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.

Advertisements