In a buyer's market, the buyer keeps the surplus. That is not a controversial claim in economics. The controversy is when it happens to you. Mechanical engineering is a buyer's market. It has been one for over a decade. See Reason #1. The question is not whether there are winners and losers. The question is who sits on which side of the table, and by how much.
Start with the wage distribution. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes what MEs earn at every point in the curve. At the 10th percentile, you make $68,740. At the median, $102,320. At the 90th percentile, the ceiling for a full-career ME in an optimistic outcome, you make $161,240. That ceiling is second-lowest among the major engineering branches. A chemical engineer at the 90th percentile earns $182,150, twenty thousand more per year than the best-compensated ME. An aerospace engineer at the 90th percentile earns $188,910. An electrical engineer earns $172,050 (BLS, 2024). The winners in those fields win bigger. The winners in ME win less, off a lower floor, into a flatter curve. See Reason #18 and Reason #27.
Now look at who does win. The universities collect approximately two billion dollars a year in undergraduate ME tuition at public institutions alone, before graduate enrollment, before fees, and before the differential tuition premium that 56 percent of public research universities now charge specifically for engineering (ASEE, 2024; Hemelt, Stange, Furquim, Simon, & Sawyer, 2022). That revenue arrives whether or not the graduate finds a mechanical engineering job. The university is not selling you an outcome. It is selling you a seat. See Reason #72.
The staffing firms capture the churn. Engineering temporary staffing revenue reached $2.1 billion in 2023 (Staffing Industry Analysts, 2024). Every contract extension, every conversion fee, every six-month "temp-to-perm" audition is a transaction that exists because the pipeline keeps refilling and employers keep hedging. See Reason #45. The more volatile the cycle, the more valuable the middleman. The middleman is working as designed. See Reason #72.
The biggest ME employers make this visible. Engineering services firms, the single largest employer of MEs at 58,810 positions, sell your hours to someone else's program at a 40 to 60 percent markup over your pay rate (BLS, 2024; ASA, 2020). See Reason #45. Manufacturers keep you on staff to absorb the physical remainder that software cannot wave away. Government and defense primes employ another 13,610 MEs in the federal workforce and 11,160 in aerospace manufacturing, and their work follows a different logic entirely (BLS, 2024). Political scientists call it the iron triangle: Congress appropriates, the agency contracts, and the contractor delivers (Adams, 1981). The engineer is the labor input that makes the deliverables exist. The Government Accountability Office has documented for two decades that this structure provides "little incentive for contractors to utilize the best systems engineering" practices (GAO, 2008). The Defense Acquisition University's own journal reported that earned value management compliance has "supplanted" engineering judgment, converting design work into schedule metrics and signoff artifacts (Abba, 2017). A Congressionally mandated review panel called the result "an outdated, industrial-era bureaucracy" (Section 809 Panel, 2018). You turn appropriations into schedules. You turn schedules into signoffs. You are told to be grateful for the stability, and the stability is real: federal engineers stay a median of 6.5 years, nearly double the private-sector median of 3.5 (BLS, 2024). But the Congressional Budget Office found that workers with advanced degrees receive lower total compensation in federal service than private-sector counterparts (CBO, 2024). You trade ceiling for floor. See Reason #39.
The employers capture the rest, and the mechanism is now documented in peer-reviewed labor economics. Azar, Marinescu, and Steinbaum found that moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile in labor market concentration is associated with a 17 percent decline in posted wages (Azar, Marinescu, & Steinbaum, 2022). A 2024 BLS study using employer-level data confirmed that a shift from unconcentrated to highly concentrated markets is associated with a 6.8 percent decrease in average wages (Thompson, 2024). Benmelech, Bergman, and Kim, using Census manufacturing plant data spanning 1977 to 2009, found that employer concentration in manufacturing has been increasing for four decades, and that the negative relationship between concentration and wages strengthens over time (Benmelech, Bergman, & Kim, 2022). ME works in manufacturing. ME works in plant towns where three employers control the labor market. See Reason #74. The oversupply gives employers a 2.5-to-1 candidate ratio. The geographic concentration gives them monopsony pricing power. The two mechanisms reinforce each other, and the surplus they extract is not a theory. It is a wage line that sits below every peer discipline except civil.
The outcome distribution tells the rest of the story. There are 1,014,000 people in the United States whose highest degree is in mechanical engineering. Only 293,100 work as mechanical engineers (NSF, 2023; BLS, 2024). That is 29 percent. Another 238,000 work entirely outside science and engineering. The remaining are scattered across adjacent technical roles, management, sales, or out of the labor force entirely. See Reason #63. For the 23 percent in non-S&E occupations, the cost of the mismatch is not just the lost identity. It is a measurable wage penalty. Cassidy, using NSCG data, found that the penalty for occupation-education mismatch increased 56 percent between 1993 and 2019 (Cassidy, 2023). The mismatch is getting more expensive, not less, and ME has one of the largest mismatched populations in engineering by absolute count.
There are winners in this market. The university collects two billion in tuition. The staffing firm collects two billion in placements. The employer pays 17 percent less than a competitive market would require. The professional society collects dues and runs conferences. See Reason #13. At every stage, a stakeholder extracts value from the surplus. At no stage does the engineer.
You are not a participant in this market. You are the margin it runs on.
References:
Abba, W. (2017). The evolution of earned value management. Defense AT&L, March-April 2017. https://www.dau.edu/library/damag/march-april2017/defense-atandl-march-april-2017-2-evolution-earn
Adams, G. (1981). The politics of defense contracting: The iron triangle. Council on Economic Priorities.
American Society for Engineering Education. (2024). Engineering and engineering technology by the numbers, 2023. https://ira.asee.org/by-the-numbers/
American Staffing Association. (2020). When clients ask: What goes into your bill rate? ASA Fact Sheet.
Azar, J., Marinescu, I., & Steinbaum, M. (2022). Labor market concentration. Journal of Human Resources, 57(S), S167-S199. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.monopsony.1218-9914R1
Benmelech, E., Bergman, N. K., & Kim, H. (2022). Strong employers and weak employees: How does employer concentration affect wages? Journal of Human Resources, 57(S), S200-S250.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Employee tenure in 2024. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Occupational employment and wage statistics, May 2024: Mechanical engineers (17-2141). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm
Cassidy, H. (2023). The increasing penalty to occupation-education mismatch. Economic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13192
Congressional Budget Office. (2024). Comparing the compensation of federal and private-sector employees in 2022. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235
Government Accountability Office. (2008). Best practices: Increased focus on requirements and oversight needed to improve DOD's acquisition environment and weapon system quality (GAO-08-294). https://www.gao.gov/assets/a271836.html
Hemelt, S. W., Stange, K. M., Furquim, F., Simon, A., & Sawyer, A. (2022). Major differences: Variation in undergraduate earnings by field of study. Education Next, 22(2).
National Science Foundation. (2023). National Survey of College Graduates, 2021 (NSF 23-306), Table 1-1. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23306
Section 809 Panel. (2018). Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Volume 1. https://discover.dtic.mil/section-809-panel/
Staffing Industry Analysts. (2024). US staffing 2023-2024: Temporary trends. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5df75b994c1bf307fe492432/t/66b4f350a195031156bc6271/1723134810773/US-Staffing-2023-2024-Temporary-TrendsPGC-GROUP.pdf
Thompson, D. (2024). Measuring labor market concentration using the QCEW. Monthly Labor Review, October 2024. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2024/article/measuring-labor-market-concentration-using-the-qcew.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment