Are STEM Workers Overpaid? | Hacker News Reader

Are STEM Workers Overpaid?

spectrum.ieee.org

52 points31reasons81 comments

>> Greenspan is not alone in his thinking that STEM worker salaries should look a lot more like non-STEM worker salaries. In March, over “100 executives" [wrote an open letter begging Obama to increase the number of H1-B visas]

Perhaps, as STEM workers, we should suggest that executive salaries should look a lot more like non-executive salaries?

>> And those [immigrant] workers would compete with high-income people, driving more income equality.

Really, Greenspan? You're going to paint STEM workers the posterboys for income inequality? Not your banking brethren making 5X, 10X, 50X the average STEM salary? It's a cheap, transparent ploy by those at the top to increase corporate profits at the expense of the workers and the middle class.

From an economist's perspective, STEM workers are still just labour. 'Bankers' represent investment, and their compensation is based mainly on the fact that they take on risk by allocating money...

Compensation is based on supply (which itself is based on many factors, including education and demographics), demand (number of businesses in a market, demand for the products created by those businesses), and risk. Assuming no government meddling, an efficient market will properly price workers wages.

What Greenspan is suggesting makes sense from a macro perspective, but of course on a personal, human level, isn't ideal for many people.

> their compensation is based mainly on the fact that they take on risk by allocating money...

I can't believe anybody can say that with a straight face, not after the bailouts.

That's your government's failing, not the market's....

Real capitalism would have been letting them fail, but I don't know if Americans would have the stomach for what would have happened afterward...

Greenspan is saying that STEM workers shouldn't make more than other workers. The argument isn't for increasing worker supply from external sources in general, it's for targeting STEM for more visas.

It's known that students find STEM harder in school and STEM jobs are widely considered more difficult than other jobs, thus earning their wage difference. Like it's been said by others, this will result in less STEM degrees domestically, the exact opposite of how this problem should be solved.

You and I disagree with Greenspan on the basic "should" here. The point of neoliberal policy-making, remember, is to maximize capital growth and minimize inflation by suppressing the price of labor.

From an information theorist's perspective, bankers don't create anything, they just skim a percentage off of other people's transactions – they're a drain on the system.

STEM workers create assets from nothing – the best STEM workers create billion dollar (or more) industries from nothing. Bankers just move existing assets around – they're fat that needs to be trimmed.

From an economic perspective, what bankers create is correct allocation of economic resources. I doubt that that is how banks create their money these days though.

I don't understand why you put 'bankers' in 'quotes' like that.

Saying bankers represent investment isn't exactly non-controversial.[0] Perhaps that's exactly what you're saying?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_aftermath_of_the_repeal_of...

A normal banker doesn't take any risk himself, he risks money belonging to others. Back in the old days, Goldman Sachs (for example) was owned by the partners, who were risking their own capital in every transaction. That setup is very rare these days. An investment banker should be paid like an accountant or a lawyer, well enough by most anyone's standards, but in line with what the work actually is.

Why not tell the rest of the story ?

Then a crisis happened, where a lot of banker's decisions turned out wrong due to factors that cannot reasonably be said to be the fault of those bankers. A lot of people, who were told beforehand that their money was indeed at risk in trade for that "interest" demanded the government step in and guarantee the deposits (which the government didn't do for them, but implemented for all savings from then on).

This meant that anytime a sizable bank would topple, it would cost the government massive amounts of money, which meant the government became complicit, by necessity more than by bribes, in making banks grow and bailing them out if "risk" strikes.

Which is what you're complaining about.

BTW: the "risking your own capital" demand also meant that only the wealthiest of people and their immediate families could reasonably get jobs at banks, for obvious reasons. And I'm certainly not unhappy that particular tidbit ended.

Just because the government insures deposits to keep public trust in banks does not mean that it justifies banker's high wages. It's actually the opposite - the fact that bankers require government insurance 1) takes risk away from them (meaning the risk that "earns" them money according to economists isn't as high) and 2) they should be paying more money for insurance or using profits to mitigate risk instead of paying themselves. Insuring deposits has resulted in the opposite - it encourages risk and overpayment.

My point is that you're wrong. It's not (or at least it was not) the banks that demand the government take the risk away from banks, it was voters, you and me.

And I'm positive that today, a vote would turn out the same.

So this whole too much risk followed by bailouts process is exactly what the average voter wants (in the sense that it's what he'll vote for). Sure they'll complain about the bailouts but faced with the prospect of losing their savings (as they will naturally be when a bailout is proposed) ...

"Banks require government insurance" doesn't mean they demand it, it means they need it or people won't trust them. Both banks and people demand the insurance, because without it everyone fails.

But that's not true and that's easy to prove: back in the day, not every employee of GS was a partner! Just like not every employee of a law firm or an accountancy is a partner.

There are plenty of other industries too where owning something needs a massive amount of capital, and risks large amounts of capital - factories, airlines, even farms - and yet people get jobs all the time.

I think he quoted it because that was the word used to denote the class of people in the post he was replying to.

> Assuming no government meddling, an efficient market will properly price workers wages.

The assumption is unnecessary, since an "efficient market" by definition includes no government intervention other than that which increases efficiency (e.g., by effectively internalizing externalities.)

Banks, not bankers.

> Significantly opening up immigration to skilled workers solves two problems. The companies could hire the educated workers they need. And those workers would compete with high-income people, driving more income equality.

TL;DR Income equality is being redefined as cost cutting through wage suppression. W. T. F.

If you want to define income inequality as the "problem" of different skills demanding different wage premiums based on demand, then sure... If you want to define it, as it has been in almost every report I've seen on the matter, as the widening gap between the rich and everyone else, then that doesn't help at all, it just exacerbates the problem.

STEM work is still a quick, mostly egalitarian way to allow movement from the lower to middle classes. Defining middle to upper-middle class as high-income earners might technically be accurate, especially with a shrinking middle class, but then making decisions based on them being "high-income" when it's so relatively different than it was in the past seems the exact wrong way to go about things.

We need downward pressure on wages so that the executives can make more money and the corporations can profit. Clearly borders should be open to throw away any avenues to prosperity that still exist in this country still. A mix of corporate and union greed f'd up previous iterations of the middle class, clearly we should follow the same path in all cases to the benefit of the 1%. Yeah, that works.

I believe in the global economy, but I also believe that local markets have their demands and wages should be commensurate. If I were to live in San Francisco working as a full stack developer, I should expect one wage. If I was in Berlin, Stockholm, Singapore, etc. I would expect something commensurate that maintained the similar lifestyle in the community I work.

There are cultural/societal tradeoffs, but personally, I am pretty tired of the "US IT wages are too high, let's open the borders" argument. The opposite side of that argument -- corporate america promised X, but failed to deliver for aged populations, oh well...just moves along doing it's thing.

Between my age and that of my parents, there was a shift of "spend your life working for a company, you would get training to your potential, and your efforts would be reciprocated"; to today it is "fend for yourself, the contract you enter in is at will on both sides with no guarantees" with the caveat of "hopefully we are both striving for the same thing for an acceptable duration".

How can you compare corporate greed to union greed? The best paid union workers were autoworkers and longshore workers, and the companies they worked for were still huge and profitable. So as "greedy" as these well paid workers were (and I mean "were," because autoworkers make a lot less today) they weren't greedy enough to destroy the company.

If it weren't for this so-called "greed" there wouldn't have been a middle class at all. And now that unions are shrinking to almost irrelevance, the middle class is vanishing.

The old attitude of companies holding onto workers was created by unions making demands. Now that unions are few, and in many sectors, were never present, the "fend for yourself" at-will contract is the standard.

The unions made those "good old days". The labor strife of the 20s and 30s set the conditions for the middle class of the 50s and 60s.

By greed, I mean the failure of unions to adapt. They relied wholly on seniority even when senior members became settled and were no longer contributing as they should. Seniority as the sole measure of contribution was a huge hit to how unions were perceived -- be it autoworkers, teachers, etc. This is where I mean greed comes in. A refusal to self evaluate what was working and what wasn't.

Your use of seniority seems like a straw man to distract from the fact that unions have faced an unprecedented corporate and political offensive in the last 40 years that has no desire to compromise and is only intent on destroying any fragment of organised labour. To blame senior union officials for the decline of the unions is to miss the point entirely. Yes they were a contributing factor, but certainly not the main cause.

Not a strawman at all...teachers unions are all about seniority over effectiveness and will fight tooth and nail accordingly. Many other unions are similar. I agree to the policy of public bargaining, but individual members should be subjected to measurements of their effectiveness. Tenure based on the sake of time (only) should not have equal weight to merit within the union structure. I say this as a product of public education and having many wonderful teachers, but saw younger ones forced out where older were tenured in and safe but not effective. I can't speak to other unions which I did not experience.

The unions helped build the middle class in this country. The apprentice/journeyman/master levels within the trades is a great measure of skill and advancement, but regardless of trade (metal working, teaching, programming, etc) your tenure should be one component of your measure, but not the sole measure. Do you continue to learn? Do you teach? Are you advancing the best interests of the group? There is more than "oh, I've been here longer than you".

This is what I mean when I talk greed and seniority.

Yes, unions have faced an offensive, but their insular nature has also harmed them just as much as the outside offensives.

The best paid union workers were autoworkers and longshore workers, and the companies they worked for were still huge and profitable

Yeah, until they had to start paying off the rest of their obligations, namely pensions.

Was that the fault of the unions or the companies employing them? Seems like the bulk have been companies underfunding their obligations.

This particular trait was often coupled with many municipalities, including most of the state of California, agreeing to pension obligations that made little sense during fat times and were worse when things started tanking.

I love how you think that the lifestyle a developer salary buys in San Francisco is available to developers in Berlin. I may not have not worked in Berlin, but I did work in Frankfurt.

On a developer salary, you cannot get a decent apartment in the middle of the popular neighborhoods in Frankfurt. Berlin is no different, nor is any other place in Europe I know of. In Frankfurt, it is true that a developer salary is comparable to what a factory worker makes. It is higher, but we're talking 20-30% higher, maybe 50% at the end of your career, no more. Something that irritated me to no end in Europe is that decision power and salary are determined mainly by seniority, number of years worked at the company, not ability and certainly not knowledge.

I probably should have stuck to cities I have worked in (as opposed to those friends have lived/worked in):

Stockholm Helsinki London

Yes, I was extrapolating to Berlin. I lived in Frankfurt for awhile with my then girlfriend (now wife) and though she wasn't an engineer (she was a project manager in tech -- an individual contributor, nothing special), the money she brought home allowed her to afford an apartment, travel, and quality of life actually better in some ways (equal in others) than the same position here in the Bay Area would have allowed for.

The reason I mentioned Berlin, it is held up as a startup hotbed with low costs and a dynamic city life. From the couple of times I've visited, it was certainly cheaper than Munich, London, and Stockholm for food/lodging/etc.

It's like that short story, Harrison Bergeron, where everyone has the mental inhibitors. It's much easier to drag everyone down to the same level, than lift them up to the same level.

It entirely depends on perspective. When I moved from the west coast to the east coast after completing a STEM PhD, my perspective changed completely.

My girlfriend worked for a hedge fund, where her co-workers and bosses received bonuses that were multiples of my annual salary. I had a few friends who landed law jobs with lockstep compensation, where, within just a few years, they'd be make more than I could ever hope to make at my research lab. Another friend, an english major from a second-rate college, was hired to manage a team of programmers. She had no STEM skills but great people skills, and was eventually chosen to head up a new west coast division. She's compensated extremely, extremely well. We'd occasionally travel down to DC, where there are many, many people feeding off of government excess who make far more than STEM careers pay.

That's what they don't tell you when picking a college career. You'll get paid relatively nicely out of college, sure, but you'd better not expect to make much more than that if you want to be a "STEM worker" no matter how hard you work or how good you are. The glass ceiling is very low compared to many other careers.

Not only that, a $100,000 salary was, not very long ago, the key to a comfortable upper middle class life. The cost of living, housing, everything has gone up so fast in proportion to income that it just doesn't feel that way anymore. I cannot provide my family with the material comforts my parents enjoyed and provided me (and neither worked in STEM... or had college degrees!).

Yes, there are exceptions at the moment if you're considered a "rockstar programmer". Still, that (and programming in general) represents a tiny slice of the overall STEM pie.

I totally agree and have made similar points here on HN in past threads.

It is nice that you can fairly easily make $85k or higher in some regions as an entry level developer, but it sucks that outside of a few exceptions that prove the rule you're unlikely to ever make more than about $150,000 (and I'm talking Bay Area, CA dollars here) without moving into a pure manager role or playing the lottery ticket of starting your own company.

Granted, $150,000 is a lot of money relative to the average income globally, even when you factor in cost of living adjustments, but to have bankers(!) and politicians(!) saying it is too much is a fucking slap in the face.

Except 150k in Bay Area is nothing and you won't even make it into the middle class (i.e. buy a house).

Then maybe the Bay Area, the tech industry, and the economy broadly shouldn't be run so "efficiently" that salaries and real-estate prices become locked to each-other.

Agreed - many of the comments (naturally, given the location) focus on the tech part of the pie. From experience in both science and technology industries, I'd say there's definitely some difference between the two in terms of starting and average salaries, and most certainly in the potential for top salaries.

Quick refresher on what the word "shortage" actually means.

SHORTAGE: Below market rent-controls. If more people want housing than there are apartments, and the price can't adjust, that's a shortage.

SHORTAGE: An oil supply shock as in the 1970s, and gas stations choose to ration fuel rather than profiteering by jacking up prices. More people want gas at that price point than there is gas. That's a shortage.

NOT A SHORTAGE: The lack of first-class flights from London to Chicago for $1,000. That ain't a shortage, it's a market-clearing price I don't want to pay.

I like the BCG quote: "Trying to hire high-skilled workers at rock-bottom rates is not a skills gap."

You're so right.

In Germany this is called "Fachkräftemangel", which translates to "Shortage of Specialists". But it can also translate to "Mangle for Specialists".

If there's downward pressure on salaries in Software development, you're going to see two things that will counter-act this long-term:

1) An exodus of developers. Devs will be likely be leaving either as the result of fat getting trimmed or by transitioning into management and analysis roles that offer better career prospects.

2) Less "young blood". A big reason why everyone is pumped these days to learn to code is due to the career opportunities it provides: the great salary, the job perks, and working for companies that are perceived cool. Most aren't looking to become entrepreneurs. If software shops lose their charm and gains a reputation for long hours with mediocre pay, people will seek opportunity elsewhere.

I saw the same thing happen in the early '00s after the dotcom crash and the outsourcing craze. Startups became a punchline instead of an aspiration and everyone thought most of the world's code would be written in Bangalore. CS enrollment tanked. People lost their appetite for learning programming. But by '05 we were back into a "shortage" again after believing the first-world programmer had gone extinct.

But I'm not surprised business and political leaders think STEM workers are overpaid. The general attitude is that exceptional salaries should only be doled out to exceptional individuals - if you're just a mere mortal that's in demand, well, that's clearly just an inefficiency in the market.

It's cute that the income inequality Alan Greenspan is worried about threatening capitalism is between regular engineers and everyone else, instead of between executives\owners and everyone else. Explains why I see so many documentaries about STEM workers and their lavish 2 bedroom homes they own after 20 years.

So basically, Greenspan and other companies think that us STEM folks are beneath lawyers, doctors, and most people in the financial industry? That we should be "put in our place"?

Anyone who knows anything about the H1B rules knows it's all a bunch of hogwash that there is a "skills gap". The corporations simply want higher profits. It's just simply a known fact. Better profits for the promise of a green card.

Let's see the companies prove that there truly is a skills gap. Instead of paying the 'prevailing wage', H1B workers should get the _top_ pay for non H1B engineers in the company + 20% or at that the 90% mark of engineers + 20%, which ever one is greater. Then I say, please open up as many H1Bs as possible. I'll tell you one thing, H1Bs applied for will go towards near zero...

One thing that gets overlooked in this debate is the survivor bias. STEM people have a pretty good way to drive down incomes in certain STEM occupations by automating them out of existence.

WordPress alone probably killed a good portion of formerly gigantic market of HTML programmer, CMS companies and consulting companies installing and configuring the CMSes. Potential income from building simple HTML Web sites nowadays is roughly zero, so people with those skills don't stay in the industry (and get counted in surveys) - they either upgrade their skills or move into other careers.

Alan Greenspan made approximately $180,000/year as Chairman of the Fed. Perhaps Presidential-appointee salaries could be made equal to non-Presidential-appointees by opening up those positions to foreigners.

A withering brilliance shows through this casually abusive headline.

I feel like this is a few steps away from some sort of revolutionary political speech. Did Greenspan really say that shit while representing the country I'm supposed to love?

Given the skill level and investment required to get a competitive STEM degree and the amount of profits a STEM person can produce for a company's long term profits I think that they are actually potentially underpaid.

They should've written an article titled "Are Financial Analysts Overpaid?"

I would say "severely" instead of "potentially".

I can play this game too:

Are bankers, lawyers, and doctors overpaid?

Well, it depends on what you want to pay people for -- what if we argued for the value they added to society on average? What about the banking industry during the financial crisis? What about the price of lawyers in California staying stable even though the supply has increased multi-fold in the past few decades? What about the people who design, validate, and erect the buildings in which these guys work? The people who created the private jets in which the questionably wealthy have always flown? The internet through which information became significantly more accessible (aka affordable)?

The people who truly enable the good parts of modern life? I know where my vote is going.

They really should have picked a different title and hinted at the conclusion which was STEM workers are suffering the same wage stagnation as everyone else and the only companies with hiring problems want STEM workers on the cheap. :/

I would gladly take a pay cut if we also raised the minimum wage to $30 an hour, got rid of most welfare programs and replaced them with a $10k/year minimum income, and simplified to a flat tax rate (I think Dick Armey liked 17%).

Given that the mean wage was only $43,460 in 2009, in order to raise minimum wage to $60,000 per year, your pay cut would be to minimum wage. The government would have to confiscate all income, supplement it with printed money, then redistribute it evenly across the population. In that kind of scenario, why would anybody do anything but the absolute minimum? Isn't that largely why the Soviet Union wasn't competitive? If there was no economic incentive for hard work, I'd wager many of the presently most productive people would optimize for work minimization.

> Isn't that largely why the Soviet Union wasn't competitive?

The backwater pre-industrial, post-war torn nation that beat the US to space? No, I don't think that was why they couldn't compete.

As far as I recall, pay is a pretty poor motivator -- while low pay is a pretty strong "de-motivator". So if you give people interesting challenges and make sure they can meet their basic needs, people are likely to preform.

But, even if competing for exceptional wages was a great motivator, no-one is saying that you couldn't do that in such a system -- you might have to limit it to fewer "exceptional" people, and there might be a higher risk of being demoted -- but I can't see why it wouldn't be possible. I don't think it would be a good idea, however.

All that aside, a household income of 80.000 USD sounds pretty good for most of the US (never mind 120.000) ?

The backwater pre-industrial, post-war torn nation that beat the US to space? No, I don't think that was why they couldn't compete

Pretty amazing what you can do when you're willing to spend your country into insolvency and collapse.

So if you give people interesting challenges and make sure they can meet their basic needs, people are likely to preform.

It's not like 50% of workers in the USSR admitted to drinking on the job, or 40% held second jobs to make more money, right? I guess if you're not motivated by a strong aense of community and bullshit pay, the gulags and purges might help.

That's assuming a lot of things about the present level of productivity of everyone working. Also, your number sounds like "household income" and I'm making my assumptions based on GDP per capita[0].

Generally though, yes, I'd assume most people would end up working ~20 hours a week. I'd assume most employers would prefer this, and would also optimize the use of their employees' time.

I think your understanding of Soviet economic policy is probably a bit naive, but for a high level overview of my philosophy, I'd recommend Russell's In Praise of Idleness[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

[1] http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

That's mean individual wage, not household. Per capita GDP isn't a good indicator here. I'd be careful about suggesting naïveté while advocating for a minimum wage higher than the mean wage.

The Soviet Union put humans in space. And you have to be able to compete at all before you can lose a multi-decade arms race between superpowers.

I am absolutely not advocating for a minimum wage higher than the median wage. There is no universal law that 40 hours a week is productive. Given an average 20 hour work week, there are still trillions of dollars available to those who want to work harder or smarter. There is still plenty of room for winners and losers.

The Soviet Union put humans in space. And you have to be able to compete at all before you can lose a multi-decade arms race between superpowers.

At what cost? How many Ukrainians did they starve to death in the process, how many "political opponents" were purged, how many people died in the gulags because they didn't tow the line?

Unfortunately, what you want has been tried, and it didn't work very well. What you'll end up with is many people not working at all because its not worth paying them, and a bunch of others forced to work at gunpoint to make up for the people that can't produce. It's pretty shitty to be in either group.

What happens when automation means there is an oversupply of labor? You will have many people not working at all because there are no jobs for them.

I would take a pay cut to work only 35 hours a week.

How much do you currently work?

9 to 6. I'd rather work 9 to 4 and enjoy the evening a bit more.

Can you go on strike with your coworkers?

Wages are so skewed towards the top earners - A typical corporate CEO gets paid $7000/hour. Suppressing tech wages isn't going to make a dent in income equality. Tech is already more egalitarian with the offering of shares to employees at most (if not all) levels.

http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/19/ceo-pay-now-7000-an-hour-...

Of course governments and current social elites from all parts of the world want us overworked and underpaid!

"STEM workers" can be the base of the new "over-middle" class - educated, well-off and with good social mobility plus political mobility and geographical mobility (this is fucking dangerous for governments and elites!).

You wouldn't want the class underneath you to have "well rested minds" and time to think about the world and their proper place in it (at the very top that is, because same as in old military societies warriors were the "natural rulers", in the new info-tech society techies will be the new "natural rulers"). Let's overwork them and stress them with unemployment so they don't get any funny ideas in their heads...

Though to be honest, all this sounds good for us STEM workers outside US in lots of indirect ways... I'll bet US will have a nice civil war / revolution soon, and more immigrants moving in any directions will only mean that the enlightening ideas from such a conflict will be easily exported worldwide.

Over the past few years I have seen starting salaries at top tech companies (Google, Dropbox, Twitter) increase by huge amounts. This may not be true at all companies, but it is definitely true at top companies. I also know that these companies will hire anyone who can pass their interviews.

I feel like many times the argument is that preventing high-skilled workers from staying in the US will help US citizens. This assumes that there's a fixed pie of jobs and that basically bringing talent from outside will burden the US economy. I definitely don't think that's true.

It also assumes that top tech companies have no option but to hire people in the US. I have many friends who had trouble with getting a visa and instead went to work in Canada for Google. This basically means the US lost one job, plus the taxes and economic stimulus that a high paid worker would bring in.

I am incapable of discussing this rationally, obviously, but this feels silly.

Why do these 100 executives who wrote an open letter to Obama care so much? Obviously they don't want to pay the prices they're paying, but would they be campaigning so hard if the work wasn't important? Ok, so the work is important; they also can't just hire someone off the street, because the skill requirement is high. Sounds like a normal market to me - your demand is high relative to the supply, so the cost rises.

Again, being in this field, I'm wildly partial...but I have very little sympathy for an executive who wants to pay below-market rate for business-critical work. Why not cut your own salary if you are so concerned with profitability? OH, that's different; you _deserve_ it.

Gut Reaction: Do non-STEM workers do anything useful?

A better question might be.Can we automate away the jobs of sales people, middle management and strategic directors? Yes, I believe we can.

The real question; Can we automate the job of corporate officer? The cost savings would be enormous...

Thats is a really hard problem. How do we define priorities and goals? There is certainly an argument for a company where the only goal is to make money and there is no overriding authority between divisions but there is so much sociopathic behavior in companies already.

A lot of management time is actually spent "conspiring". But software make a lot of this trivial. (Networking, synchronising, monitoring). software indeed threaten the power foundation of current elites. Just look at the banking industry where gradually, traders, then quants , then programmer (think hft) started taking a greater share of the revenue pie away from traditionnal bankers.

You have got to be joking.

I hope that was sarcasm. ;)

'cause they do.

That morning coffee ain't gonna make itself.

Hahaha keep telling yourself that.

I cannot believe you guys even discuss this. We are grossly underpaid. Mainly because we are (en masse) not able to negotiate the compensation. That would be a problem if we were able to organise, so someone else would do that for us.

Look around, everything is driven by computers now. EVERTHING. Even bloody banks. And we are still not sure are we underpaid or not. En masse IT person is shy, ready to accept lower pay, and easy to accept more hours.

That is how your bosses look at you, IT workers are a cost center - whether you are a programmer or sys-admin or db.

The simple fact is the MBA dude hates you.

> Likewise, tech companies are definitely not interested in paying higher wages

Most tech companies understand that the best engineers are 10x better than the average, but you rarely have to pay them 10x the salary. Most are happy to pay the higher wages if it means they are winning the 10x guys.

If the argument is all about the average -> poor engineer, I don't know that I entirely disagree

Comrades:

Either get lean, or seize the means of production.

Which, mirabile dictu, is yourself.

I'm not sure I agree that STEM workers are overpaid. I mean, I make a bit more than the customer support, PMs, and sales people in our company, but I'd rather do their jobs if the pay was equal.

Oy gevalt.

Either there is a shortage, in which case STEM workers' salaries need to go up to attract more people into the field, or STEM workers are overpaid, which can happen if and only if there is an oversupply.

It can't work both ways. You can't have a shortage of overpaid, useless employees.

Unless, of course, you're a capitalist begging the government to let you manipulate the labor market to deliberately suppress wages below the natural market-clearing level set by supply and demand.

Capital, capital uber alles! Fuck the markets and fuck the workers! /s

No.

These STEM salary stories seem empty. They are all price and no value. What is the price elasticity curve for engineers? How much of the salary loss would be offset by increased prosperity from more workers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com