A coming engineering shortage ? ---- Who agrees ? 86

[MJCronin]

A recent article says that there will be an acute shortage ... particularly in the electrical field !!!

http://www.csemag.com/single-articl...hortage/7b350ef419c231a9f82abc6c8bd8fac4.html

Who agrees ???

Who strongly disagrees ???

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[moltenmetal]

Raising the bar for engineering licensure to a Masters degree would not only be a meaningless way to prune the supply- it would just extend the "credential inflation" problem even further. The BA is the new high school as far as employers are concerned, and that's a huge problem in and of itself. The trouble with credential inflation is that higher education in most countries isn't 100% subsidized. There's only so much education a person can afford, unless their parents are rich. So all you'd be doing is making it even harder for people to move up the economic ladder than it is right now. You'll be sorting people all right, but not necessarily by ability, skill, aptitude or intelligence.

The top 10% of engineers can still thrive. But the notion of a BASc being a meal ticket are long, long gone.

The lack of growth in salaries has occurred over decades, and is relative to other professions subject to the same global economic pressures, the same recessions etc. The slide hasn't happened because of recessions- it has happened because we allowed the supply to swamp the demand. And if we keep up this attitude of limitless opportunity in engineering, I'm confident that we can make matters even worse. Every Dean of Engineering in Canada seems to be positively brimming with that positive attitude.

 

[cranky108]

Most of the retired power engineers that I know, are consultants, and not teaching. I think the consultant route pays more than teaching.

So are you saying that boring industries will in the future go wanting for engineers, while exciting industries will be swimming in engineers?

Sounds like some industries will be seeing wage freezes.

 

[moltenmetal]

Depends what turns your crank, cranky! Some stuff I find dull as watching paint dry is fascinating to others, and vice versa.

 

[KENAT]

Well Cranky, that's where the whole supply and demand thing should cut in.

The premium for power engineers will be so high that it should eventually lead to increase in supply. The premium for courses in power engineering and people to teach it should likewise grow...

Now it's not the smoothest of systems and hits a lot of bumps and snags along the way but in theory should get us there barring gross negligence/self serving etc. at management and government levels and the like.

So we're probably attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[IRstuff]

"So are you saying that boring industries will in the future go wanting for engineers, while exciting industries will be swimming in engineers?"

That's mostly true, even outside of engineering. Why is psychology one of the most popular majors in college when the typical graduate winds up in a $35k/yr job as a social worker? Was that really worth borrowing a quarter million that can't be paid off with that kind of salary?

Physics 1 used to be a "weeder" class in my school, because the school knew that the plethora of wannabe physicists wouldn't be able to get jobs at the end of the 4 yrs. Of course, the class was so brutal that my roommate declared for Eng. Lit. at the end of that, and that was in a serious engineering school. But, even at the worst, he only paid a total of about $20k tuition in then-year dollars. Even the worst student could expect a loan to salary ratio of 1:1, while currently, it would be more like 2:1 to 4:1, unless you go to a state school.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[HamburgerHelper]

Kenat,

The industry will make due. Over standardization and knowing how to use software has been given more weight than understanding. It will just be more bloated and dumber. Utilities are regulated ,too, so the wages are never tied to demand. Unionized master techs are better off than nonunion engineers.

 

[Harleen123]

The place I work now seeks for Engineers a lot.Not just Engineers,skilled ones.The demand for Engineers increase in modern world.But do not mix it up with traditional Engineers,now areas like medical engineering,QA Engineering,Testing engineering have evolved and replaced the traditional civil engineers(not that they do not have opportunities)but engineering has modified itself according to the modern era and not still dead and will not be in future.

Medical Engineering
(

http://www.dimolanka.com/sectors/sector-overview?sectid=2)

 

[aap2]

I disagree. I read an article, granted it is several years old, where it said STEM graduates number in the 800,000. US colleges produce twice the number of STEM graduates as there are jobs in the field.

Link

 

[Harleen123]

plazma,I read your article and found it has some interesting findings.However I agree that mining and petroleum engineers have attracted the field a lot.Mainly in Calgary,Canada and Perth,Australia where the resources are found in huge amounts.

Medical Engineering
(

http://www.dimolanka.com/sectors/sector-overview?sectid=2)

 

[Artisi]

Can't see any problem, people can just log into Eng-Tips and get answers just as is done now

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)

 

[moltenmetal]

Any engineer should be able to look at that graph and understand in an instant what is really going on.

 

[spraytechnology]

It boils down to a drop in engineering demand as the western world shifted to a services type economy while developing economies boost a strong and ever increasing demand for engineering. The faculties, politicians and still many have not adapted to this change but still chasing the higher wage in the west.

 

[moltenmetal]

Politicians know that the jobs for people with a high school education are going the way of the dodo. Their response is to get everyone to go to university...they don't realize that the economic ground under them has completely shifted and isn't going to shift back merely by giving everyone a degree. That engineers provide essential benefits to society and the economy is not in doubt- but it is a non-sequitur to assume that adding 2-3x the number of engineering grads to the market than the economy could possibly use as engineers will have any net economic benefit, much less an economic benefit worth the investment required in providing this specialist education to people who don't actually need it.

 

[IRstuff]

"but it is a non-sequitur to assume that adding 2-3x the number of engineering grads to the market than the economy could possibly use as engineers will have any net economic benefit"

Sure, it will. That is the basis of supply-side economics, the "if you build it, people will buy it" theory that's been PROVEN time and again to not work, but because it's derived from political dogma, they continue to spout it ad nauseum. A very casual analysis of wage growth vs. wealth of the top 1% vs. corporate profits shows very clearly who really benefits from supply side economics and it certainly ain't us. Minimum wage in the US in adjusted dollars was growing up until supply-side economics was pushed into the mainstream of American politics, and lo and behold, it has DECREASED 40% since its peak in the 1970s. And yet, the top 1% has seen an order of magnitude increase in wealth over the same time frame. Is that a simple coincidence?


If you ever wanted to see a real-life global-scale conspiracy, this might be it.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JNieman]

I don't necessarily disagree with @moltenmetal's assessment of Canadian engineering - I think similar happens in the USA. However, if I were to argue it (playing devil's advocate) I would look at the entirety of college graduates and their proportion of relevant employment after graduation.

I think it goes without argument that the overall rates of college graduates is rising overall in my own country (USA) as we continue to pressure everyone to "get a degree, any degree, just get a degree because everyone should" which results in a lot of irrelevant education with their future employment.

 

[WARose]

Sure, it will. That is the basis of supply-side economics, the "if you build it, people will buy it" theory that's been PROVEN time and again to not work, but because it's derived from political dogma, they continue to spout it ad nauseum. A very casual analysis of wage growth vs. wealth of the top 1% vs. corporate profits shows very clearly who really benefits from supply side economics and it certainly ain't us. Minimum wage in the US in adjusted dollars was growing up until supply-side economics was pushed into the mainstream of American politics, and lo and behold, it has DECREASED 40% since its peak in the 1970s. And yet, the top 1% has seen an order of magnitude increase in wealth over the same time frame. Is that a simple coincidence?

At the risk of taking the thread off course......with respect, that is tying a lot of things together that are not necessarily related. Wage growth doesn't really have much to do with tax policy. That is just redistribution after the fact. You can tax the highest wage earners all you want.....and unless the revenues are redistributed later.....it's meaningless. Wages are a direct result of supply and demand, production being increasingly automated, etc, etc.

As far as supply-side goes......whatever its flaws, it was intended as a response to the collapse of the Keynesian school models that went up in flames in the 1970's. (With the coexistence of high inflation and high employment which supposedly was impossible in the Keynesian school.) It also coincided with the entrepreneur revolution of the 80's. (I.e. a need for incentive as productivity declined in the 70's.) It certainly isn't the cure-all the a lot of right-wingers make it out to be (principally because they mismanage the budget aspect of it: i.e. not accounting for a initial slide in revenues). But you'd be hard pressed to find many economists who want the old tax code back. (Even Jonathan Chait admitted this in his book slamming supply-side.)

 

[IRstuff]

I wasn't specifically referring to the tax code, per se. I was merely pointing out that wage stagnation for the lower and middle classes seemingly coincides with huge increases in wealth in the upper classes. Nevertheless, tax code changes have seemingly helped the upper classes way more than they ever helped the lower classes.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[cranky108]

And maybe the need for everyone to get a degree is because of the decline in public school education. The universities are taking over the job of the public schools.

Another aspect might be that not all the engineering universities are the same, and some of the degrees are given to people who may not be qualified, or go into management, or both.

And yet some in political office still follow the Keynesian theory.

Yet some of the richest people never finished college.

 

[WARose]

I wasn't specifically referring to the tax code, per se. I was merely pointing out that wage stagnation for the lower and middle classes seemingly coincides with huge increases in wealth in the upper classes. Nevertheless, tax code changes have seemingly helped the upper classes way more than they ever helped the lower classes.

I don't know that the two are connected. The idea that is being hinted at here is that if taxes were higher that would mean more for other classes. (I.e. that somehow employers would give their employees more (presumably to avoid taxation).) And that just isn't the case.

That is, unless the money was redistributed after the fact. On that note, in the era of super high marginal rates (70-90% +) that isn't what happened with revenues anyway (i.e. income redistribution in the form of benefits such as heath care). Defense spending (to name one) was much higher.

 

[IRstuff]

"And maybe the need for everyone to get a degree is because of the decline in public school education. The universities are taking over the job of the public schools."

I don't think there's been any evidence given for that claim. Certainly, for most serious, college-bound students, that's definitely NOT the case. When I went to college, back in the dim past, 3 AP classes was above the norm. My high school senior is currently gearing up for his 10th through 14th AP exams. If his competitors were really that poor, there would be no need to stack that many AP classes and exams to be competitive. And even with 9 AP exams with 4s and 5s under his belt, he's barely competitive with his peers.


TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm