No announcement yet.

Article: Step Right Up and See the Fancy (and Flawed) EPI Data by Robert Hoffman


  • Article: Step Right Up and See the Fancy (and Flawed) EPI Data by Robert Hoffman

    Step Right Up and See the Fancy (and Flawed) EPI Data

    by Robert Hoffman

    My college statistics professor was the source of a truly memorable warning:  “There are PT Barnums in data analysis who can easily influence people who’ve either never taken a statistics course or slept through one.”  That’s good advice for policymakers because in major policy debates statistical wars usually occur, and some PT Barnums do surface.

    The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is vying for the PT Barnum title.  A recent EPI report reached a dramatic conclusion:  The shortage of U.S. science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) workers is a myth.   This seriously flawed “STEM supply is greater than demand” conclusion just does not jive with the most important real world data out there:  thousands of unfilled STEM job openings.  

    Here’s a snapshot of STEM demand today:

    • Microsoft’s General Counsel, Brad Smith, recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Microsoft currently has more than 6,300 U.S. job openings, and more than half are in “core research, engineering and development.” 
    • Mr. Smith also noted in his testimony that a group of 25 employers, ranging from AT&T to Accenture, together have more than 20,000 job openings in New York City alone.  
    • Last month, Business Insider reported that the ten leading U.S. tech firms together had more than 26,000 U.S. job openings.  
    •, a website that aggregates publicly posted listings of IT positions, today reports there are more than 83,000 tech job openings in the U.S.

    These job openings track with a December 2012 analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data we at ITI conducted with the Partnership for a New American Economy and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Our analysis found that numerous sectors of the U.S. economy that depend on Master’s and Ph.D. graduates are experiencing underemployment -- i.e., a skilled workforce shortage.  

    A national survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management reached similar conclusions:  The survey found that two-thirds (66 percent) of organizations currently hiring full time staff are having difficulty recruiting for specific jobs -- up from 52 percent in 2011 -- and scientists, engineers, and highly skilled technicians were cited as the top three most difficult positions to fill.

    Absent changes in policy, BLS data also suggest that the mismatch of U.S. STEM demand in excess of supply will get worse.  The BLS estimated that approximately 122,000 new job openings will be created each year in computing occupations requiring at least a Bachelor’s Degree through the end of the decade.  However, U.S. universities currently produce annually roughly 51,000 Bachelor’s degrees in computer science.   And in one emerging field – Big Data – a recent McKinsey Report predicts we could see a possible shortfall of up to 190,000 experts with deep analytical skills and an astounding 1.5 million “data-savvy” managers and analysts during the next five years.

    So, the EPI report is challenging some pretty tough real world data.  This would suggest, for EPI at least, that U.S. employers are engaged in a massive conspiracy to advertise for U.S. STEM jobs that do not exist.  The conspiracy also would have to include job forecasters from firms like McKinsey, who are suggesting that STEM demand over supply is bound to get worse.  Perhaps more shocking, the conspiracy would also have to involve federal government analysts at the BLS who have produced data that contradict EPI’s fundamental conclusion.  That’s quite a conspiracy.  I wonder if EPI thinks we faked the moon landing.

    An initial review of the EPI report itself is just as disturbing.  To support its conclusion, EPI first points to a 2009 survey of STEM college majors one year after their graduation, and the data reveal that of those surveyed, just over half are hired in a STEM job. 

    Time out.

    The EPI is saying that STEM supply exceeds demand for the entire U.S. economy based on surveys of newly minted STEM college graduates in entry-level jobs in 2009 -- when the U.S. economy was mired in the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. 

    [Read that last sentence again, but more slowly.]

    Really?  Can we actually conclude that the perspectives of first-year college graduates during a massive economic recession is a good read on the present and future of the overall U.S. STEM economy?  Clearly not.   For those who think otherwise, give me a call.  I have some monuments here in D.C. for sale you might be interested in.

    Interestingly, two of the EPI study’s authors made a similarly flawed conclusion in a 2007 report for the Urban Institute.  Stuart Anderson, who runs the National Foundation of the American Policy, noted significant flaws in their 2007 analysis, citing data from the National Science Foundation (NSF).  I’ll let Stuart do the talking: 


    “To reach its conclusion that America is producing too much talent, the Urban Institute sought to match science-related jobs with U.S. degree production by using a definition of science and engineering (S&E) jobs that excluded 8 million employed U.S. professionals who use their math and science degrees in the place of work.”


    Mr. Anderson, one of the more careful policy analysts in Washington, cautioned that “attempts to identify the precise number of workers needed in a given field [are]… impossible, given the vagaries of consumer demand, competition, future economic conditions and the potential impact of innovations in the marketplace.”

    Apparently, Mr. Anderson’s advice did not stop the 2007 report’s authors from reviving this faulty thinking in 2013, and frankly, I am actually impressed they got the funding.  

    The EPI report doesn’t provide a clear definition of a STEM job.  Certainly, a position at traditional information technology (IT) or computer firms, such as Oracle or HP, is easy to understand.  However, as NSF data make clear, millions of non-traditional STEM jobs require STEM skills, a fact that makes the competition for STEM talent even stronger. 

    The EPI report also suggests that if STEM demand exceeded supply generally, we should see a general increase in wages.  However, the report uses or analyzes data across the entire range of computer and IT industries, which masks salary increases in specialized, highly skilled professions. 

    Where there are short supplies of talent, we have seen increases in compensation. For example, since 1999, wages for computer research scientists have increased 54 percent, and for software engineers, the increase has been 52 percent over the same period -- well ahead of inflation.  And for high demand fields like mobile application developers, and wireless network engineers, salaries are expected to increase by nearly 10 percent in the near term.

    The EPI report also suggests that temporary visas have created downward pressure on wages for U.S. workers. This finding contradicts a wide range of studies, including 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) data that made apples to apples comparisons of skilled talent and found that H-1B professionals earn comparable and, in some cases, higher wages than U.S. professionals of similar age and experience.  For example, the GAO found that the median salary of H-1B electrical engineers, ages 20-39, was $80,000, but for U.S. workers, the median salary was $75,000. 

    I could go on, and I expect others will come forward with more perspectives on the EPI report, but the lesson is clear:  There are a few PT Barnums out there who will tell policymakers to look at their fancy data and ignore what’s going on in the real world.  That’s why it’s important to look carefully at analyses on all sides of an argument, and the sources themselves.

    About The Author

    Robert Hoffman is Senior Vice President for Government Relations at the Information Technology Industry Council. Robert previously served as a policy advisor and director, with a focus on immigration policy, for four U.S. Senators and the Governor of California. During that time, Robert helped to develop and pass immigration laws in 1994, 1997, 1998, and 2000. From 2007-09, while serving as Vice President of Government Affairs & Public Policy for Oracle Corporation, Robert was the co-chair and spokesperson for Compete America, a skilled immigration reform coalition of knowledge-based businesses and U.S. higher education institutions.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM