Free market to blame for unsatisfying salary of STEM careers

The salary, or to say income, of each type of career is decided by economic law. As a free market economic world, the income depends on a basic economic law called “supply-demand balance”. If we take careers as merchandise on the market, we can see that the popular “products” can earn more than those less popular. But the belief of free market economics theory is not helpful to ask people pay more attention to STEM careers at all. Because STEM employees can rarely be “popular products” for our society. And their value and income are both underestimated.

The government officials, experts and some popular media are calling us all to obey the natural rules of sociology and economics. But if we want to improve the society, we have to overcome these rules sometimes. The economic crisis from 2008 to 2009 is a good lesson showing what we can get if we are alway obeying the natural economic laws. Laziness is the natural characteristic of human, so most of young people at that time tended to study courses which are not STEM and then went to service industry. How about those who studies STEM? They were trying their best to get a job in service industry such as Wall Street or banks, insurance companies in other places, or go to Silicon Valley joining an internet company. Manufacturing industry fell far behind these new and profitable sections because being an engineer or scientist means low salary for young people. However, the society didn’t get alarmed by this abnormal phenomenon at that time. Experts and professors stubbornly insisted that the value of different careers should be defined by how popular it was; engineers and scientists earned so little just because those industries were not profitable in the market and should be abandoned; in the future, the industrialised countries would see their major industries are entertainment, media, finance and other service companies. Later the economic crisis came. Until then did people realise that we still needed STEM careers (have a look at the change in Iceland before and after crisis). Because we saw how strong Germany, Switzerland and Austria were during this crisis. These countries didn’t abandon manufacturing industry and engineers there could get satisfying payment and social respect. Meanwhile, how about STEM jobs in other countries? Their advertised salaries were far lower than a fundamental analyst in a small bank. Soon after, Obama carried out his policy to revive the manufacturing and more projects for NASA. But it didn’t work well and STEM degrees and careers are still not really attractive to graduates; because government politicians only put up a slogan but didn’t improve the treats to STEM employees. These politicians still stick to free market in terms of salaries of various careers. They insist that the payment for STEM careers should be determined by market.

To revive manufacturing industry and appeal for more STEM jobs, the government and big corporations should not let the society go with natural economic rules. Instead, they should use compulsory laws to increase the salary of STEM careers. Now I have to criticize about natural rules, not only natural economic or sociological rules. I agree with the saying that a decision should be made according to natural rules of the world, but natural rules can not push the society forward. Because the universal rule of everything in the universe tends to be negative. For example, we can easily demolish a building but can not expect those shattered pieces assemble themselves back to that building. If you don’t use a pump, you can not see water going upwards. Everything is going to the most stable status. Because an object can dissipate energy by itself but can not absorbing energy initially; physically speaking, the condition with lower entropy can only naturally go to a condition with higher entropy (organized system to less organized system). We can use the same model to explain human society. As I said above, laziness is human’s nature. STEM courses are harder than business courses (normally), so more and more people study business and there is lack of STEM students. You can not expect free market economics leads the society generate more young people loving STEM naturally because finding a job much harder to learn is totally contradict to our laziness nature. Thus, we have seen that the most frequently used methods to let most countries survive the crisis were in terms of currency or commercial policies, instead of investing in more manufacturing or technological projects in large scale. Because “natural economic rule” has driven smart people to business sections instead of STEM.

Same principle can also be applied to explain why the salary/income of STEM employees should not be judged by the popularity of their achievements. The nature of human is to enjoy the knowledge or art which are easy to understand, or to say, corny. In other worlds, people are more likely to enjoy the objects which require little intelligence or brain using. Here I have an example, which may not be really proper. Justin Bieber is much more popular than any scientists in NASA or ESA (European Space Agency), so based on the “supply-demand” principle, he earns far more than any employee in NASA and ESA because of far better popularity. Even though some scientists in these agencies have been well-known among the public because of their scientific communication, they are still far less popular than Justin Bieber. Because Justin Bieber’s songs are among popular culture, which can be easily accepted and understood by most of the people, especially teenagers and students in their 20s. In other ugly words, his achievement requires little brain using to understand. And turn our sight to those scientists. Even though some scientific publication TV series, such as COSMOS: A Personal Voyage by Carl Sagan, they still need your to think about the knowledge and facts talked about in the content. As for the professional works done by Carl Sagan, most of the ordinary people have no interest to know, and can not understand either. Consequently, they are less popular than Justin Bieber. Objectively speaking, Any scientist in NASA or ESA contributes much more than Justin Bieber to our modern society, especially in terms of new scientific exploration and relevant technologies (Perhaps Justin Bieber does use his voice to make us relaxed; but the improvement of the world is still based on the improvement of science and technology). But the former earn far less than latter. And the reason causing this result is natural economic rule and the nature of human. If we let the society, or specifically, the income distribution go with the economic rule which is based merely on “popularity”, we will see that young people don’t want to jump into the trap of STEM. No one wants to do a job which requires more effort but earn less, as I said in previous posts.

Therefore, to make STEM careers attractive again, there are only two ways of achieving this goal: first choice is we acknowledge the popularity of some achievements of some careers, but tax these popular products and people with a high rate so that to put this money onto those who are less popular but more important to the society; the other choice is to make those careers which are not popular now more popular in the future, which is the duty of all media, no matter state-owned or private.


The countries that control finance, energy and information are true governors of the world; because every other industry is based on these three technologies.

Random thoughts on Manchester attack

Our society is so weak in the past few years; we have never been so patient to those who are threatening public security. Most of people only know that they should show their sympathy to victims, but don’t have the voice to punish the terrorists! What is called “human rights” and “tolerance” are only applicable to those who deserve it, instead of every one in the world; our tolerance can not reclaim the group who have narrow ideas about our society. The only efficient way is brutal punishment and the regain of cruel death penalty to a certain group of people. And the trial and execution should be public so that it can bring the awe to those who will potentially threaten the country. Kindness is not the common character of people; but servility is!

Meanwhile, our technology for safety seems only aim at ordinary people but useless for true terrorists. A reasonable idea is to compromise personal privacy and share some data of the society to social information tech companies which should be in co-operation with government to detect the potential terrorists; and social network and other information tech companies should shut down their service in certain countries, or even innovate new technologies to disturb the communication signals in those places. Anyway, it is the time that we should withdraw our human rights, tolerance and privacy from those uncivilised people!

Terrorists don’t want us become omniscient authoritarian society; they want us change our culture and living style into theirs. Francisco Franco dictated Spain for 39 years, but prevented Spain from being red and made Spain an economic power again (27% annual increase of production for 14 years). Sometimes we need autocracy to protect freedom.

We should talk less about doctrine (whether he or she is nazist or communist) but think more about solution of problems. If there had been no Franco but a leader supported by Soviet Union, do you think Spain would have freedom? It would have become countries such as Poland, Romania etc. during 1950s to 1980s with restrictions of thinking from communists. And you can see even after 25 years of restoring, Eastern countries are still less developed than Spain, East Germany is still poorer than West Germany. Freedom is always relative not absolute. Absolute freedom tolerates evil ideas as well. Terrorists also have the freedom to ask for being tolerated by avoiding death penalty. If so, our safety is always under threat. I don’t think freedom without safety is the freedom we want.

We do need to be tolerant and warmhearted. But we also need to take strict management and punishment in terms of those who have the potential to mess up a developed and peaceful society. When talking about punishing the criminals and terrorists, human rights are not supposed to take into consideration. The more brutal, the better. Many “human rights fighter” think this method will make those who want to become terrorists more hostile to the major society; humans have equivalent rights to be alive. Indeed, it is not. Brutal punishment, if can be extremely bloody, is a good lesson telling the result of threatening public security. I do insist that western society should give up what is called “human rights” to those who are threatening out safety. The true human right tolerance is to protect major group and kind people, instead of everyone without filtering. And it is a foolish method to be over tolerant to terrorists and less-civilised refugees but extremely strict to the immigration who have high education diploma and technical ability.

Rue de Strasbourg, Luxembourg