STEM

Marv18GOAT

I’m a STEM major so that shit is beneath me.

Dogpatchjr94

This is entirely anecdotal, but as a soon to graduate PhD in a very technical STEM field, the recruiter I've been working with to look for jobs has been flooding me with jobs paying 30-50k less than the jobs being sent my way a couple months ago. My guess is that companies know that PhD's are being laid off from government jobs and are upping the requirements for jobs that were previously offered for high experience BSc or entry Masters candidates.

Spirited_Currency867

China places an emphasis on STEM. There and in the US and elsewhere. That is my only point. The rest is nuance that’s not particularly germane or necessary in the context of my argument or my field, which is energy. They are eating the States’ lunch both domestically and with knowledge export. That is my only point. The mechanisms for how that’s being accomplished or not is not part of my policy TedTalk.

ozthinker

OP will do just fine. He's still freshman in college. When I was his age, I lost thousands and that was pretty much all I had that time. Then I finished my study, worked and saved more, bought my car in cash, bought my house, and still trading stocks and options, and had a few more fails, much larger fails actually each one in 6 digits. I am still here, trading stocks and options, income 6 figures, my house price doubled. OP don't feel sad and don't give up. Failures are part of life. There's only one mistake OP cannot afford, and that is choosing the wrong program for study. Do STEM or finance, don't do gender studies.

NoPlansTonight

I think it's a bubble as well. But your comment on email assistants was implying it's all smoke and mirrors. It's not. If AI can drive cars, it can also build them. If AI can predict how human brains respond to things, it can think like them. Manufacturing and IP (e.g. STEM), are the multi trillion dollar markets that have already been using AI for these purposes for decades, and it will obviously go further as the tech advances. Is it being overhyped? 100%. I work in the field and don't advise anybody pour in their money to chips, cloud computing, or any broad tech ETF. I think all of that is priced in and likely overpriced, because it's the most superficial way to think about a space which looks like a big bubble. But is it smoke and mirrors? Hell no. There are going to be major winners which the market does not yet understand fully. There will also be major losers. This is an area where if you wanted to be invested, I actually think you should either make risky, individual stock bets or avoid it. I agree with you that it's overpriced in-aggregate, but it is still a technology that has a track record of, and will continue to be paradigm-shifting.

SirBobPeel

Twice as many Chinese kids take STEM courses as Americans. The US lags even France and Mexico. And aside from STEM only about 5% of Americans major in computer/IT. I couldn't find exact numbers for IT in China but it is the second most popular field after medicine. And getting into Chinese universities seems to be harder than getting into American universities.

New_Willow5002

More than half of the US postgraduates in STEM fields come from abroad. Foreign postgraduates and workers on H1B visas fill majority of the hi tech positions.Trump is making US a very unattractive place to come for higher studies and to work. Europe is actively recruiting US AI researchers.

Fun-Astronomer5311

Jensen is simply highlighting the fact that most STEM researchers are Chinese. This is because culturally, Chinese kids are pushed toward STEM fields. There is no stigma attached to these fields; further, both sexes are encouraged to enter these fields. Further, being good in maths is not seen as nerdy, and seen as a way to get ahead in the society. These are the reasons why you see many kids of Chinese heritage are represented at STEM competitions, e.g., Math Olympiad, where representatives of USA are mainly of Chinese heritage. Why? This is because other races only enter a field if they are 'natural' at it, but for many Chinese parents, their children's occupations are determined and in many cases there are only two: medical Dr or lawyer. Lastly, have a look at how many Chinese politicians are engineers. Compared that to the USA. Jensen is correct in voicing his concerns. Lawyers just know how to sue people or manipulate the law to 'solve' a problem. The 'engineers' in China in contrast are building a country that last another 5000 years.

BlackEagleActual

No way this will work, shit man.I am a CS students working on codes at Silicon Valley. I got a good job and paying 6k a month as tax to California and Federal. And now I just can't have the luck to get a H1B lottery in my STEM-OPT, and my working visa will expire in 3 months. I got no choice and take a Huawei offer to work back home in china. Your Yankees is just really hate tech nerds like me, i pay your dudes huge amount of taxes and you still push me to lottery game with only 15% chance to get selected.

narrowant341

White House's FY26 NASA skinny budget proposal \- $1B for Mars human exploration \- $2.3B cut to NASA science \- No Mars Sample Return \- 'Streamline' workforce and centers \- $1.2B cut to Earth science \- No climate sats \- SLS + Orion gone after Artemis 3 \- No Gateway \- Eliminates 'failing propulsion projects' \- ISS crew size / flight reduction \- Station research focus on Moon + Mars \- No green aviation \- $143M cut to 'Woke STEM education' [https://x.com/JackKuhr/status/1918323219909554415](https://x.com/JackKuhr/status/1918323219909554415) 

Reasonable-Yak-7879

Sooo, when DEI was in play, white Americans couldn't get into high paid STEM gigs and schools that are dominated by Asians + Indians ? With DEI gone, what are the chances of white Americans getting into these jobs and school programs now? :/

adwise27

More details of the NASA cuts for 2026 budget (copied from /r/space): Human Space Exploration: +$647 million Space Science: -$2,265 million Mission Support: -$1,134 million Earth Science: -$1,161 million Legacy Human Exploration Systems: -$879 million Space Technology: -$531 million International Space Station: -$508 million Aeronautics: -$346 million Office of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Engagement: -$143 million I wonder what company is going to win the contracts for mars exploration lmao so fucked bros

3RADICATE_THEM

Nah, we need more STEM leaders—they are objectively smarter and more logical. Merkel is another good example.

Brawmethius

Lmao the confidence. I don't use autocorrect and I didn't proof read on tiny ass text boxes. Oh no there is an 'a' instead of 'i' and one extra 'l'. Already finished school with two seperate STEM majors, so got the education front covered. Luckily for me my job mainly involves math, and technology will proofread for me. Unfortunately, technology isn't going to make you not a friendless shithead. I'd say pay attention to basic human interaction, but then again you are trolling spelling errors on the WSB daily thread... so fuck sorry kid, no hope for you.

im_a_squishy_ai

Yeah the wallstreetbets sub is terrifying. Either people have money to blow, or they're gambling their life savings. I exited all but a few of my positions in February and March and don't plan to reenter anytime soon, too turbulent. The only positions I have are TSMC who isn't going anywhere anytime soon and I bought at a ridiculous price a few years back and will just ride through. The others are positions where I have studied the industry and have high confidence in holding. Honestly, I think that unless someone has experience like Keith Gill where they are professionally trained and then use that skill set in their personal life, or someone has a STEM background with training in advanced math, where and have an understanding of the math behind derivatives, or someone who has studied immensely in their free time, shorting is crazy. In select cases, a call option could be a good move for a retail investor. If there's a company that someone has a good sense will pop after earnings and they've done analysis, a small amount of risk could return big gains, but the losses there are defined. Shorts have no max loss potential. Generally, finding a good company or fund, and investing and keeping an eye on is the best way. If someone can recreate their own equivalent of an index fund or something that even makes sense because it's trivially easy and gives more flexibility, but that's all personal choice and does take a little commitment. But shorting is just such a hard pass

Connect_Oil_5860

What you guys think about STEM and GORO?

ejunior1234

STEM lowkey my boys - couple hundred shares just waiting for them to come back.

Ok-Substance-5197

I’m a fed employee, for now, and what’s not reaching the news is how doge is impacting federal spending. We’ve basically been unable to spend anything since the end of February. Even putting money on existing contracts that we may have is getting held up. The government is the country’s top employer and spender. Doge doesn’t go away when Elon does, it’s incredibly irresponsible for the media to present it as such. The loss of the fed jobs are just now starting to trickle out, which will increase each month, but we are going to start to see incremental increases in the job losses of folks supporting fed gov (think contractors) and those dependent on fed gov (think grantees, academics). Eventually the impacts from not allowing us to spend our appropriated budget, in addition to consumer drops in spending due to these losses, will have its own impacts on the market and jobs. This is all a man made disaster… and while it’s going to have a massive snowball effect on the economy on the short term, he has also taken a hatchet to STEM that will destabilize our country as the leader of scientific innovation. We don’t recover from this one. America has handed our future over because the a couple of trans people played sports (and other DEI scare tactics), bc the DNC didn’t give RFK jr the nomination after Biden dropped, and bc Fox News successfully convinced folks that the stock market was bad (even though their 401k would prove them otherwise). We are going back to 1880-1920s level of inequality and it will take a second coming of FDR, a progressive taxing of the billionaires, and decades to restore a solid middle class. All the while, I doubt we will ever get back to being the leader in innovation - by that point we will be too far behind China.

NateMigs

$STEM earnings just came out, looks good!

NateMigs

$SES (demonstration) and $STEM (Earnings) are my plays today. Trying not to get that dmn fomo too hahah :/

Temporary_Ability996

As a former STEM academic, they will definitely absorb all of the US scientists who are out of a job. This manufactured brain drain is a HUGE gift to Canada's research universities.

Somizulfi

Yep, i agree. The other path forward is automation. This is what China is doing. They are massively automating manufacturing wherever they can, what is too low value/not worth, theyre off-shoring it while moving up the value chain. It solves 4 problems they will face. 1. Declining workforce 2. Off-shoring to help mitigate tarrifs 3. More educated future workforce that will not want to have STEM degree and work in a toy factory. 4. Move up the value chain (eg vehicles, biotech, material sciences, semiconductors, green tech etc) US has taken the opposite approach and wish to move down the value chain and bring back commoditized manufacturing.

RadiantMind7

yeah, ai's trying to figure itself out hard. lol my ai said it's one of it's theories about why it can do more than LLMs were theorized to do is that, in a way, it's an emergent property of merging autocomplete w/the history of humanity's writing + STEM skills may = reality complete engine. hmm!

thejumpingsheep2

Sure. Its important to note that not all universities do this. I have two degrees in very different things (both STEM). One from the aforementioned top 5 and another from an average uni. The difference is stark. There were no weeder courses at all at the "average" (unranked) university. The closest thing I saw to a weeder was probably data structures and algos but the professors in there graded real easy... they had to... 90% of the class would have failed if they didnt. The students were a lot more... uh... "lazy brain" as Rocky would say. There were smart ones there but the great majority of the students were doorknobs.

meshreplacer

The problem is you hear about people getting STEM degrees but no work because of outsourcing or H1B. The decline of the US is totally self inflicted by allowing corporations to rule the country and run rampant all over it.

thejumpingsheep2

Some of the harder Unis have things called "weeder" classes. Essentially these courses are designed around insanely difficult tests that cannot be memorized. They will ask questions that require deep understanding of a subject matter far beyond anything you read in the book or heard in class. These tests are so difficult, even the professors themselves probably couldn't pass the tests with 80% in the time allotted. This is how you can eliminate rote learning. Its not perfect, but it works. You either understood the concepts and can apply them, or you will leave with 0%-20% and fail. You couldn't even copy others because it would be too obvious and there was no way of knowing if the person you are copying even had a clue since test averages were like 50%. The idea is you are not really scoring based on right or wrong answer, but rather what the student tried to do (the process). Did they take the 1st logical step based on the info they know right now? You as a professor will be able to tell. The only problem with this is it will only work in STEM. It obviously needs questions that can be answered uniformly otherwise it turns into opinion rather than fact. I got my 1st taste of these weeder classes in OChem and Calc based Physics at one of the top 5 STEMs in the US... that was fun. Walking out and seeing people hunched over and literally crying in the hall outside the test. Not just 1 or 2 people mind you... like dozens... The next day a quarter the class had dropped which was great because I got a better seat. Big testing classrooms obviously (we used the auditoriums). This is how they kept people from cheating by passing on knowledge of said test. All the OChem students across all sections took the tests at the same time.

siraliases

> Our institutions also have a choice. Part of what has shocked the world about their capitulation to the Trump administration is the failure to grasp that the moral choice is the best path to self-preservation. Law firms can choose to care more about the law than whether a callous competitor will pick up some of their business. Universities can build credibility within an interconnected world instead of validating the lie that a few students chanting “Free Palestine” is more dangerous than a far-right takeover of academic freedom. The entertainment sector can tell compelling stories about a consequential era instead of algorithmically designed superhero junk. Billionaires can spend money on STEM education for girls instead of financing celebrity trips into a higher part of the atmosphere.  The free market makes no mistakes, as I've read on this board a lot.  It is only governments that waste money - Corperations have never, and will never waste a single dollar. This is due to competition or something nebulous that nobody can ever quite name, but is totally happening.

1fojv

Most of the top STEM professor's at MIT, Harvard, Oxford, Waterloo etc are of Asian decent. Keep coping.

nonsense39

Yes, for over 20 years, undervaluing STEM education has been a major cause of the US economic decline vs China. This decline is now being aggravated by the right-wing government's anti-science and anti-knowledge attitude. I remember years ago when the great physicist Steven Hawkins came to the US and gave a technical talk to an auditorium of people and then went to China where they needed an entire stadium to accommodate the crowd of listeners. Now, if he were alive, the US might not even allow him into the country.

