A recent viral chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the labor market prospects of recent college graduates has sparked a steady flow of in-depth reporting and thinkpieces over the last few months about the future of STEM education, the effects of AI on labor markets, and even high-skilled immigration.
Thank you for doing this work. It's a great illustration of how much deep thought is required to produce a credible response to a seemingly innocuous question. As someone who once wrote a letter to the editor of Forbes to complain about an article that clearly cherrypicked time periods to report on historical manufacturing employment, I can appreciate something like this. Great job.
Great analysis. The misuse of this data won't die though. I'm running into new mistakes in the viral commentary for the 2026 data. I came at this from a slightly different angle in a piece I published today: https://substack.norabble.com/p/or-equivalent-experience
I think the recurring belief in weak data here tells you something about biases. Those biases are also layering on unjustified job requirements.
Thank you for doing this work. It's a great illustration of how much deep thought is required to produce a credible response to a seemingly innocuous question. As someone who once wrote a letter to the editor of Forbes to complain about an article that clearly cherrypicked time periods to report on historical manufacturing employment, I can appreciate something like this. Great job.
Great analysis. The misuse of this data won't die though. I'm running into new mistakes in the viral commentary for the 2026 data. I came at this from a slightly different angle in a piece I published today: https://substack.norabble.com/p/or-equivalent-experience
I think the recurring belief in weak data here tells you something about biases. Those biases are also layering on unjustified job requirements.
You would think the Fed would know better than to rely on 2023 estimates from the ACS for this type of analysis.