 100 years who
worked as a professor,
which would be classified as a postsecondary teacher using Census data,
and the CEO of Apple, since management positions typically do not count
as a STEM occupation under government classifications. Also among the
many typically excluded from the federal government’s
definition of working in STEM “occupations” are individuals promoted to
jobs overseeing other workers, which is good for a career but moves
them out of the federal government’s STEM occupation classification.
A
more realistic picture of the labor market can be found in a January
2015 Conference Board report. That report found there were more than
five vacancies advertised online
for every one unemployed person in a “computer and mathematical
science” occupation: 599,800 total ads and 107,200 unemployed, the best
supply/demand ratio of any occupational category in America.
According
to the National Science Foundation, only 1.4% of individuals who
received a master’s degree within the previous five years (as of 2010,
the latest year available)
in computer and mathematical sciences reported being involuntarily out
of their field – undermining the notion suggested by Senator Sessions
that almost no Americans with degrees in STEM fields are actually
working in their field. Similarly, only 3% of individuals
who received a master’s degree within the previous five years (as of
2010) in engineering reported being involuntarily out of their field,
according to the National Science Foundation. And individuals in the
social sciences, which employs few foreign nationals,
were more than four times as likely to be involuntarily out of their
field as individuals with a master’s degree in computer or mathematical
sciences.
That
does not mean everything is great for everyone and that there can’t be
improvements to U.S. education, workforce or immigration policies. When
82% of high school
students in the Maryland suburbs can’t pass Algebra I exams there is
something wrong. Increasing the green card quotas or other measures that
would increase the mobility of H-1B visa holders would be positive
reforms.
In
response to recent news stories, some favor Congress placing
significant new restrictions on high-skilled work visas. But
realistically, even critics should recognize
that any reforms Congress is likely to pass would not prevent companies
from outsourcing certain functions. A global labor market exists and
companies will retain the ability to shift work outside the country.
Outside of the context of immigration, outsourcing
is not controversial, since it is done for payroll, accounting, legal
work, printing, etc. New immigration restrictions that affect the
outsourcing of information technology (IT) services would perhaps affect
who performs the services and where, not whether
it happens at all. Cloud computing is likely to have the biggest impact
on both multinational corporations and IT outsourcing models.
Ironically,
the most “effective” reforms could also be the worst. Because U.S.
labor laws do not protect incumbent employees as in Europe, it is easier
to fire or lay
off a worker in the United States. However, by making it more difficult
to fire and lay off employees, France, for example, makes it less
likely employers will want to hire new employees in the first place,
since removing workers from payrolls may be impossible.
As a result, the unemployment rate in France is nearly twice as high as
in the United States – about 10.3% in France vs. 5.3% in the U.S.
Congress
should focus on economic reforms that encourage companies to invest and
expand their workforce inside the United States. That includes reforms
to tax, education
and immigration policies. Arguing, in effect, as Senator Sessions has
done, that Americans should not pursue degrees in science and
engineering because they will never find jobs is hardly a good blueprint
for reform.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment