The Downside of Having More Engineers

[RobertG]

It seems that a large goal of FIRST is to increase the supply of engineers; however, few people seem to realize the basic economic principle that an increase in the supply of labor without an increase in the demand for labor will lead to lower wages. While a few more engineers will be employed, they will be making less money. Young mentors are, in effect, training their future competition.

How then, do we increase demand? Firstly, I believe, that as in healthcare, a greater supply of engineers will increase the demand for engineers since the new technologies they create lead to more employment. This may slightly mitigate the wage decrease. Secondly, many participants of FIRST do not go on to STEM fields, but they will probably have a more positive view of these fields and will likely hire more engineers in their future jobs.

In any case, a greater supply or demand of engineers will benefit this country. Has anyone else thought about this? While most people do not pick their profession based on the money, this still seems like an important topic we should discuss, and is an unintended negative consequence of robotics programs.

Please note that my knowledge of economics only covers the first few months of my high school economics class, so please comment if you have an economics background.

[delsaner]

The subject of the high supply FIRST creates has crossed my mind once before. I am aware that a primary goal of FIRST is to introduce kids/teenagers into engineering, but I sure that at some point the supply will be too high for the demand. I am just a junior in high school, so I am not sure how high the demand is for engineers. With the increasing amount of engineers, significant studies will come quicker than expected, which will really benefit society; that is a plus to having a lot of engineers. Also, think about how big engineering is compared to other studies. Engineering is not a very popular among high-school, so it will be a LONG time before the supply reaches the rate of demand.

That is just my view on the subject.

[Alexis Howell]

Well, the issues is more likely having innovative and self sufficient engineers. The problem seems to be not so much having a demand (so many jobs are outsourced to places like india anyways where people who are college educated and perfectly competent work for as little as 30 thousand a year) because, especially as interest in renewable energy and the like grows, there will always be a need for engineers. Good engineers.

[JesseK]

The principle issue that Dean Kamen points out is that we're training the future engineers that will be in competition with foreign competitors more than with domestic engineers. The U.S.'s society already is has a rift between science and "jobs that do not create wealth (such as sports, pop culture, and finance)**, which is causing us to lose jobs (both technical and nontechnical) on the international stage. He also suggests that there will almost never be a shortfall for demand for engineering because there will always be world problems to solve.

Another way to look at the problem is that right now, today, a future engineer's job is in danger of being outsourced due to increasing engineering availability in other countries. Whether we like it or not, we're already in competition. We're simply gaining more support to keep the jobs from being given to international competitors.

I for one am not worried about training my competitors through FIRST, not one bit.

**It's up for argument whether or not these jobs do or do not create wealth, and to what extent. No matter how much we argue against it, society NEEDS entertainment and a way to finance future endeavors. Such may be seen as creating wealth indirectly. That there is MORE interest in those types of INDIRECT endeavors instead of more interest in jobs that create wealth is the issue that Dean has. He believes (as do I, and many others) that our current direction will lead to deterioration of the U.S. economy since foreign nations are focusing on competing with us in those areas (science, engineering, tech, math, etc) and can simply go to less expensive countries for financing, create their own entertainment, and they can live without major national sports.

[indieFan]

At this point, the US is only turning out something like 10,000 engineers a year from college. That is a very small percent of what the demand is given that the baby boomers are all retiring within the next 5 years, if they haven't already done so.

A good comparison is the teaching situation in Los Angeles. It has been projected that the LAUSD will have a need for 20,000 teachers in the next 5 years due to retirements and people quitting.

indieFan

[gwilliam]

The rest of the world is supplying many of the engineers who do work for US companies, either through outsourcing (work done for American companies in other countries, both manufacturing and engineering), H1B visas (issued to foreign-educated engineers with "special skills" supposedly unavailable in the US, usually because the offered salary is far below US market salaries) and all the students who come to American graduate schools from other countries. American-born students often aren't interested in science or engineering, or aren't interested in working hard to succeed in the classes. So half of the places in the graduate school classes go to ambitious, intelligent, hardworking students who just happen to have been born and gone to college in another country.

The demand is there -- it is being filled by engineers from all over the world. America is still the land of opportunity -- our students need to answer the knock.

[IKE]

I think that as the globabl economy gets more defined, you will see a back-shift of the outsourcing. Outsourcing is done as a cost cutting measure, that comes with the head-ache of being slightly disconnected (both time and physical space). Countries wher pay is low benefit from this and thus absorb higher paying positions. Over time their economies grow, and it is no longer as cheap to use them and thus outsourcing moves on to a different country. (This is a really neat mechanism where the outsourced employee you train finds a higher paying job, thus to keep them you must increase pay...) This cycle will continue until eventually it makes the most sense to have persons in-house.

[dtengineering]

Just because you study engineering at university doesn't mean that you need to work as a P.Eng.

Engineering is a fabulous background for many careers.

Jason

[Jon Jack]

My dentist also has a civil engineering degree, with a PE.

On a different note,

Outsourcing definitely has a cost associated with it. The company I work for has started moving a lot of our overseas manufacturing back to the United States. Typically you'd think we'd be spending more, but in reality we're actually saving money. Here's an article about it.

In short, there is a hidden cost in doing business overseas. While the cost on paper might be less, you have to think about the number of defective parts you're receiving from the manufacturer and how that effects your ability to move products out the door.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by RobertG

however, few people seem to realize the basic economic principle that an increase in the supply of labor without an increase in the demand for labor will lead to lower wages. While a few more engineers will be employed, they will be making less money.

Well, I have an engineering background; I'm not an economist but I understand the concepts.

On the surface, your argument is absolutely correct - supply and demand do interact in the workforce, just as in trade in goods and services. This is a basic economic principle.

However, the supply of engineers in the USA is far less than the demand, even if we limit engineers to engineering jobs. So there goes that argument. In fact, the IEEE is hosting a summit later this year in Munich to discuss this issue precisely (how do we educate more engineers?). Reports from New Zealand, USA, and the United Kingdom all show a significant demand above supply, while the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates the growth rate for engineering jobs is about average, but the prospects for employment are good.

So, while I agree with your premise, additional research shows that our best economic forecasters believe that demand will increase faster than supply.


OK, moving in a different direction: The general elements of an engineering education - advanced math, the scientific method, data analysis and error, project management, etc - turn out to be quite valuable in their own right. My opinion is that more than 50% of all engineers are not doing engineering in the strict sense, but are using their skills to benefit other segments of the business world. For example, I'm an electrical engineer, yet today I develop training courses as an instructional designer. My EE background helps me considerably in this task, since I need to understand the systems I'm trying to explain to mostly non-technical people. Oh, and I am extremely happy and satisfied with my work - it took me 20 years to discover what I love to do, and another 5 to get a job doing it.


So, if you're thinking of an engineering degree, get one and you'll likely never go hungry.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by gwilliam

The rest of the world is supplying many of the engineers who do work for US companies, either through outsourcing (work done for American companies in other countries, both manufacturing and engineering), H1B visas (issued to foreign-educated engineers with "special skills" supposedly unavailable in the US, usually because the offered salary is far below US market salaries) and all the students who come to American graduate schools from other countries. American-born students often aren't interested in science or engineering, or aren't interested in working hard to succeed in the classes. So half of the places in the graduate school classes go to ambitious, intelligent, hardworking students who just happen to have been born and gone to college in another country.

The demand is there -- it is being filled by engineers from all over the world. America is still the land of opportunity -- our students need to answer the knock.

(Emphasis Added)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why FIRST exists. For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, the goal is to inspire those students to be interested in STEM and to be willing to work hard.

I would also like to say, as a student of FIRST who will NOT be becoming an engineer (No, Computer Science is NOT an engineering degree according to my college) FIRST doesn't just inspire engineers, it inspires Teachers, Programmers, Physicists, Animators, Communication Majors...

[gblake]

Originally Posted by RobertG

It seems that a large goal of FIRST is to increase the supply of engineers; however, few people seem to realize the basic economic principle that an increase in the supply of labor without an increase in the demand for labor will lead to lower wages. While a few more engineers will be employed, they will be making less money. Young mentors are, in effect, training their future competition.
...

