Jevons Is a Paradox, Not a Rule

Jevons Paradox says that as technology becomes more efficient, overall resource consumption can increase. This was seen during the Industrial Revolution when more efficient coal engines led to higher coal usage. However, this paradox is not universal, and efficiency can also lead to reduced resource consumption.

In the context of AI coding tools (e.g. GitHub Copilot), there's a belief that increased efficiency will lead to more coding jobs by lowering development costs. While this may happen, history shows that technological advancements can also displace workers.

Counter Examples

The invention of programming compilers made coding more efficient but reduced demand for assembly language programmers, who were once critical to assembly-based software development. While many of those programmers probably found other coding jobs in higher-level languages, Jevons simply doesn't guarantee it.

Similar patterns have occurred in other industries more starkly. The mechanization of agriculture reduced the need for farm labor.  See this graph:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-people-employed-in-agriculture

Then there's the replacement of draft horses, where ICE vehicles meant horses were no longer needed and millions of draft horses were slaughtered or displaced, and their population dwindled.  See this graph:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338480301/figure/fig1/AS:845430833283085@1578577826802/Evolution-of-the-horse-population-in-France-from-1800-to-2010-translated-from-French.ppm

In recent years, coal consumption has fallen despite energy efficiency gains due to the shift to other energy sources (e.g. renewables, gas).

The rebound effect, which drives Jevons Paradox, doesn’t always occur at full strength. For example, energy-efficient LED lighting and fuel-efficient cars have reduced overall energy and fuel consumption, despite potentially increasing usage. Similarly, AI tools may lead to fewer coding jobs, even if more code is produced.

Ultimately, while AI could increase software development demand, it may also reduce the need for certain types of programmers. History shows that efficiency gains don’t always lead to more jobs. Jevons didn't guarantee draft horses more jobs, after all.

This was written in collaboration with an AI — another example where more words will be written as efficiency per word increases but the number of writing jobs may well decrease (as it apparently already has: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65906521 ).

Where are the Canadian STEM students?

A while back I wrote with some details of Canadian educational attainment in Inflated expectations: Are students living in a dream? I've since become interested in the numbers of the so-called STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) and thought I'd write a supplement to the old post.

Let's start with a highlight that stood out from the old post first. Based on the 2006 Canadian census, and focusing in on the 20 to 24 year old cohort: roughly 78% or so (based on statistics from ACT in Spring 2004, regarding the USA) of high school students expected to get a college or higher degree, but only 35.9% of the above cohort actually got anything of the sort.

I think the 2011 census is now available, but to keep the comparison focused on 2006 (I don't want to redo the old post), I will continue to cite numbers from the 2006 Census [1].

Looking at just the Canadian population between the ages of 20 to 24 years, by highest certificate, diploma or degree attained:

type of highest certificate, diploma or degree attained	total [2]	% of cohort size
20-24 cohort, total size	2,071,895	100%
only a high school certificate or equivalent	889,275	42.9%
no certificate, diploma or degree at all	286,050	13.8%
some kind of post-secondary qualification (trades certificate, diploma below bachelor level, PhD, etc.)	896,575	43.3%
some kind of post-secondary qualification (trades certificate, diploma below bachelor level, PhD, etc.) in STEM fields	258,305	12.5%
some kind of university certificate, diploma or degree	344,795	16.6%
some kind of university certificate, diploma or degree in STEM fields	87,000	4.2%

Look at that, unemployment notwithstanding, the education "system" converted only 4.2% of the 20 to 24 cohort into STEM university credentialed workers after a long arduous process for the students involved.

Sure, the STEM university credentialed group represents 25.2% of all those who attained any university credentials at all, but it turns out in the context of the entire cohort, it's just a drop in the bucket. That is seriously concerning especially from an economics policy standpoint.

According to University Completion, "It has long been argued...university graduates, as a group, earn more, on average, than college graduates do", which might imply we ought to "sell" more university education, any university education. "However, recent research suggests the field of study may be more important...One study, for example, found that males with university degrees in academic disciplines—such as the humanities, education, biology, and agriculture science—earned less than half of that earned by males with university degrees in vocational and applied disciplines—such as commerce, medicine, and engineering" (ibid.).

So, not surprisingly, what field you study makes a difference! What's more, "Canadians with scientific degrees tend to earn more. Five years after graduation, engineers earn about $10,000 more annually than fine arts and humanities graduates, and upwards of $5,000 more than social science graduates. These earnings are in line with computer and physical sciences" (Percentage of Graduates in Science, Math, Computer Science, and Engineering).

What the research suggests, then, is that we ought to be "selling" more university education specifically in STEM and commerce fields. It's not just about helping students earn more money after graduation, but as I've noted in the past [3], the very fact the labour market provides greater incentive for a given occupation is evidence there isn't enough people entering that career path in the economy.

So let's get out there and sell more university STEM education!

Easier said than done, of course. Certainly for STEM fields, but to some extent for commerce fields as well (especially economics), a strong basis in math is a pre-requisite to success. That means to get more students into STEM and commerce fields, we may also have to get more students to learn more math and to learn it better as a pre-requisite — and that means high school math.

Therein, I'd argue, lies a big part of the problem with getting more students into STEM fields. It turns out high school math is hard, and getting more students to attain a high-level of math skills is also hard. In fact, "The proportion of Canadian [15 year old] students with high-level mathematics skills dropped slightly between 2003 and 2009" (Students With High-Level Math Skills) — that's six years of stagnation, if not decline.