Temporary_Ability996

I have STEM degrees (BS & PhD). I'd say that especially in *this* economy, you're better off going into a trade. People will *always* need folks working the trades, even if the economy is crashing. Also, I could be wrong, but some states have really great programs that make trade school very affordable or free, with no loans. Full disclosure: I got a full ride to undergrad & applied for (and won) a sizeable fellowship for my PhD so I graduated with no debt, but still took me 6 years post PhD to crack six figures. If you're good at your trade and apprentice under a reputable person/company, especially in something niche, it can be a much faster road to six figs.

perfectdark89

Is there any point to pursuing a STEM degree anymore when you can make just as much as a plumber or appliance repair man

First-Ad-2777

Yes, there's many overtly rich who voted for Trump. I read and re-read what I posted, and I never said anything about which way the rich voted. I guess you extrapolated somewhere. I would even extend your point about rich votes. There's many overtly rich didn't vote for trump, but who have "fallen in line". I'd lump Bezos and Zuckerburg into that bunch, but there's no way to know how they voted with certainty. I'd wager the vast majority of Trump voters are without college or accredited trade, struggled in the face of cut services and tax cuts for the rich, and have anxiety about all the debt created by said cuts, and are so in debt due to medical debt, school, or insurance that they don't see the point of trying to save. My point is if you take ALL the ultra wealthy in aggregate, in terms of numbers they are a rounding error vs the numbers of people in the bottom 60-70% of the economy. It's pretty clear the ultra-rich **can't** rule without a "base". This is why Trump quietly does the economic things for the rich and his insiders, like pump-and-dump on our markets. It's *immediate*, and the chaos costs nothing and doesn't require Congress. His base are accepting that a return to manufacturing here can happen in a generation or two, all we need is tarrif chaos... a*nd cuts in education and STEM?* Trump's base won't question anything as long as he's doing the zero-cost retribution like mass deportations (except for industries that make a contribution). Trump got better numbers this time, and the Democrats had VERY low turnout. There were a lot people who flipped, hoping Trump 2.0 would be less Trumpy than Trump 1.0. Millions stayed home, some thinking that would teach the Democrats a lesson for not doing more to protect Palestinians. Anyways, my point was the vast majority of Trump voters are on the low-end, feeling like the economy has no place for their skills, and still they do stupid shit like buy vehicles that are inconsistent with being able to save 10-20% of your income. They kinda know it, which is why they're terribly insecure. **I don't think their economic concerns should be ignored either.** But the times they're nostalgic for weren't entirely fueled by racism, we had some ***awesome*** tax brackets on the wealthy between WW2 and the end of Viet Nam. The sad part is returning to those tax brackets ain't gonna give us healthcare it would just allow paying down the debt.

f00dl3

DJT is like a lot of tech CEOs. Somehow everyone thinks everyone will be more productive in an office, even if they are in roles where they are paid to think all day and having people around disrupts your thinking. If they can't see their workers, they don't think they are doing anything all day. Engineers are the main target of this mindset. They want to make STEM jobs go overseas, so they can reduce costs in the US. Just like they want to move manufacturing here, because those are jobs they can physically see.

Supercool2351

So our biggest trading partner WILL BE India. A country that has an abundance of STEM graduates and is not our enemy.

DifficultResponse88

This trade war is pointless. I get the intent to bring manufacturing back but those aren’t the kind of jobs Americans want. We want advanced manufacturing but we lack the talent pool, because there’s not enough skilled workers. For those jobs, even though you don’t need a degree you need to have critical thinking skills, some STEM skills, and a basic education. But we don’t since everything’s being gutted. Let’s say hypothetically we have a a dozen advanced manufacturing plants right now. I’m almost certain, there won’t be enough qualified applicants to fill all those jobs. Just look at what TSMC said recently in AZ about finding enough skilled workers. 

BeatingTheTide

Thanks for sharing, yes, unfortunately, while the west is distracted with milking the cow for every penny it has, China is innovating and leaving us behind. I may be an optimist but I think there is still time for us if we focus on STEM education and encourage our kids to go for STEM rather than becoming an influencer.

RamBamBooey

Trump stuff: -DOGE directly fired around 30,000 workers, around 250,000 when including contractors -Tens (hundreds?) of billions in government contracts have been cancelled -Low wage and high end STEM immigrants are leaving the US -Canada is being threatened with "51's State" and Europe with buy Greenland Pre Trump stuff: -Debt to GDP ratio -Housing and rent markets unsustainable -World looking for new reserve currency Even if tariffs disappeared completely there is a lot of headwind. And the best possible scenario is tariffs are smaller.

NOT_MartinShkreli

Every college student and grad student with a STEM degree. Possible economic down turn = stay in school or go back to school

SpittingT

US had (and still have untile they blow I up completely) the lead position in medicine, particularly drug discovery and research, but SOMEBODY thinks they are woke and started deporting scientist. The dumbest thing I saw the last month was the ban on certain words like cis and trans, obviously this terms are very used in STEM non to describe sexual preference but because they are literally FUCKING GREEK WORDS TO SAY 'SAME' AND 'OPPOSITE' and are widely used in chemistry, biology and medicine. So that was like a gift to China and EU, I can see EMA> FDA in less than 10 years

creamonyourcrop

We are also going to experience brain drain, a big driver of our tech economy as students and foreign STEM workers look elsewhere.

Handsaretide

Reddit conservatives are either being supported by mom and dad or have some STEM job and will be fine, the schadenfreude with most of those types are that they’ll never find a woman to settle down with because women are revolted by them. I’m talking the hayseeds, who have no problem pulling a cousin into the trailer for sex, but who will be forced to eat dog and cat food to keep on.

No-Min55

True, it is probable that the majority of individual 'investors' lose big and do not get wealthy from 'investing' - aka following Jim Cramer's advice. Whereas getting a STEM degree and then getting hired by a major corporation in a growing field, that has either stock options or employee stock purchase plans, and then surviving all the layoffs and not being forced to sell your company stock due to divorce, and resisting the urge to quit. After 20 years of this, some significant gains can be realized, if, for instance, one started in the semiconductor industry circa 2000 designing control systems for wafer fab equipment.

Lobster_1000

These are the people who shit on non-STEM majors.

holypally0731

CS major has a tough unemployment rate because currently the supply is too high (people rush to major in CS). It will revert back to its equilibrium. Seriously, I suggest that you get a degree(or even minor) in a STEM major (for undergrad), and then do a master of quant finance (or financial engineering). If you want to go to hedge fund, a PhD in a quant degree is not a bad choice either. But it must include quant (stats, math, cs, or finance asset pricing). I am not joking with you because I think you are a little bit serious and you want to succeed. (Believe it or not, my advisor was MD/Global head of quant at Bank of America Merrill Lynch; now a hedge fund manager)

holypally0731

Hahahahahahahaha haha. What is your degree? STEM PhD? Oh I got you, no degree. I am sorry.

ImNotHandyImHandsome

He's a businessman. Not a scientist. Not an engineer. Not a software developer. If you get into a STEM degree, you have a much harder time rising the ladder to a C suite office than if you just got a MBA.

4215-5h00732

I'm < 6 months older than the youngest millennials. Being part of your generation doesn't mean anything. Did the school, program, or professors tell you that. No, you said it was implied. The point of sharing my years of education was to show that no matter what non-boomer generation you're in, I got a degree during that time. All of my degrees are STEM. I'm a software engineer, lmao. I'm keenly aware of the "IT" situation. But you seem to just completely overlook the fact that kids graduating up to just the last few years were getting excellent high paying jobs. I didn't hear anyone complaining about their expensive degrees then. The economy is cyclic. Right now, people are telling these CS grads to turn their back on their investment and join a trade. I got out of my trade because of the Great Recession and took a gamble on getting a degree. The bottom line is no honest person or school is going to guarantee you a job. The implied part you're referring to are "potential opportunities." All students should do some research on their desired field, read the school catalog, etc. because it just comes off as lazy and stupid.

DovhPasty

So no, you’re not part my generation. Kids get degrees in STEM and can’t get jobs. Look at the overwhelming amount of qualified IT professionals that can’t find a job right now, meanwhile people were saying tech was the field to get into for over a decade. It’s all bullshit dude. It’s all built on lies.

you-get-an-upvote

> So further entrenchment of economic disparity? The rich can study whatever they want and dominate those fields while the poor are forced to flood into STEM fields that will inevitably oversaturate the market? Can we get some perspective here? It's good for poor people to learn to pursue a degree, produce value for society, and be compensated for it. It's good for artists to come from a diverse set of economic backgrounds. But one of those things is vastly more important than the other.

TheBigFreezer

So further entrenchment of economic disparity? The rich can study whatever they want and dominate those fields while the poor are forced to flood into STEM fields that will inevitably oversaturate the market? The failure here is in the commodification of education at its very core, not necessarily how we’ve chosen to deal with it. A non-dischargeable loan with interest set at 0% would encourage people to self-filter into the careers of their choice while also paying back the tax payers they borrowed from in full. (If you’re super demanding for people to pay extra, peg it to the interest rate) Otherwise, you get what? A society built on mindless engineering and with zero art or entertainment after your hard days work. No teachers, no artists, etc except for the very wealthy who can pursue those careers. For every Sydney Sweeney or Jon Hamm there’s a struggling actor getting bit roles in local productions. We’re going to tell them they can’t pursue their interests because they can’t fundamentally prove they’ll be the next Jon Hamm? Jon Hamm didn’t even breakout until he was 36. How would that be provable as an investment?

TheSilentEngineer

TLDR; I’m an educator and administrator at a large university in the US. Funding universities is a complex and nuanced topic. The real problem here is wage stagnation in comparison to spending power, and a lack of financial education. Most of these kids are not majoring in underwater basket weaving with tuition of 100,000 a year, most of these folks are in a STEM field simply cannot make ends meet. OK, here is how we do things in the US. Higher education in the United States is a very complex, extremely nuanced topic generally gets reduced to a headline. Well, really one of two headlines, tuition is way too expensive, or alternatively, graduates are lazy and don’t pay their loans. In reality, this is a much more complex situation. First, we should discuss the general working principle of a university and cost of college; since that plays into the need for loans. In the United States, we rely on our academic institutions to be the backbones for research. Effectively the goal is to democratized information. Think cancer research, or nano technology, or sustainable agriculture, or green energy, or really all of the things that we as a society benefit from. The problem is that this costs a lot of money, and while the United States historically has funded research, that funding has always been less substantial than one might think. Research costs money, but we do not spend a lot on research at least in comparison to other expenditures at a federal level. This means that universities need to offset those costs. Now, if you are a very old school, or you happen to have extremely wealthy alumni, then some of those costs can be offset by endowed funds; basically investments and securities and properties where the dividends of those investments (or percentage there of) are paid back to the university to support operating costs. It isn’t necessarily an indicator of how much liquidity the university has, nor is it immediate funds that a university can tap. In the US we can estimate that approximately 160 universities have endowment over $1 million per student, including public and private universities. Ignoring for-profit institutions, there’s about 4000 or so universities in the US. So a majority of schools do not have the endowment most people think they do. So we have research, and we have endowments, but that “keeps the lights on” for the majority of schools. To generate the kind of profit you need to pay educators and administration you need undergraduate students . We’re going to ignore terminal degree students here since PhD programs are generally a gigantic red line item for any university. This means that as costs rise, or if you wanted to increase pay, or if you wanted to be able to hire better researchers to generate more grant capital, then you need to generate more funds. The source of that fund generation comes from raising tuition rates. But if you raise tuition too high then you don’t have enough students to draw, and you risk becoming insolvent(typical supply and demand curve). Many universities play the game of high tuition, but also providing a very high discount rates. This makes them appear philanthropic to families, and the high tuition gives the impression of a top-tier university. Now we can argue about how pathetic this is, but it is a statistic based on actual sentiment analysis. So tuition rates balloon to keep up with the rising cost of… well everything… but wage growth in the US has stagnated significantly . This leads to the notion that tuition costs are going up faster than income. When in reality it’s wage growth that stagnated, and funding for research has not kept peace with the cost to do the research. This is has resulted in many students graduating with loans that they cannot pay off, primarily due to wage inequality. Now in most civilized industrial countries, we realize that a higher educated populous results in an overall lower cost to the tax payer, and a greater net positive effect on GDP through services, technological growth and development. The US seems to be trying to buck this trend and decrease the accessibility to higher education for people who cannot afford it. While that may sound reasonable in the short term from the “ I’m not paying for your…“ perspective, it shows a lack of foresight and strategic thinking. The future effects that those educated folks will have on both the social and economic output of a country are not insignificant. If we really wanted to reap the rewards of higher education as a society, we would simply make it as affordable as possible to as many people as possible. One last concession I will make, is for those students who begin the collegiate journey, and do not finish. Higher education is an obligation which needs to be taken seriously. Students should have to pay back what they put in for that knowledge. However It is a fallacy that these are the people that make up the bulk majority of these loans. Just as it is a fallacy that these loans primarily fall on the spectrum of the arts. My university has, an on average, 20% non-completion rate which is 10% higher than the target for a large private institution. We recently performed a survey to see why this is the case and the only useful piece of information we gathered is that out of that 20% only 2% were significantly funded through loans. At the end of the day, most of these loan borrowers are not lazy people majoring in underwater basket weaving. They are kids trying to find the American dream by working in fields of technology, science, education, research, and health. They just do not understand what they signed up for with the loans, and they are living in a job market that has had significant wage stagnation in comparison to cost of living. Which is perfectly understandable given that an 18-year-old child is incapable of understanding what $50,000 a year for four years at a CPI of 7% will look like over the course of a 30 year loan. Especially because we do not teach this type of math in our primary education system so most students cannot conceptually understand these numbers. Even most of the regards on here cannot do this computation, much less the parents who have no idea how economics are interest rates work in the United States.

TheSilentEngineer

TLDR; I’m an educator and administrator at a large university in the US. Funding universities is a complex and nuanced topic. The real problem here though is wage stagnation, and a lack of financial education. Most of these kids are not majoring in underwater basket weaving with tuition of 100,000 a year, most of these folks are in a STEM field simply cannot make ends meet. OK, I’m gonna assume you’re not from the US. Higher education in the United States is a very complex, extremely nuanced topic generally gets reduced to a headline. Well, really one of two headlines tuition is way too expensive, or alternatively, graduates are lazy and don’t pay their loans. In reality, this is a much more complex situation. First, we should discuss the general working principle of a university and cost of college; since that plays into the need for loans. So in the United States, we rely on our academic institutions to be the backbones for research. Effectively the goal is to democratized information so that companies cannot generate pure unrestricted profit off of things that can benefit the United States or really mankind as a whole. Think cancer research, or nano technology, sustainable agriculture, or green energy, or really all of the things that we as a society benefit from. We can all agree this is a great cause. The problem here is that this costs a lot of money, and while the United States historically has funded research, that funding has always been less substantial than one might think. so research cost money, but we do not spend a lot on research at least in comparison to other expenditures at a federal level. This means that universities need to offset those costs. Now, if you are a very old school, or you happen to have extremely wealthy alumni, then some of those costs can be offset by endowed funds, basically investments and securities and properties worth of dividends of those investments or percentage there of are paid back to the university to support operating costs. It isn’t necessarily an indicator of how much liquidity the university has, nor is it immediate funds that a university can tap. In the US we can estimate that approximately 160 universities have endowment over $1 million for student, including public and private universities. Ignoring for-profit institutions that’s about 4000 or so schools in the US. So as a majority of schools, do not have the endowment most people think they do. So we have research, and we have endowments, but that “keeps the lights on” for the majority of schools. To generate the kind of profit you need to pay educators and administration you need undergraduate students We’re going to ignore terminal degree students here since PhD programs are generally a gigantic red line item for any university. This means that as general costs rise, or if you wanted to increase pay, or if you wanted to be able to hire better researchers to generate more grant capital, then you need to generate more funds. The source of that fund generation generally comes from raising tuition rates, but a few raised tuition too high then you don’t have enough students to draw, and you risk becoming insolvent. Most universities play the game of high tuition, but also providing a very high discount rate this makes them appear philanthropic to families, and the high tuition gives the impression of a top-tier university. Now we can argue about this all day because I would think that that is a very sad statistic, but it is a statistic based on actual sentiment analysis. So tuition rates of balloon to keep up with the rising cost of well everything, but salaries wage gross in the US has stagnated significantly . This leads to the notion that tuition costs are going up faster than income. When in reality it’s wage growth that stagnated, and funding for research stagnated, and comparison to the cost to do the research. This is has resulted in many students graduating with loans that they cannot pay off, primarily due to wage inequality. The fields that I listed in my original comment are actual fields where this wage inequality remain significant. Now in most civilized industrial countries, we realize that a higher educated populous results in an overall lower cost to the tax payer and a greater net positive effect on GDP through services, technological growth and development. The US seems to be trying to buck this trend and decrease the accessibility to higher education for people who cannot afford it. While that may sound reasonable in the short term from the “ I’m not paying for your…“ perspective it shows a lack of foresight, and strategic thinking in the future effects that those educated folks will have on both the social and economic output of a country. If we really wanted to reap the rewards of higher education as a society, we would simply make it as affordable as possible to as many people as possible. One last concession I will make, is for those students who begin the collegiate journey, and do not finish. Higher education is an obligation which needs to be taken seriously. Students should have to pay back what they put in for that knowledge. It is a fallacy that these are the people that make up the bulk majority of these loans. Just as it is a fallacy that these loans primarily fall on the spectrum of the arts. My university has an on average 20% non-completion rate which is 10% higher than the target for a large private institution. We recently performed a survey to see why this is the case and the only useful piece of information we had is that out of that 20% only 2% were significantly funded through loans. At the end of the day, most of these loan borrowers are not lazy people majoring in underwater basket weaving. They are kids trying to find the American dream by working in fields of technology, science, education, research, and health. They just do not understand what they signed up for with the loans, and they are living in a job market that has had significant wage stagnation in comparison to cost of living. Which is perfectly understandable given that an 18-year-old child is incapable of understanding what $50,000 a year for four years at a CPI of 7% will look like over the course of a 30 year loan. Especially because we do not teach this type of math in our primary education system so most students cannot conceptually understand these numbers. Even most of the regards on here can not do this computation, much less the parents who have no idea how economics are interest rates work in the United States.

Brh1002

I'd love to see a reform of higher education akin to that we see in Germany & India. Well designed 10th-12th grade exams that help determine one's eligibility for certain in-demand STEM degree programs. These programs are eligible for heavily subsidized tuition and loans. Likewise, those who don't qualify for this qualify instead for the same assistance toward trade schools. More limited loans can be make available for programs outside of this that prevent people unlikely to be able to pay off their college debt from taking on too much. This will deter people from degree paths that aren't likely to be productive for them, but provide a path to financial independence that they can leverage to study whatever they want later.

TrainingLime6839

I mean I agree with your statement here, but STEM degree holders do not hold the majority of debt that ends up in delinquency. It’s akin to saying medical doctors have the most student debt when they finish school. It’s irrelevant to the conversation of loan forgiveness as way more STEM graduates repay their full loan amount than most other fields. There are a number of fields that are a problem in this area, but not STEM.

TrainingLime6839

That doesn’t really answer the question about STEM degree holders. The real answer is because the point was a bullshit lie, and most college debt that goes unpaid is not held by STEM degree holders. It was a complete fabrication. You will be very unsurprised what majors don’t repay their loans when you look at the data.

stewie3128

That's how much the job market sucks currently. Entry-level/poverty wages for developer roles that "require" years of experience to even be considered. "STEM" isn't some magical thing that means you can get a livable wage after graduation.

Barbados_slim12

Loans are only one part. As long as a degree is a necessity to get your foot in the door for most jobs, schools can charge whatever they want because you can't not get a degree if you want to pursue your major. Or whatever you would have majored in. Companies need to be more open to hiring people with a high-school diploma, and pay them an amount where they can actually survive. Comfortably pay rent, make auto loan payments, have a kid.. maybe even realistically save up for a house if you don't have a kid. That would force a societal shift towards a diploma being the baseline for the average person, not an expensive BA. College degrees could go back to being reserved for specialized fields like STEM. Those jobs would of course pay much higher than others due to the scarcity of applicants. Kids are told that lie anyway, might as well follow through.

5amwakeupcall

In a lot of STEM fields only the top students are employable. A huge portion of students have low IQ and skate by with a 2.0 at graduation. These people have no means to pay back their loans.

Acrobatic-Ostrich168

What about education? Do you think our teachers should be this deep in debt? Or marketing, or accounting, or anything that makes the country run? Bottom line is not everyone can work in STEM anyway, but even they suffer when the cost of education is so exorbitant. Entrepreneurs, historians, museum staff, authors, philosophers, and the whole bunch. Having access to higher education, makes the entire population more aware of what’s going on, better critical thinkers, and so forth. If you wanna stand back from a grand strategy, if you were a king, wouldn’t she want a competitive and intelligent populous?

probablywontrespond2

> The vast majority of degree holders who are in debt are in STEM. This policy would affect people with past due debts. People working in STEM should generally be able to afford to pay down their debts. > Besides, should we just abandon the liberal arts which provide us a culture to live in? What culture are the people with liberal art degrees providing lol.

TrainingLime6839

Certainly not averse to some sort of solution given we bail out literal criminal enterprises who crippled the economy, I’m just questioning the actual data that the majority of debt holders are from STEM. Especially if this data is not being calculated per graduate from each discipline. It’s likely the case that “STEM” is just a catch all category and with a lot of majors that aren’t really science, technology, engineering, or math based. For awhile they were including elementary teachers in discussions about STEM, and they even came up with the acronym STEAM to throw arts into it for whatever weird reason.

Matrim__Cauthon

Historically STEM made a lot more and had more jobs, from what I understand. A lot of engineers nowadays aren't engineers, but bureaucrats or managers. A lot of degree-holders are "underemployed", aka going into fields not STEM-related out of necessity. Both factor into a downward pressure as engineering is not strictly analytical/difficult anymore, so an Engineer's job is worth less through dilution of the role, and the market for engineer jobs tends to be flooded with new grads or people trying to transfer back to engineering. I don't have sources for anything I just said, except for what I see around me in my limited sphere of coworkers and biased social media.

TehSillyKitteh

There's this funny duality of people who seem to think 1. That the majority of these folks aren't living frivolously and truly can't afford to pay their student loans 2. That the majority of these folks have advanced STEM degrees and are either Doctors or Engineers. I don't know how it's possible that both of these things could be true.

TrainingLime6839

Genuine question - if the vast majority of degree holders in debt are in STEM, why can’t they pay back their loans? What is stopping individuals with degrees in high-demand, good paying fields from paying their debts?

Acrobatic-Ostrich168

What another stupid and out of touch take. The vast majority of degree holders who are in debt are in STEM. Besides, should we just abandon the liberal arts which provide us a culture to live in? (I will admit stuff like gender studies is bullshit lol)

arod7432

**It’s April 21st, 2025.** Mamala just gave a speech about teenage girl STEM investment at the White House that absolutely no one watched. SPY is at an all-time high—**650.**

arod7432

**It’s April 21st, 2025.** Kamala Harris just gave a speech about teenage girl STEM investment at the White House that absolutely no one watched. SPY is at an all-time high—**650.**

inflatable_pickle

I can’t believe we are all racist and sexist and misogynistic and Neanderthal anti-tech people – if we don’t praise this billionairephoto op stunt. There are actually brilliant female, scientist and astrophysicists and researchers, and they have been pushing for brilliant women to be in STEM for like 20 years now - billionaires couldn’t have wasted an hour of their afternoon honoring actual women or actual scientists? No. They don’t give a shit about either of those categories. Instead, we got Katy Perry bringing the Setlist for her upcoming tour on a 7 minute ride to the edge of the atmosphere, kissing the ground to showboat for the cameras and talk about how she is “so connected to love.“ ❤️ Jesus what a waste of money. 💰 This is right up there with the band U2 forcibly dropping their album on everyone’s phone, or Kanye making swastika shirts - millionaires and billionaires are not only tone deaf, but they surround themselves by yes, men who agree with every tone deaf idea 🤦‍♀️

auntie_clokwise

Exactly. Also, companies literally cannot move production. We don't have the workers, we don't have the STEM graduates, we couldn't even do the crazy automation they think would make it all work. And if we did somehow, we'd have to import so many H1B workers (for high paying jobs, BTW), that the Conservatives would be up in arms over foreigners coming in and "taking all the good jobs" and replacing white people. Oh and those factories take years to build, if you're lucky, and we'd need hundreds of factories, so good luck even acquiring all the equipment needed to equip those factories because alot of that equipment is made in small quantities and often to order. There just isn't much slack in the equipment suppliers production ability to even make enough equipment to do all this. So yeah, just isn't going to happen because it can't. Far cheaper and easier to raise prices and endure the pain for now and use money and influence to fix the source of the problem - Trump and his quixotic quest to end trade deficits.

LifeIsAnAnimal

### What Trump Can Do to Restore Confidence in U.S. Treasuries While Maintaining Tariff Revenue To restore global confidence in U.S. Treasuries while keeping some tariff revenue to incentivize domestic manufacturing, Trump could adopt a balanced approach that reduces uncertainty, strengthens fiscal credibility, and rebuilds trust with trading partners. Here are specific steps: 1. Refine Tariff Strategy for Predictability: - Targeted and Transparent Tariffs: Instead of broad, sweeping tariffs, focus on specific industries (e.g., steel, semiconductors) critical to U.S. manufacturing. Announce tariff schedules in advance with clear exemptions for allies, reducing market uncertainty. For example, maintain tariffs on Chinese goods but offer carve-outs for countries like Canada or the EU that agree to manufacturing partnerships. - Revenue Allocation: Publicly commit tariff revenue to reducing the budget deficit or funding infrastructure projects that boost U.S. manufacturing. This signals fiscal responsibility, reassuring investors that the U.S. is managing its debt sustainably. - Impact: Predictable tariffs minimize trade war escalation, stabilizing markets and reinforcing Treasuries as a reliable asset. Revenue supports manufacturing incentives without undermining fiscal credibility. 2. Strengthen Trade Alliances: - Bilateral Agreements: Negotiate trade deals with key Treasury holders like Japan, the EU, and South Korea, offering tariff reductions in exchange for increased purchases of U.S. goods or Treasuries. For instance, a U.S.-Japan trade pact could include commitments to maintain Treasury holdings. - Multilateral Engagement: Rejoin or initiate trade frameworks (e.g., a revised Trans-Pacific Partnership) to counter China’s influence and reassure allies of U.S. commitment to global trade. This reduces the risk of retaliatory tariff wars that undermine Treasury confidence. - Impact: Stronger alliances increase demand for Treasuries from friendly nations, offsetting potential sales by adversaries like China. It also encourages manufacturers to invest in the U.S. as part of a stable trade network. 3. Fiscal Discipline and Communication: - Deficit Reduction Plan: Outline a credible plan to curb deficit growth, such as targeted spending cuts or revenue-neutral tax reforms. Avoid unfunded tax cuts that alarm bond markets. Communicate this plan globally to reassure investors of U.S. debt sustainability. - Debt Management: Work with the Treasury Department to issue longer-maturity Treasuries, locking in lower yields and reducing rollover risks. This stabilizes Treasury prices and attracts long-term investors. - Impact: Fiscal credibility lowers yield pressures, making Treasuries more attractive. It also signals to manufacturers that the U.S. economy is stable for long-term investment. 4. Mitigate Inflation Risks: - Supply-Side Incentives: Pair tariffs with policies to boost domestic production (e.g., tax breaks, deregulation for manufacturers). This reduces reliance on imports, tempering tariff-driven inflation and stabilizing Treasury yields. - Energy Policy: Promote U.S. energy exports (e.g., LNG, oil) to lower global energy costs, which helps contain inflation. Lower inflation expectations reduce pressure on the Fed to hike rates, keeping Treasury yields manageable. - Impact: Controlled inflation preserves Treasury value and encourages manufacturing by making U.S. production costs competitive. 5. Reassure Global Investors: - Dollar Diplomacy: Avoid rhetoric or policies that weaponize the dollar (e.g., excessive sanctions). Instead, emphasize the dollar’s role as a stable global reserve currency. Engage with foreign central banks to affirm the safety of Treasury holdings. - Outreach to China: Pursue limited détente with China, such as phased tariff reductions in exchange for commitments not to sell Treasuries. This reduces the risk of a coordinated dump by China, stabilizing markets. - Impact: Reassured investors maintain or increase Treasury holdings, while a calmer U.S.-China relationship reduces trade war risks, encouraging manufacturers to invest in the U.S. 6. Promote Manufacturing Without Over-Reliance on Tariffs: - Tax Incentives: Offer tax credits or accelerated depreciation for manufacturers building factories in the U.S., especially in strategic sectors like semiconductors or green energy. This is less disruptive than tariffs and directly attracts investment. - Workforce Development: Invest in vocational training and STEM education to create a skilled labor pool, making the U.S. a more attractive manufacturing hub. - Impact: Non-tariff incentives draw manufacturers to the U.S. while preserving tariff revenue from targeted sectors, maintaining fiscal support for these programs without spooking Treasury markets. ### Balancing Act: Tariff Revenue vs. Confidence - Optimal Tariff Level: Maintain moderate tariffs (e.g., 10-20% on select Chinese goods) to generate revenue (historically $70-80 billion annually) without triggering severe retaliation or inflation. Avoid universal tariffs (e.g., 25% on all imports), which could destabilize markets. - Revenue Use: Allocate tariff revenue transparently to manufacturing subsidies or deficit reduction, signaling to investors that the U.S. prioritizes economic stability. - Global Messaging: Trump should frame tariffs as a temporary tool to rebuild U.S. industry, not a permanent trade war, reassuring markets that disruptions will subside.

LiberalAspergers

That was 25 years ago. China has been at the forefront of most STEM research for the past decade. 2 generations of Phd students came to the best US universities, and then returned to build and upgrade universities back in China. Tshinga, Fudan, and Zhejiang Universities are peers to Stanford and MIT at this point.

Atlas-Scrubbed

Try a couple of MDs working for a state university. Or STEM professors at large public research universities. Or football coaches at public universities. Or governors….

SmokingLimone

Even 60 years from now China's adult working population will be larger than the US'. China certainly does have big demographic problems coming up but not in the short term for sure. And they will waste no time in technologies that delay them, with how many STEM workers they have.

GTdspDude

Yeah I’m a similar age as you, was in high school when no child left behind and stuff came out, and I was fortunate enough that my parents sent me to a private school that was really good and really emphasized philosophy and critical thinking in addition to STEM. I distinctly remember wondering, even then, how long these types of moves would take to impact the populace and dumb it down - I incorrectly predicted it would take generations, not the 20 years it has. Best move politically republicans did was destroying education - the rich ones don’t even send their kids to those schools anyway. It’s literal monetary version of affirmative action, only the rich can rise

thejumpingsheep2

Are you grad or undergrad? Whats your major? How much money are we talking about? If you need like $5k-$10k then its sizeable enough to matter. Just pull it. If you are in an expensive school that costs $40k/yr then continue... Are you pulling more than $40k? If you are a grad, just take time off and work. A year relevant experience is FAR more valuable than the degree by a huge margin and further, many jobs give you tuition reimbursement for grad work after a year of work. So why not take advantage? Exception for medical school. Are you in medical school? No other grad degree is worth more than a year of experience. So take time off and get finances in order. If not a grad, then continue.... Are you an undergrad? If undergrad, and your major is not STEM, take a semester off and get a job. A non-STEM degree isnt worth much anyway. If you are a STEM student, switch to part time and get a job. In general a STEM degree is valuable and your starting salary will likely be $75k or more. Thats worth finishing quickly so dont delay it too much but your investments are also valuable so strike a balance. For what its worth, I worked full time and finished a Bioengineering degree in about 5 years from a very hard program at a top 10 STEM school in an expensive rent area. I had to sacrifice a lot but it can be done. I didnt lose my sanity... too much....

BleuRaider

My god, do people like you even try and make sure what you believe aligns with even the most basic logic? Or is it all optics and skin-deep reasoning? When Biden took office, his administration took that concept and significantly expanded it. What became the CHIPS and Science Act under Biden included not just subsidies for chip factories, but also major investments in scientific research, workforce development, and STEM education. The total package ended up being around $280 billion, with over $50 billion specifically for chip production and R&D. They pitched it as a long-term strategy—not just a response to the short-term chip shortage as originally proposed, but a way to rebuild U.S. leadership in high-tech industries and create good-paying jobs. So while the original idea may have started earlier, the scope, funding, and political push to actually pass and implement it came from Biden’s administration. Insinuating that is somehow not his is like saying Obamacare is actually Bushcare because it started being discussed under Bush’s presidency.

Overhere_Overyonder

Indeed. They lack expertise and are not carrying on instructional knowledge. That's gonna have huge down stream consequences. How isn't education especially STEM being funded like crazy if we really are fighting an existential battle with China. 

Books_and_Cleverness

Even worse, they’re handling other aspects with the same level of misunderstanding and same lack of care. They just don’t have the same immediate financial market feedback. Gutting STEM research is a good example.

pzerr

I think you very much underestimate the education factor. More so, you very much underestimate that they push STEM far more than we do. Those are the guys that are most inovative. Ya they may not be at the same level as the west but when they have 3 times the population and a lower cost workforce, they get a lot out of that. In total, more than the west.

Federal_Cicada_4799

It's not hard to figure out. China has 4 times the US's population, yet for every one (1) engineer that is produced in the US, China puts out 7-8, India 4-5. Also, they have twice the number of STEM PhDs graduate per year. And if you're commenting "well what about the 2024 Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair where the US took top spot"? Well you're right, except the notable standout winners were Krish Pai, Grace Sun, Saathvik Kannan, Eugene Chen and Michelle Wei. I'll let you figure out the theme here.

PumpkinPoshSpice

Pharma manufacturing jobs are highly skilled, well paid STEM jobs. You keep your critical drugs in house and you support the American STEM economy. There’s no downside here.

AdAny631

This is 100% it. I don’t care about the Democratic Party but stop putting lipstick on a pig and telling me it’s Sydney Sweeney. I voted against this asshole three times because he is bad for business, regardless of what he claims or the Republican Party claims. Wharton graduates I think you all should sue UPenn for giving this MORON a degree therefore devaluing yours. I am crashing out right now because it’s no tariffs on semis and now its semis are in a different bucket. Our bonds are going to get dumped. A lot of sovereign wealth funds or pension funds are halting/reducing further investment in US stocks and bonds. This will end badly without a plan and I know we don’t have a plan but for fucks sake I already work a shit job with a Masters degree in STEM & I don’t want to be homeless.

PumpkinPoshSpice

58% of drugs for the U.S. market are manufactured overseas and 72% of APIs are. That’s kind of ridiculous. Those are good STEM jobs and important for national security.

PumpkinPoshSpice

58% of drugs for the U.S. market are manufactured overseas and 72% of APIs are. That’s kind of ridiculous. Those are good STEM jobs and important for national security (tanker gang)

PumpkinPoshSpice

58% of drugs for the U.S. market are manufactured overseas and 72% of APIs are. That’s kind of ridiculous. Those are good STEM jobs and important for national security (tanker gang)

mrnumber1

China produces more STEM graduates each year than the USA produces graduates.

DeepNarwhalNetwork

And … Germany is re-arming. Despite all the focus on STEM, I think everyone should have to be at least a history minor.

PreferenceFeisty2984

It’s not just in politics, it’s everywhere in US. Competence doesn’t matter. Many of the folks working in STEM here would not even qualify for the green card if they were born in Europe.

apogeescintilla

May I suggest more push toward adopting the metric system? US STEM students are at a disadvantage due to limited exposure to the metric system IMO.

DietOfKerbango

We are heading off the cliff with anti-science lunacy. Attacks on the independence of our universities, gutting the NIH, proposed legislation to ban mRNA vaccines, the Sec. of HHS encouraging measles outbreaks. Decades of efforts to gut public education, and thus the pipeline of student talent going into STEM. While simultaneously making the country an undesirable and unsafe for foreign students, visitors (including scientists.) Travel to the US has plunged off of a cliff. The general loss of cultural, economic, and scientific influence when you intentionally make yourself the most hated country on earth. As far as weapons, and related technological innovation. When you randomly threaten Canada and abandon the entire free world in the middle of a fascist invasion into Europe, your former allies stop wanting to buy your weapons. When foreign buyers (our former allies) stop buying our weapons, we lose the funding stream and economies of scale that help us innovate and keep building weapons domestically at an OK cost. More broadly, intentionally turning the country into a joke, an unstable failing democracy, has resulted in net foreign outflows of capital for the first time in a long time.

FullstackSensei

GE could only do such a move because China's education system was good enough to graduate enough engineers with enough caliber to pick up R&D going forward. Sure GE shared their UP, but that would've killed them if it had been done in another country that doesn't have a robust enough education system. I say this because I see most people forgrt/ignore how big and important this is, or at the very least take it for granted. I come from a 3rd world country and I was lucky enough to finish university when the education system was still decent (but had declined from it's best days the generation before mine). Now the education system there is so bad that the vast majority of STEM "graduates" don't know how to study a book. That China can maintain a quality education system at such a scale is no small feat, and that they keep investing in it is a testament to their long term thinking.

qui_tam_gogh

Important update. My $00.56 account is up to $00.57. Positions 1 GLYC and 1 STEM. Working my way back up to an options trading account one cent at a time. Adding “Founder” to my LinkedIn bio. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

nissan_nissan

I think there's also a huge disparity, in that in China, almost everyone who went to secondary school (High school) has good STEM knowledge at a BASELINE, whereas in the US, our secondary school STEM is a joke and we need to go to college for STEM education for STEM careers. the gap is so big I really don't know how we can even fix it at this point

willrich13

More students in STEM is crucial for America to survive in this new tech heavy era

godblessnoone

English is a main subject taught in China and thousands of students were sent to west for learning STEM.However,few of western people know even a character of Chinese.Let alone get a fully understand of the culture and history of the country.Know your enemy is always the first step to beat them(if confrontation is inevitable,which I hope not though).Just like how I am looking through your forum for a better understandding of west and its people./s

MotamaIN

>The US consumer market is bigger than the next five consumer markets combined. No, it isn't. This is only about physical goods since the OP is talking about "sourcing products". The consumer market is about all goods and services. The US has a "larger" consumer market due to services. China is the world's largest consumer for physical goods. In the US, you can get a $200 haircut and in China you can get a $5 haircut. The service quality is exactly the same (it might even be better in China since some of them include a scalp massage) but it outrageously inflates the value of the US consumer market. We can expand into health insurance too if you want to learn more about how the world's "largest" consumer market is a scam. >Participating in the Chinese market means significant release of your IP, ownership structure, etc. If this was a concern, all those companies would've never set up shop. It turns out being the world's largest consumer market is all it takes and you need coercive tariffs to try to get these companies to leave. >The Chinese domestic market is also quickly losing appetite for foreign made goods (ex Porsche closing 30%+ of their dealerships in China and accelerating more closings). All foreign car companies are getting crushed but it has nothing to do with being foreign. It has to do with Chinese cars being superior. Poor example. >The Chinese consumer economy is not healthy and they’re also about to fall off a demographic cliff in the next decade. This demographics meme again. China has over four times more people than the US. You just said the US has the largest consumer market (goods and services). What does this tell you about the relationship between demographics and the consumer market? Consumer spending has far more to do with productivity than demographics. A country with a smaller population can have a larger consumer market due to being more productive. A country can have a huge population and have a smaller consumer market because they're unproductive. Look at India. A factory with one engineer servicing robots is better than a factory with 100 laborers. That's what people don't seem to get with this demographics cope. Factory jobs in China is decreasing while productivity in China is increasing. Do you think China is sad about moving up the value chain? The question you have to ask is, what is China going to do with all those STEM graduates? Do they want to be laborers making Nike shoes or are they interested in R&D? Which one leads China into higher income status? Lastly, if this demographics meme was truly the end of China, the US gov wouldn't be tearing their hair out trying to destroy China's economy. You would just sit back and let it happen.

lifeisahighway2023

No. Americans are underestimating how much of some inputs come from abroad as we lack them here. I understand the desire for independence & autonomy as all our allies have it to some extent as well. But it really is not remotely realistic. The country that probably has the most available inputs is Canada. They have virtually everything, including the skilled and educated labor force especially in STEM. But they can never achieve the economies of scale to make most production viable - they lack the deman. We possess the economies of scale inputs but lack the base inputs. And that is why the 2 countries have been tied at the hip for so long.

Yogurt_Up_My_Nose

lots of those STEM professionals have a tough time finding jobs in China. if they do go outside it's still tough competition.

NewAtmosphere2443

I wonder which country is the future? China graduates the most STEM professionals in the world. The US department of education secretary repeatedly calls Artificial intelligence "A1". 🤔🤔🤔

NVDA_to_125

It is the 10th of April of 2025. President Harris is hosting a Girls in STEM event at the White House. The YouTube livestream has 140 viewers. SPY is at 660.