SPN Homepage

SPN Newsletter #12     Debunking workforce shortage predictions: A promising new "alternative career"    09/01/03

Several past SPN newsletters have countered publications predicting looming shortages of scientists and engineers on the basis of their use of obsolete or faulty statistics and the omission of current workforce trends such as immigration and foreign outsourcing [ see also Ref. 1 a-e ]. If only debunking the numerous science and engineering (S&E) workforce shortage predictions paid well, it could become a promising new "alternative career" path for some young scientists. In fact, it was young scientists who helped debunk one of the most famous S&E shortfall predictions that originated with the NSF back in the mid-1980s from then-director Erich Block and his top policy advisor Peter House. In response to the lobbying efforts of young scientists and engineers experiencing a saturated S&E job market, Representative Howard Wolpe (D-MI) in 1992 led a Congressional committee that investigated former NSF Director Bloch and House's shortfall prediction of 675,000 scientists and engineers (S&Es). Rep. Wolpe suggested 'that this alarmist message was one-sided and possibly a deliberate exaggeration ' designed to motivate increases in NSF's budget. [ See also Ref. 2, Chapt. 9. ]

In keeping with tradition, a new report by the National Science Board's (NSB) Task Force on National Workforce Policies for S&E (NWP)  is like déjà vu all over again. The NSB report "documents an unfolding CRISIS for the U.S., based on our ability to attract and retain sufficient numbers of our citizens in the necessary skill areas to meet (S&E) workforce demands". Yet like the 1988 NSF report, and other such reports [see Ref. 1], the NSB virtually neglects discussion of demand and reality-based career prospects for such S&E professionals. The cornerstone of the NSB NWP report is the statement that "The future US S&E workforce is imperiled by this trend:  Global competition for S&E talent is intensifying, such that the US may not be able to rely on the international S&E labor market to fill unmet skill needs."  However, current high-tech workplace trends are in direct contradiction with this fundamental assumption. For example, an article titled, " U.S. tech workers training their replacements, " asserts that many U.S. S&E workers are imperiled by the continued immigration of international S&E workers and some are now asked to even train their foreign replacements before being laid-off. As a CNN article discusses, "Scott Kirwin clung to his job at a large investment bank through several rounds of layoffs last year...But it was tough for Kirwin, 36, to relish his final assignment: training a group of programmers from India who would replace him within a year."

The NSB released their report on May 20th and solicited comments from the public over a one month period. Many not-so-young sources who have tracked the S&E labor market for many years took the time to document the many neglected variables and flawed logic of the NSB report. The response from James V. Leonard , IEEE-USA President, states "we are disappointed that the (NSB) report ignores the most important resource of the S&E Workforce, current workers. Because of this omission, the report fails to address many important policy issues for the S&E workforce. These issues include: 1) the serious  unemployment risks that many engineers face during their careers; 2) the substantial numbers of mid-career and older engineers who are idle, because of unemployment, or who switch out of S&E careers because of age discrimination;...5) the impact of offshore outsourcing on future demand for S&E workers...6) the rampant misuse of non-immigrant visas, both H-1B and L-1." Similarly, Dr. Ralph Gomory,  President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation counters that "(A) There is no present crisis or shortage. In fact the job markets in most areas are soft in both academia and industry. And this is more than just a reflection of the current recession...(C) The NSB report does not provide a convincing basis for anticipating a future shortage. To the extent that it is possible to discern the basis at all, we should note the Bureau of Labor Statistics long range projections on which it relies came from the boom years, now past."

One of the more detailed responses to the NSB report comes from Dr. Michael Teitelbaum, a Sloan Program Director, who is widely considered as an expert in demography, immigration, as well as S&E workforce issues. Dr. Teitelbaum states that "the draft (of the NSB report) as presently written is flawed by several serious deficiencies that are likely to sharply limit its constructive effects. In particular...the NSB draft as presently written focuses mainly on (non-quantitative) discussions of factors that might affect the future supply of domestic and foreign S&E workers....It offers little or no credible evidence of what the demand for such personnel might be in the future. Nor does it address the way that changes in supply and demand might be expected to interact with one another over time." Dr. Teitelbaum has also written many articles on workforce issues including a recent article titled, " The U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: An Unconventional Portrait " with a section titled "No Shortages of Shortages." The article details a number of other shortfall predictions and concludes that "it would appear that "shortages" or "shortfalls", whether current or impending, have become the hardy perennials of public discourse on these issues. Suffice it to say that there is no credible quantitative evidence of such shortages." It seems that debunking the numerous shortfall claims would be a full-time job.

As discussed in [Ref. 2, Ch. 9], during the 1992 Congressional investigation of the NSF S&E shortfall claims, Wolpe confronted House with several critical internal NSF assessments of the shortfall reports. Wolpe read from one: "'There is so much wrong with this report that I simply can't give a brief wrap up.' Likewise, it is hard to even get past the title page of the NSB report without finding fundamental flaws. For example, on the title page it states that: "The National Science Board (NSB) was established by the Congress in 1950 to serve both as an INDEPENDENT national science policy body, and to oversee and guide the activities of the National Science Foundation." Yet it is not clear what special interests the NSB are "independent" of?  The vast majority of its members are past and former university presidents, deans, distinguished professors from leading research universities that all stand to gain from increased federal research funding. It comes as no surprise that the NSB report calls for increased federal funding to universities: "RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government must direct substantial new support to students and institutions in order to improve success in S&E study by American undergraduates from all demographic groups."

It also appears that despite the fact that the NSF is an agency that prides itself on the peer review process for its proposals, the NSB has basically made only minor modifications to the report draft based on the comments from the knowledgeable sources and experts, like those cited above, and is proceeding with publication of their NWP report, noted fundamental flaws and all.

Ref. 1: SPN Newsletters debunking the shortage myth :

a.  High-tech Layoffs: The Other Quiet Crisis      

b. Science: The End of Careers

c. Echoes of the Myth

d. You say "shortfall" and I say "layoffs". "shortfall"..."layoffs"

e. 1200 New York Avenue:  Peddlers of the Myth

Ref. 2: Ch. 8 & 9, " Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion " by Daniel S. Greenberg (see www.amazon.com ).