So where are the Canadian STEM students? Don't be surprised you can't find them: literally over 95% of the 20 to 24 cohort just aren't into STEM.

[1] The numbers in the table were pulled from two Statistics Canada sources: Population 15 years and over by highest certificate, diploma or degree, by age groups (2006 Census), and Major Field of Study - Classification of Instructional Programs, 2000 (13), Highest Postsecondary Certificate, Diploma or Degree (12), Age Groups (10A) and Sex (3) for the Population 15 Years and Over With Postsecondary Studies of Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2006 Census - 20% Sample Data.

[2] I should come clean and say that the numbers are off by five (5). I don't really know why, seeing the numbers are pulled straight from Statistics Canada. I assume it has something to do with the normalization adjustments they do to different tables, or some small error in counting. When the numbers are in the millions, I doubt being off by five is a big deal in this particular case.

[3] See Why push math education onto students?

Passion, Fascination, and Aspiration

Getting ahead, moving up the corporate ladder, building a career, etc. — these are all legitimate, valid, and even admirable desires, if pursued for the right reasons. But where does that corporate ladder lead to? I still recall being warned by one professor, in the context of research some eleven years ago, to be careful of which totem pole to climb. Thinking on that warning some more, don't we find that all totem poles lead nowhere except to some arbitrarily higher elevation of some arbitrary spot in the ground?

And as for getting ahead: ahead of whom? And to what end? It's cliché to say that life is not a race, but if life were a race, then the end of the race would be called old age, and the prize would be death. So why would anyone want to hurtle down the race track towards that?

These questions doesn't imply that people should lead stagnant lives without goals, or without improving themselves. In fact, a person can become better by simply trying to become better all the time. What seems to become problematic is when we look for destinations, careers, and other people's lives, to not just aspire to, but to plan to achieve as a goal. I mean it seems problematic to crystallize a part of someone else's life, a life that that someone is still living, and then make it a goal to attain it.

To see what I mean by crystallization, here's two people who have careers that I'd love to have:

1) I look at someone like Peter Norvig, Director of Research at Google, and I think, "wow, I wish I could be like that. I want to be Director of Research! That must be such an awesome job — even he says it's 'the best job in the world at the best company in the world'!" Look at his resume — Division Chief at NASA, Sr. Scientist at Sun Microsystems, researcher at UC Berkeley, and was a Prof. at U of Southern California. I wonder how anyone, and especially how I, could build such a career!

2) Take a look at Chris Bishop, Distinguished Scientist at Microsoft and a Professor at the University of Edinburgh. "Wouldn't I want to be that 'when I grow up'!" He used to do research in theoretical physics too! Plus look at all the honours he's got, like being elected VP of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. How can I be successful like him?

Notice that out of these two people's lives, I've taken a very select aspect of it to crystallize into a portrait — in particular the titles, honours, and a minuscule portion of what they might be doing daily. Then I wonder how I can become that portrait.

The portraits are seductive — prestige and money! — but practically unattainable. They're like the "photoshopped" images of super models that are practically impossible for anyone to be in real life.

You could probably come up with several examples that apply more forcefully to your own life too. Any particular sports figure with fame and fortune you wish you could attain? Fancy the career of Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and wish for a career that leads you to where he's at now? Want to travel the globe and be a famous travel writer like Paul Theroux? Want to be a rock star?

Staying hungry for new achievements

When do you start dropping items from your resume? If you've been working for a few years after graduating from high school, I'd suggest all high school related achievements as well as work and volunteering experiences are from too long ago and needs to be dropped.

In general, I've been told that anything roughly older than three years can be dropped from your resume.  Few care about the honors capstone project you did in university if you've been working in industry for three years.  Why?  Because if you couldn't accomplish anything in the last three years, your super duper honors project might have been a fluke as far as achievements go.  If you're consistently accomplishing valuable achievements, then there's bound to be plenty to talk about from the past three years anyway.

Most of the world are appreciative of one-hit wonders, but wouldn't want to hire one for the long run.

Sadly, this means the shelf life of a Bachelor's Degree (or any degree for that matter) is maybe three to five years. Definitely after five years, it's more of a necessary checkbox to fill than indicative of any real ability. You'll find it hard to get hired without the degree, but you'll probably also find it hard to get hired if that's all you have [1].

Inflated expectations: Are students living in a dream?

There's a big gap between what young adults expect versus what they really will get in their lives.

In terms of educational attainment, I think the vast majority of high school students in Canada expect to get a high school diploma, at the least.  A vast majority of them probably want to go to college too (78% according to ACT in Spring 2004, but that's in USA, though it's probably roughly similar in Canada).

But looking at just the Canadian population, between the ages of 20 to 24 years, by highest certificate, diploma or degree attained in 2006, we see that based on the 2006 Census, only:

• 43.3% (896 570 out of 2 071 895) achieved some kind of post-secondary qualification (trades certificate, diploma below bachelor level, PhD, etc.)
• 35.9% (744 375 out of 2 071 895) achieved some kind of college, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma, or university certificate, diploma or degree
• 16.6% (344 795 out of 2 071 895) achieved some kind of university certificate, diploma or degree
• 42.9% (889 275 out of 2 071 895) achieved only a high school certificate or equivalent
• 13.8% (286 050 out of 2 071 895) achieved no certificate, diploma or degree at all

So roughly 78% or so expect to get a college or higher degree, but only 35.9% actually get anything of the sort.

Things to remember as a professional

Communication, communication, communication!

Feedback, feedback, feedback!

Energy, energy, energy!