First you're telling me that pharmaceuticals aren't employing a lot of scientists, and now you're telling me that they are. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I think "relatively little" (as opposed to "very little" or "none") is a fair characterization of what you said.

It appears that your point is that science graduates have mainly found employment in academia. This is just not so - chemists and biologists have traditionally found employment in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry.

My points is this: for a few years now chemistry has moved offshore, there have been heavy layoffs in the pharmaceutical industry, and the synthetic chemistry has been off-shored to contract shops, mainly in East Asia. But the pipeline is long, and any chemist who began their studies in the early 2000s, when the trend started, is (justifiably) pissed off that then cannot find work in their field even with a solid degree.

There is talk about alternative career path, but the observation is that those pay less then the original career promised.

We see the offshoring trend continue, the biological research is moving offshore as well, the pharmacology bubble is bursting, and soon only management will remain stateside.

This heavily afflicts people with advanced degrees. Considering that the common wisdom on this website is "skip college, get to work with the equivalent of a bachelors from Coursera/Khan &c", I cannot see that demographic unaffected. In India and China you can get an excellent education, and you will work for much less than an American or European. I cannot see computer engineering unaffected by the offshoring trend.

Exactly what is your point?

You know, I didn't say anything directly about people with advanced degrees in the sciences in my first comment, and I think I should have left it at that because you're picking a fight with me over a topic you brought up.

You were the one who defined the "stereotypical unemployed Gen-Yner", as "a liberal arts graduate, and for good reason. The engineers are fine". This just isn't the case, it isn't by a long shot. Anyone who makes statements risks having them checked against reality.

It's hard to see how your statements about biologists and chemists is at all relevant to my statement about engineers. If I meant "STEM", I would have said "STEM", not "engineers".