Attrition in STEM

[ciao_yall]

sheesh, dismalist, some of us dont want to just give up and work all day every day with just a few specific types of ppl

I don't see a connection to anything anyone has said on this thread. One admits, hires, promotes those people who should be admitted, hired, or promoted.  People differ, and different decisions will be made. Charlie Darwin will do the rest.

But I think its safe to say we all agree there are far too many economists ;)

Of course there are! Which ones are superfluous?
 

Robert Rubin, though I suppose he's not really an economist because his Harvard B.A. is in economics while his graduate degree is from Harvard Law School, which means he's even worse.

Robert Rubin? That's defining deviancy down!

I'd go back in time and redirect?get rid of?do something nefarious to?  Laffer.

Strangely, Laffer had a valid point: Suppose the tax rate is zero per cent. Tax revenue will be zero. Suppose the tax rate is 100%. Tax revenue will be zero, for no one will work! Maximum tax revenue will be achieved somewhere between the two extremes. So far, so good.

The difficulty lies in determining which side of the Laffer Curve one is on. I have no doubt that Sweden in the late 1970's was on the wrong [right hand]side of the Laffer Curve, so a cut in tax rates will raise tax revenue. Neither did the Swedes doubt that. They fixed it. I have no doubt that the US today is on the correct [left hand] side of the Laffer Curve, though pre-1986 there is some evidence that really high earners were on the wrong side.

The other point to make about Laffer's thought is that it was only one of two economic ideas first written [published?] on a dinner tablecloth [the other being a tariff cutting formula everybody agreed to (well, sort of) in the early 1990's].

Anyway, Rubin and Laffer are in their '80s.

Get rid of Arthur Laffer? No, we kill hypotheses, not people.

Not sure if Laffer's work has ever been proven in the real world.

The primary factor in the effect of taxes is compliance. Greece, for example, has a pretty low compliance rate across the board.

The US is actually doing okay. Billionaires don't use (legal) tax loopholes because they can't "afford" their taxes, it's because they can.

[fizzycist]

Is it a sign of a CS glut that the Nobel in Physics this year went to a couple computer scientists? Is that higher-level attrition from physics that physicists don't want to see?

My social media has been on fire with physicists whining all day. But I think it's a good thing. At least 1 of 2 started in physics and no doubt neural nets have impacted lots of areas of physics, with arguably the first practical uses coming in particle physics data analysis.

Not a sign of glut though--physics often takes over the chemistry nobel and CS doesn't have a nobel at all. There's always been a stereotype of mid/late-career physicists wandering into other fields and arrogantly thinking they will revolutionize them with naive ideas. Guess Hopfield was one of the rare examples of resounding success!

[dismalist]

Is it a sign of a CS glut that the Nobel in Physics this year went to a couple computer scientists? Is that higher-level attrition from physics that physicists don't want to see?

My social media has been on fire with physicists whining all day. But I think it's a good thing. At least 1 of 2 started in physics and no doubt neural nets have impacted lots of areas of physics, with arguably the first practical uses coming in particle physics data analysis.

Not a sign of glut though--physics often takes over the chemistry nobel and CS doesn't have a nobel at all. There's always been a stereotype of mid/late-career physicists wandering into other fields and arrogantly thinking they will revolutionize them with naive ideas. Guess Hopfield was one of the rare examples of resounding success!

I wouldn't get down into definitions of fields. Was Nash an economist? No, he merely revolutionized the field.

What's wanted is more prizes with the prestige of the Nobel, such as the Fields Medal. Just gotta get somebody to pay for all this stuff. Competition would keep them all on their toes.

[Puget]

There's always been a stereotype of mid/late-career physicists wandering into other fields and arrogantly thinking they will revolutionize them with naive ideas. Guess Hopfield was one of the rare examples of resounding success!

Every couple of years a new physicist thinks they've solved conciseness or some other hard neuroscience problem with quantum theory or something and is puzzled that no one in neuroscience recognized their brilliance. It is so common it has become a joke.

[fizzycist]

Is it a sign of a CS glut that the Nobel in Physics this year went to a couple computer scientists? Is that higher-level attrition from physics that physicists don't want to see?

My social media has been on fire with physicists whining all day. But I think it's a good thing. At least 1 of 2 started in physics and no doubt neural nets have impacted lots of areas of physics, with arguably the first practical uses coming in particle physics data analysis.

Not a sign of glut though--physics often takes over the chemistry nobel and CS doesn't have a nobel at all. There's always been a stereotype of mid/late-career physicists wandering into other fields and arrogantly thinking they will revolutionize them with naive ideas. Guess Hopfield was one of the rare examples of resounding success!

I wouldn't get down into definitions of fields. Was Nash an economist? No, he merely revolutionized the field.

What's wanted is more prizes with the prestige of the Nobel, such as the Fields Medal. Just gotta get somebody to pay for all this stuff. Competition would keep them all on their toes.

Agreed. Policing the boundaries of fields is futile and dumb.

There are a lot of prizes nowadays, seems like every Silicon valley megabillionare wants in on the action. But reaching the level of prestige of a Nobel/Fields can't be bought, takes time.

[marshwiggle]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

The problem is the lag. High schoolers today want to study AI. By the time they get a degree, will the market be so hot for whatever skills they have? I doubt it. Consider fields where you need a PhD/JD/MD/etc., and the lag is even more of a killer. Plus there is a severe lack of good information. Do those same high schoolers really know the wages in all of the fields that they might have the skills to enter? I doubt it.

But neither you nor I nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics know any more than they do about future wages.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics can make predictions about future wages, based on data, which will have a higher margin for error for times further in the future. It's still better than pretending total ignorance. No-one can precisely predict the effects of Hurricane Milton on every house in Florida, but having the predictions is much better for people than not having them.

Markets are reactive. Governments and research organizations can be proactive. Things like real estate bubbles will eventually be "corrected" by the market, but if people follow advice given by people who make careful predictions they can make themselves much less vulnerable to the catastrophic results of those "corrections".

[dismalist]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

The problem is the lag. High schoolers today want to study AI. By the time they get a degree, will the market be so hot for whatever skills they have? I doubt it. Consider fields where you need a PhD/JD/MD/etc., and the lag is even more of a killer. Plus there is a severe lack of good information. Do those same high schoolers really know the wages in all of the fields that they might have the skills to enter? I doubt it.

But neither you nor I nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics know any more than they do about future wages.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics can make predictions about future wages, based on data, which will have a higher margin for error for times further in the future. It's still better than pretending total ignorance. No-one can precisely predict the effects of Hurricane Milton on every house in Florida, but having the predictions is much better for people than not having them.

Markets are reactive. Governments and research organizations can be proactive. Things like real estate bubbles will eventually be "corrected" by the market, but if people follow advice given by people who make careful predictions they can make themselves much less vulnerable to the catastrophic results of those "corrections".

You're assuming the information problem away. No one forecast the financial crisis, even though some people had lots of money at stake and many people has something at stake. If one does forecast, it's the forecast errors that get corrected in the way I outlined.

[Hibush]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

This is what I expect, but there are two exceptions in academe that don't seem to go away despite a powerful economic signal.

One is the postdoc glut in biomedicine. It was bad before the 2009 stimulus to NIH, but has been even worse since. Fifteen years ought to be enough to correct supply and demand  a job that is intended to last for one or two years.

The other is the woefully underpaid freeway-flyer adjunct. No money, no security, no respect. This situation has existed for at least 25 years.

I suspect that it has a lot to do with identity. The biomedical researcher in the former and the profeessor in the latter. The jobs allow that identity to be maintained, if barely, whereas more remunarative alternatives do not.

Any other ideas on why these two market-force anomalies have not resolved.

[dismalist]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

This is what I expect, but there are two exceptions in academe that don't seem to go away despite a powerful economic signal.

One is the postdoc glut in biomedicine. It was bad before the 2009 stimulus to NIH, but has been even worse since. Fifteen years ought to be enough to correct supply and demand  a job that is intended to last for one or two years.

The other is the woefully underpaid freeway-flyer adjunct. No money, no security, no respect. This situation has existed for at least 25 years.

I suspect that it has a lot to do with identity. The biomedical researcher in the former and the profeessor in the latter. The jobs allow that identity to be maintained, if barely, whereas more remunarative alternatives do not.

Any other ideas on why these two market-force anomalies have not resolved.

There is nothing to resolve. These are not anomalies.

The biomedics and the English lit teachers know what they are getting into, especially after all these years.

An unexpected shock to demand or supply will create an unexpected shock to wages. Nothing in these examples is unexpected anymore.

If one stays in biotech or English lit on account of one's identity or religion or taste or whatever, regardless of wages, that's OK.

I suspect that 300,000 years of biological evolution has implanted in us the idea of the just price, essentially a protection against cheating in a system of team production, the male half of the band of 40 going to hunt big game and sharing, even with the women and children.

While the just price was defended by Aquinas, and critically by the School of Salamanco [1500's], and now Kamala Harris, I would rather heed Charlie Marx: The bourgeoisie [capitalism] has saved us from the idiocy of village life.

There is clearly something very appealing here, but we don't live like that anymore. Otherwise, we wouldn't be rich.

[ciao_yall]

We had a preso on AI at our college. And guess what - the primary "skills" for people remain - literary, numeracy, problem-solving...

Yes someone with AI skills will probably get a job quickly today, but they will have to keep learning new skills as the technology changes.

The person with a PHD in biomedicine or English has plenty of options besides being a freeway flyer. "And what, leave show business?"

[Hibush]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

This is what I expect, but there are two exceptions in academe that don't seem to go away despite a powerful economic signal.

One is the postdoc glut in biomedicine. It was bad before the 2009 stimulus to NIH, but has been even worse since. Fifteen years ought to be enough to correct supply and demand  a job that is intended to last for one or two years.

The other is the woefully underpaid freeway-flyer adjunct. No money, no security, no respect. This situation has existed for at least 25 years.

I suspect that it has a lot to do with identity. The biomedical researcher in the former and the profeessor in the latter. The jobs allow that identity to be maintained, if barely, whereas more remunarative alternatives do not.

Any other ideas on why these two market-force anomalies have not resolved.

There is nothing to resolve. These are not anomalies.

The biomedics and the English lit teachers know what they are getting into, especially after all these years.

An unexpected shock to demand or supply will create an unexpected shock to wages. Nothing in these examples is unexpected anymore.

If one stays in biotech or English lit on account of one's identity or religion or taste or whatever, regardless of wages, that's OK.

My sense is that a lot people in these two employment situations do not know what they are getting into, and they are very dissatisfied with their compensation. They don't think it is OK. Some employers are exploiting that disconnect, which makes it worse.

[bio-nonymous]

Gluts and shortages are self-correcting. In the first case wages fall, causing entry to fall; in the second they rise, causing entry to rise. Nothing to see here.

This is what I expect, but there are two exceptions in academe that don't seem to go away despite a powerful economic signal.

One is the postdoc glut in biomedicine. It was bad before the 2009 stimulus to NIH, but has been even worse since. Fifteen years ought to be enough to correct supply and demand  a job that is intended to last for one or two years.

The other is the woefully underpaid freeway-flyer adjunct. No money, no security, no respect. This situation has existed for at least 25 years.

I suspect that it has a lot to do with identity. The biomedical researcher in the former and the profeessor in the latter. The jobs allow that identity to be maintained, if barely, whereas more remunarative alternatives do not.

Any other ideas on why these two market-force anomalies have not resolved.

There is nothing to resolve. These are not anomalies.

The biomedics and the English lit teachers know what they are getting into, especially after all these years.

An unexpected shock to demand or supply will create an unexpected shock to wages. Nothing in these examples is unexpected anymore.

If one stays in biotech or English lit on account of one's identity or religion or taste or whatever, regardless of wages, that's OK.

My sense is that a lot people in these two employment situations do not know what they are getting into, and they are very dissatisfied with their compensation. They don't think it is OK. Some employers are exploiting that disconnect, which makes it worse.

I think one problem in academic biomed is that everyone thinks they are the 1 out of 7 that will get a faculty job after their postdoc. It is the other people who will fail. There IS a swing somewhat where the number of recent quality PhDs seeking postdocs is sinking as they enter industry positions instead-as well as postdocs leaving academia for corporate jobs. However, the Ponzi scheme will continue as long as there are people willing to enter at the bottom rung. At less than stellar programs this may mean competing in a race towards the bottom for quality students (who will then struggle to find a job in the field).

[fizzycist]

I do agree with bio-anon and others that the US biomed postdoc glut is just a consequence of the labor market, not too different from minor league baseball, etc.

But there are some peculiarities about the US system that make it particularly hard to change:
-the almost unlimited supply of postdoc seekers from developing countries.
-the large, short-term project based grants that comprise a huge chunk of the (gigantic) NIH budget and create demand for temp workers.

It's hard to see it changing unless one of those things change. Unis can (and do) change the title of postdoc to something else, e.g. R.A.P., but it is still a temp soft money position.