How many computer programmers does society actually need?

[Foucaulf]

I am glad this thread was reopened, since I was confused why my post was interpreted as "not thinking outside the confines of neoliberalism," but let me state my case more simply:

1) As an economist I don't really care what SV/coastal talking heads say either. That's persuasion, not a market mechanism.

2) If you look at the actual market for higher education, you would see that people looking to be retrained from the bottom up don't listen to any of the persuasion. Here are two figures from the National Center for Education Statistics:

1: Bar graph of associates' degrees conferred by field of study.


2: Bar graph of graduate degrees conferred by field of study.


What this indicates, if anything, is that more people want to get a Masters in Education than all the aspiring engineers and programmers combined, despite the attack on teachers' unions and the average-below average hourly wage including overtime.

To be fair, here is also a graph of four-year undergraduate degrees conferred by field of study:



Computer-related majors are off this graph but are still at 59k or so in the most recent year, so I think MEd's still trump all the computer-related degrees.

I also repeat my claim in the previous post that everybody has learned through market signals that nursing is the highest-growing industry, and are training appropriately.

3) The point here is that the market for higher education adjusts far more quickly than the discourse surrounding higher education. If anything, the question of "making honest choices about what society must orient around" seems better left to the market than to academia or punditry, both of which are rigidly hierarchical.

4) That doesn't mean the current market for higher education is perfect by any means. What I'm saying is just that, of the problems facing higher education, whether the system is churning out enough programmers is not a major concern in my opinion. A much better question would be: "if we're making honest choices about which industries should grow in the U.S., should we be allowing all these new realtors?"

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

*snip*

Thanks for reiterating/clarifying, Foucaulf. This does actually answer my question as a question, although partly it was a rhetorical question anyway, inspired by frustration over your point 1.

Point taken about realtors!

I should clarify that I don't actually think academia or punditry as they currently exist would really be any better as socioeconomic trendsetters than market forces are and I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.

[Foucaulf]

Thanks for reiterating/clarifying, Foucaulf. This does actually answer my question as a question, although partly it was a rhetorical question anyway, inspired by frustration over your point 1.

I should clarify that I don't actually think academia or punditry as they currently exist would really be any better as socioeconomic trendsetters than market forces are and I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.

No problem, sorry for being facetious as well (I mean, my argument actually is a good example of not thinking beyond the confines of neoliberalism)

It's a curious fact that I'm quite more right-wing on higher education than the rest of my profile would indicate (contrast with all the European right-wingers who are defensive about their public education).

I think the reason why comes down my points 3 and 4 in the last post. To expand on that, programmer fetishism isn't a new feature of US education policy: I would trace the tradition of politicians throwing money to make technological education go the way they want to all the way back to Sputnik. Instead of trying to achieve education goals by lobbying and flattering these politicians' sensibilities, you should let philanthropy keep a few private schools alive or create a regulated private student loan market.

It is easy to counteract my point by bringing up the for-profits (or, in the case of programming, "boot camps") and their exploitative business model. But elaborating further is both going off-topic and out of my pay grade.

[Tintrlvr]

Update:

And to answer your new question...
1. Not everyone is being retrained to the IT industry
2. Neither "should" everyone be retrained to the IT industry

Well, obviously, but you wouldn't know that from the way some of these Silicon Valley tech-progressive types and their liberal centrist politician handmaidens talk about labor market issues, which was my motivation for starting the thread.

If you insist on continuing this discussion, which I don't agree was productive (I also don't agree that my initial question was in any way unclear but that an inability to think outside the confines of neoliberalism made it so), I'll just unlock the old thread.

Anyway, sorry for flouncing (and for still being such a pill about this now tbh).

I think you may be confusing somewhat advice given to individuals that is (ostensibly or intended to be) in those individuals' self-interest* as opposed to advice for how society as a whole should progress.

There is also *currently* an imbalance in the supply of programmers compared to the demand for them that, if addressed, would most likely work to the benefit of society as a whole by reducing the cost of websites and other products produced by programmers, though exactly where the optimum balance of utility lies is hard to say and probably is not a huge increase in the number of qualified programmers.

In addition, of course, many programmers are inclined to believe that the world needs more programmers and advocate for that, but I don't doubt that engineers feel the same way about engineers, doctors about doctors, lawyers about lawyers, and so on. Thus, Silicon Valley in particular pushing for the education of more programmers should not surprise anyone. Also, recall that, whether your everyday programmer is helped or hurt by the training of additional programmers, no doubt Google and Facebook are helped by the training of more programmers because the labor market balance then shifts in their direction as employers. They would like an oversupply of programmers as opposed to the current undersupply.

*And studying programming is in most likely in their self-interest for a large number of people as one frankly doesn't have to be particularly smart or good at it to make a good living, certainly less so than in many other careers given the ongoing undersupply of individuals with programming skills. There are other fields where this is true also (such as nursing), but programming requires no real formal education or certification, unlike nursing and some other similar fields with shortages, and nursing is also disfavored by and for men for what are of course purely sexist reasons.

[Gustaf]

Nobody has come anywhere near understanding the point of the question so I'm locking the thread.

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

I literally could not care less about expressing social needs or the common good as a function of what people "choose" to "consume", especially given the sorry set of options available.

No, I think that was clear. Hence, my answer is that we as a society make that choice when we decide what we are willing to pay people to do.

Since that wasn't what you meant, I suggested the question is (as it usually is in those cases) rather something like "I think people have wrong preferences and should have other preferences". Or, as you put it, you "don't care about what people choose to consume". But the answer to what people *should* consume is one that I as a confined neoliberal am not that opinionated on. I'm fine letting people be who they are. If you're not interested in what others' preferences are, I then think it's a little odd to ask other people, since this implies their preference will only be considered legitimate or valid if it coincides with your own.

[afleitch]

I find this question to be odd given the OP's own vocation (of which he admits he has not a clear idea what to do with) has not been engaged with other than with genuine curiousity even though it could be argued it's utterly pointless and of little net gain to anyone but the person who studies it. Likewise some people just have a passion for working with computers...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Nobody has come anywhere near understanding the point of the question so I'm locking the thread.

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

I literally could not care less about expressing social needs or the common good as a function of what people "choose" to "consume", especially given the sorry set of options available.

No, I think that was clear. Hence, my answer is that we as a society make that choice when we decide what we are willing to pay people to do.

Since that wasn't what you meant, I suggested the question is (as it usually is in those cases) rather something like "I think people have wrong preferences and should have other preferences". Or, as you put it, you "don't care about what people choose to consume". But the answer to what people *should* consume is one that I as a confined neoliberal am not that opinionated on. I'm fine letting people be who they are. If you're not interested in what others' preferences are, I then think it's a little odd to ask other people, since this implies their preference will only be considered legitimate or valid if it coincides with your own.

I can't really tell if you're reifying "preferences" as this quasi-mystical force or if that's just how the language of "preference" comes across to people like me anyway, so I think I'll let this drop.

I find this question to be odd given the OP's own vocation (of which he admits he has not a clear idea what to do with) has not been engaged with other than with genuine curiousity even though it could be argued it's utterly pointless and of little net gain to anyone but the person who studies it. Likewise some people just have a passion for working with computers...

Of course! The difference is that there isn't an "academic theology industry" constantly shilling for itself in conversations about what higher education and the labor market should be geared towards. And if there were, I'm contrarian enough that I'd probably be studying something different. Thanks for pricking my hot-air bubble, though.

[Gustaf]

Nobody has come anywhere near understanding the point of the question so I'm locking the thread.

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

I literally could not care less about expressing social needs or the common good as a function of what people "choose" to "consume", especially given the sorry set of options available.

No, I think that was clear. Hence, my answer is that we as a society make that choice when we decide what we are willing to pay people to do.

Since that wasn't what you meant, I suggested the question is (as it usually is in those cases) rather something like "I think people have wrong preferences and should have other preferences". Or, as you put it, you "don't care about what people choose to consume". But the answer to what people *should* consume is one that I as a confined neoliberal am not that opinionated on. I'm fine letting people be who they are. If you're not interested in what others' preferences are, I then think it's a little odd to ask other people, since this implies their preference will only be considered legitimate or valid if it coincides with your own.

I can't really tell if you're reifying "preferences" as this quasi-mystical force or if that's just how the language of "preference" comes across to people like me anyway, so I think I'll let this drop.

I find this question to be odd given the OP's own vocation (of which he admits he has not a clear idea what to do with) has not been engaged with other than with genuine curiousity even though it could be argued it's utterly pointless and of little net gain to anyone but the person who studies it. Likewise some people just have a passion for working with computers...

Of course! The difference is that there isn't an "academic theology industry" constantly shilling for itself in conversations about what higher education and the labor market should be geared towards. And if there were, I'm contrarian enough that I'd probably be studying something different. Thanks for pricking my hot-air bubble, though.

Preferences aren't mystical at all to me, so I've no idea what you're talking about. You said you didn't think what other people like is relevant to what people should work with. Yet, you're asking for opinions about what people should work with. I think there is at least a little bit of tension embedded in that approach which makes the question sound pretty rhetorical (and it increasingly seems like it is).

In an area that is differently politically charged I'm sure you could see what I mean. If I came on here and said "how many psychologists does society really need?" and imply that people should get over their mental illness problems, I'd probably be condemned. One reason would probably be that it'd seemed a bit weird for me to decide for other people whether they need psychologists or not. And, importantly, if someone telling me "I need a psychologist" doesn't convince me that they actually do, it's hard to imagine someone telling me "that person needs a psychologist" would convince me. Which then makes the question seem a bit odd.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The idea that x number of computer programmers (or much of any other "new economy" occupation, really) are as immediately indispensable to the people who use their services as x number of psychologists isn't the sort of insinuation that I think I (I personally) am capable of discussing objectively, so I don't really see any point in continuing this argument, except to say that believing that there should be standards for value to society other than "what people can be convinced to pay for" doesn't mean ipso facto that I don't care about other people's opinions. Also that (in my experience, at least) it's possible to discuss rhetorical questions on their own terms and to derive usable lines of discussion from them, otherwise they wouldn't be called "rhetorical".

I guess the plus side of people shilling for ~coding lessons~ as a panacea for Middle America's labor market woes is that people can, in principle, do coding anywhere that has internet access, so one doesn't, in principle, have to desperately scramble to make it into one of a few hip-'n'-happening metropoles the way one does with certain other "new economy" jobs.

[Beet]

We live in a market-driven economy.

To me asking the question "is the market making the wrong choice in this area" opens up the elephant in the room, which is generally speaking, what is the authority of the market, and if it isn't absolute, then what is the basis of any alternative authority?

Anyway, the reason programming is hyped should be patently obvious. In every other respect, 2017 man looks exactly the same as 1977 man. He lives in a house in the suburbs, drives a car, listens to the radio, eats out of a refrigerator, sees by electric lighting at night, showers from the sewer system, rides an airplane, watches the TV, and so on. Only he has a cellular smartphone and browses the Internet. IT is the only area that has practically transformed everyday people's lives in a visible way.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

We live in a market-driven economy.

To me asking the question "is the market making the wrong choice in this area" opens up the elephant in the room, which is generally speaking, what is the authority of the market, and if it isn't absolute, then what is the basis of any alternative authority?

Explicit, community-based, democratic decision-making.

Alternately: class struggle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's "hype" and then there's "presented as a panacea for all job market and labor relations woes".

[Vosem]

The correct answer is however many can make a living off of computer programming, to be determined by market forces.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The correct answer is however many can make a living off of computer programming, to be determined by market forces.

How did I know you were going to say this?

[RFayette]

The correct answer is however many can make a living off of computer programming, to be determined by market forces.

How did I know you were going to say this?

It also happens to be the right answer.

[Vosem]

The correct answer is however many can make a living off of computer programming, to be determined by market forces.

How did I know you were going to say this?

Probably from reading one too many of my posts over the years

[Gustaf]

The idea that x number of computer programmers (or much of any other "new economy" occupation, really) are as immediately indispensable to the people who use their services as x number of psychologists isn't the sort of insinuation that I think I (I personally) am capable of discussing objectively, so I don't really see any point in continuing this argument, except to say that believing that there should be standards for value to society other than "what people can be convinced to pay for" doesn't mean ipso facto that I don't care about other people's opinions. Also that (in my experience, at least) it's possible to discuss rhetorical questions on their own terms and to derive usable lines of discussion from them, otherwise they wouldn't be called "rhetorical".

I guess the plus side of people shilling for ~coding lessons~ as a panacea for Middle America's labor market woes is that people can, in principle, do coding anywhere that has internet access, so one doesn't, in principle, have to desperately scramble to make it into one of a few hip-'n'-happening metropoles the way one does with certain other "new economy" jobs.

Right, you think it'd be unreasonable for someone else to dictate to you whether you need a psychologist or not.

If I understand your model, your problem with the market is that it allows minorities to buy things the majority doesn't think they need, so the solution is to allow majority override of minority preferences.

I mean, to be clear, I agree with you that most apps are dumb. I think lots of stuff is dumb. Most contemporary music, reality shows, fashion. I hate olives. My solution is simply not to consume any of these things. I will sometimes in conversation try to convince other people that my subjective taste is correct. But if they want to spend the money they earned on things they like, I'm ultimately fine with it. I'll spend mine on the things I want. It's one thing to be elitist and look down on other peoples' pleasures but I think framing that in terms of societal needs is a bit dubious. I think it's fine to grant individuals autonomy over deciding their own needs, whether I understand or can relate to those needs or not. Using my understanding or agreement as the yardstick to determine the legitimacy of someone's want I think is both unnecessary and not particularly agreeable.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Ugh, whatever. You don't understand my "model", no, but I doubt we're going to end up agreeing on any premises that will allow us to discuss this further so let's just give it a rest.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's absolutely fascinating how neoliberals these days don't even have to preach on the glorious virtues of The Market anymore, because they have been so thoroughly immersed in their creed that they can't even comprehend why anyone would not view it as the only possible mechanism for making social decisions. Truly a textbook case in the study of ideologies.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This got too esoteric for me, but I guess I'd start out by saying that not "literally everyone" is being pushed to be retrained to deal with information technology (hate the term "IT" as it makes me imagine the overweight guy that runs the computer lab). If you look at scammy, three month-old occupational colleges right now, computer & information systems programs are going to end up right alongside healthcare and (of course) business administration.

That said, with regards to your disappointment expressed below...

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

Presuming that your premise vis-a-vis "retraining" is true, your usage of terms such as "qua" indicates that this discussion probably ought to land on the Philosophy & Religion Board, and that, this being an economics board, these "neoliberals" answered the question in such a fashion.

That said, obviously, if we consider the implications of Eclipse of Reason, the contemporary "IT" fetish is going to lead straight to Nazism, so be warned.

[Gustaf]

It's absolutely fascinating how neoliberals these days don't even have to preach on the glorious virtues of The Market anymore, because they have been so thoroughly immersed in their creed that they can't even comprehend why anyone would not view it as the only possible mechanism for making social decisions. Truly a textbook case in the study of ideologies.

Why do you assume that someone else's position must be due to blind dogma? I have put a lot of thought into my position and I'd be inclined to think you're the one who is too "immersed in a creed" to understand the alternative viewpoint here.

Nathan, I'm a little disappointed that you refuse to engage with my criticism but I obviously can't force you to.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's absolutely fascinating how neoliberals these days don't even have to preach on the glorious virtues of The Market anymore, because they have been so thoroughly immersed in their creed that they can't even comprehend why anyone would not view it as the only possible mechanism for making social decisions. Truly a textbook case in the study of ideologies.

Are you aware that someone can believe in markets without being neoliberals? Taxes, a social safety net, and regulation/government takeover of industries that can't have healthy competition(eg health care, education, utilities) fit well into more left views of the free market, and is the economic system of the most successful countries with far left economics(Sweden, Norway, and Finland). You need to stop using the word neoliberal; you tend to label people with it who really don't fit (eg me), and the way you use it makes it sound more like a boogeyman then an actual ideology.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Nathan, I'm a little disappointed that you refuse to engage with my criticism but I obviously can't force you to.

If it weren't the end of the academic year I'd probably be more inclined to, so please don't take it personally.

It's absolutely fascinating how neoliberals these days don't even have to preach on the glorious virtues of The Market anymore, because they have been so thoroughly immersed in their creed that they can't even comprehend why anyone would not view it as the only possible mechanism for making social decisions. Truly a textbook case in the study of ideologies.

Are you aware that someone can believe in markets without being neoliberals? Taxes, a social safety net, and regulation/government takeover of industries that can't have healthy competition(eg health care, education, utilities) fit well into more left views of the free market, and is the economic system of the most successful countries with far left economics(Sweden, Norway, and Finland). You need to stop using the word neoliberal; you tend to label people with it who really don't fit (eg me), and the way you use it makes it sound more like a boogeyman then an actual ideology.

Antonio's AMA thread in IP has a pretty robust definition of neoliberalism in it. You might not agree with his definition or the things he applies it to, but he has thought about this and does mean something specific by it.

[Foucaulf]

Going to refashion this thread once more in light of an article that hit up the econ blogosphere: "Why do so few people major in computer science?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I stand by what I wrote earlier in this thread, except for what I wrote about "persuasion." It is remarkable how ineffective efforts to persuade people into getting computer science degrees can be, to the point where the sheer intensity of continued rhetoric tips off how desperate the persuaders are.

Let me also admit I may be barking up the wrong tree: people could be taking minors or just a few courses in computer science, become software developers and this wouldn't be reflected as well in the data. In absence of better data, though, I still think there are two puzzles here:

1) Why has the enrollment gap in computer science majors and other STEM majors not widened, given the job openings gap in those two fields have widened?

2) Why has the enrollment gap in computer science majors and Masters in Education not diminished, given that the latter leads to increasingly devalued positions and vice versa for the former? (I think it makes more sense for now to think about teachers switching over to becoming programmers instead of nurses, cops, etc.)

I'm hoping for some responses before I write down what I mean to say.

[RFayette]

Foucaulf:  I can't speak for all institutions, but anecdotally, I know a lot of people who are pursuing minors in Computer Science, or are studying an unrelated field but want to pursue a coterminal Master's degree.  Since it's in Silicon Valley, this is unrepresentative of the university population at-large, but over 95% of students take at least one computer science course, a number that my CS professor has said is far greater than 10-15 years ago.  Classes in hot topics like machine learning and web development are some of the most popular courses on campus, but most people don't want to take the courses on compilers, operating systems, and automata theory required for the degree form the School of Engineering.  

 The general impression is that a lot of the "core" courses required for a CS degree are extremely time-consuming, and people feel they still have good job prospects in tech (if they want to pursue that route) through a cafeteria selection of courses in addition to side projects and internship experience.  As such, statistics that look only at college major would significantly understate the amount of concentration people put into CS - while the vast majority of non-CS majors have taken at least one CS class, virtually no non-chemical engineers have taken a Chem-E course, for instance.

[muon2]

Foucaulf:  I can't speak for all institutions, but anecdotally, I know a lot of people who are pursuing minors in Computer Science, or are studying an unrelated field but want to pursue a coterminal Master's degree.  Since it's in Silicon Valley, this is unrepresentative of the university population at-large, but over 95% of students take at least one computer science course, a number that my CS professor has said is far greater than 10-15 years ago.  Classes in hot topics like machine learning and web development are some of the most popular courses on campus, but most people don't want to take the courses on compilers, operating systems, and automata theory required for the degree form the School of Engineering.  

 The general impression is that a lot of the "core" courses required for a CS degree are extremely time-consuming, and people feel they still have good job prospects in tech (if they want to pursue that route) through a cafeteria selection of courses in addition to side projects and internship experience.  As such, statistics that look only at college major would significantly understate the amount of concentration people put into CS - while the vast majority of non-CS majors have taken at least one CS class, virtually no non-chemical engineers have taken a Chem-E course, for instance.

To add to the anecdotal evidence, my son began a mechanical engineering degree in 2013. He decided to add a fifth year and a CS minor. His interest is robotics, and the undergraduate minor is sufficient for his field.