The decline in the supply of STEM graduates from US universities is, in a word, shocking.

We aren't in a situation where we are increasing supply, instead we very urgently need to reverse the decline in supply.

Combine that with the 6-8 year delay between inspiring a high school student and being able to hire him (Then spend another 3-5 years in on-the-job-training) and a very scary dip in domestically created STEM talent looms right at the time the boomers are passing the torch.

Don't panic and don't try to slow down the rest of the world). Instead pick up the pace and keep your eyes on the prize. In this marathon we all need to pull our own weight and bring a friend along too.

Blake
PS: I like that you chose to emphasize increasing demand - Keep it up.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

In short, there is a hidden cost in doing business overseas. While the cost on paper might be less, you have to think about the number of defective parts you're receiving from the manufacturer and how that effects your ability to move products out the door.

*cough* Boeing 787 *cough*

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by RobertG

How then, do we increase demand?

In any case, a greater supply or demand of engineers will benefit this country. Has anyone else thought about this? While most people do not pick their profession based on the money, this still seems like an important topic we should discuss, and is an unintended negative consequence of robotics programs.

Please note that my knowledge of economics only covers the first few months of my high school economics class, so please comment if you have an economics background.

First, have you researched your assertion that we need to increase demand for engineers in this country? I know that in my sector, electric utilities, there has been a shortage of mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers for every year one of the last 20 years. I have been following the trends in our industry specific journals. Last year the shortage was approximately 200,000 mechanical engineers, 200,000 electrical engineers, and 160,000 civil engineers, and those numbers have only been growing in the last two decades. At least once every year, there is an article pondering how we will ever fill the ever increasing needs of our industry.

I don't see this trend reversing any time soon. Don't worry, even if every student who participated in FIRST became an engineer, it would not fill the needs of this country, let alone the needs of the world. Unless, there is an unprecedented change in this country's culture towards engineering careers, I don't see programs like FIRST saturating the engineering market within the next 50 to 100 years.

Second, you are correct in asserting that one shouldn't choose a profession based solely on money, but for the last decade engineering fields have always been in the top 10 paying fields for college grads and the work force in general. So if making a decent living is one of your goals, then engineering is a pretty good choice for the foreseeable future. Engineering, like any other career, is not for everyone, you have to enjoy what you're doing. If you don't like what you're doing, you won't be motivated to succeed.

Yes, supply and demand can apply to wages, but talent, motivation, and skill have more to do with wages. Just as there are major league and minor league athletes, there are the same divides within engineering and any other field for that matter. People who have the talent and skills combined with motivation to succeed will always earn top wages regardless of how saturated their field is. The less motivated or less skilled will be the ones to feel any wage decreases. Another, less acknowledged, goal of FIRST is to prove that hard work is rewarding, and those that work hard are rewarded.

Also, to earn the best wages, you need to be flexible and never stop learning. As technology advances, some career paths, or industries, are always bound to become obsolete or secondary. By continuing to expand your knowledge base, you position yourself to always be in demand within the job market. That's one of the reasons why I mentor a FIRST team. I get to work with technologies that I wouldn't normally see within my normal field of employment. That may pay off well for me, I have spent most of my professional career in the power distribution field. Now an up and coming (buzz word) technology for utilities is "Smart Grid" technology. Many of the communication protocols and technologies being investigated for use in Smart Grid applications are very similar to things that I've had the chance to play with in FIRST. I now have a foot up on some of my colleagues. That equates to job security and possibly increased earning power.

This country did not become an economic superpower by taking the easy route or by being unmotivated. We will not continue to be a world leader if we don't stay motivated and innovative. That's the real lesson FIRST is trying to teach.

[RobertG]

Originally Posted by skimoose

First, have you researched your assertion that we need to increase demand for engineers in this country?

This appears to be a slight mis-characterization. I asserted that if the supply of engineers increases an increase in demand for engineers will then be necessary to keep wages comparable to their present values. My statement that

Originally Posted by RobertG

In any case, a greater... demand [for] engineers will benefit this country.

was based on the assumption that an increased demand for engineers would increase the amount of engineering in this country. This assumption may be incorrect if non-basic economics apply to the current state of engineering in the United States.