I've spent most of my life as an enthusiastic amateur student, and I have spent a fair number of years indulged in full-time learning – most recently in pursuit of a degree in English and comparative literature, which I was pleased to achieve at Columbia University last May. My scattershot approach to learning has led me through every department and most disciplines at a handful of colleges and universities. I have followed my curiosity wherever it has led me.

You might think that this history would result in a fairly uniform level of minimum familiarity with every academic subject. And I suppose it would, if my choices had been random. But they weren't, not quite. I have managed, in all of my journalistic research, in all of my amateur reading, in all of my academic pursuits, to avoid economics.

Oh, I've picked up the occasional economics textbook. I always put it down quickly. A glance is all it takes to confirm my impression that economics is built upon a foundation of impenetrable jargon, hard-to-justify generalities, unintelligible charts, contradictory theories, questionable inductive logic techniques, and a Babel of specialized vocabulary. Plus, it must be said, I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole field is hooey anyway.

I'm breaking my own rule against dabbling in economics with this post, my friends, because for once it can't be helped. I am highly concerned with your [continued] employability, and on this topic, the field of economics is relevant. I have held my nose and done some research.

You're welcome.

It's no secret that unemployment is a serious problem in the United States. The official unemployment rate is 8.5 percent, but that number understates the severity of the problem. It doesn't include those who have accepted their unemployed status and are no longer seeking work. It doesn't include those whose unemployment benefits have run out. It doesn't include those who are working part-time or at minimum-wage jobs “temporarily” because they can no longer pursue their careers. The real number is more like 20 percent.

The situation is much the same in the rest of the developed world. The United Nations forecasts that worldwide unemployment rates will continue to increase through 2015.

Economists say there are three kinds of unemployment:

• Cyclical unemployment is the simplest kind. It means there are more people available to work than there are jobs. Suppose there is a high level of inflation, which means prices get higher. Consumers purchase fewer goods and services, which causes corporations that provide goods and services to lay off workers. This is cyclical unemployment. Economists call it that because it is tied to business “cycles” – that is, the ups and downs of the economy as a whole.

• Frictional unemployment comes when the economy is growing quickly. It occurs when workers leave one job for another. There is sometimes a gap between the two jobs, and workers are technically unemployed during that gap. That is frictional unemployment.

• Structural unemployment comes in large waves, once or twice a century. It occurs when employers' needs and workers' skills don't match. During America's transition from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy, for instance, unemployment rates were high. Factory jobs went unfilled while hundreds of thousands of former farmers were unable to find work. That was structural unemployment.

Analysts say that the Internet, the personal computer, and cloud computing have resulted in predictable structural unemployment. America's economy is demonstrably less about manufacturing and more about services and intellectual property. The unemployed, analysts say, are those who lack the technical skills to fill the many vacant jobs in the high-tech sector.

Two comments about this analysis. First, although employment rates are better in high-tech, there is not a glut of unfilled positions as the analysts seem to think. Second, the historic solution for structural unemployment is education. If we now have a high-tech economy, then we must bring potential workers to a minimal level of technical proficiency. That's one reason you see such emphasis on STEM education initiatives these days.

While the STEM movement is growing (and will probably do more good than harm, though I have some misgivings), the U.S. government is mostly approaching the American unemployment problem as if it were a result of cyclical unemployment. Because I know virtually nothing about economics (see above), I don't know if this is a good idea or not. Maybe we're currently facing a combination of cyclical and structural unemployment. I just have a suspicion that politicians who don't know how to solve the unemployment problem are throwing cyclical-unemployment fixes into the mix so it will look to their constituents as if they are doing something. Yes, that's a cynical view. If a politician can allay my suspicions I'll be happy to apologize.

If we were really facing structural unemployment, we would expect it to be easy to get a good job in high-tech. Employers should be falling all over themselves to hire us, competing for the best workers with high salaries, signing bonuses, and upgraded office space. And indeed, we are seeing a bit of that. But I also know plenty of good programmers who are unhappily employed, underemployed, and unemployed. It isn't like the 1980s, when anyone who could compile a C program could write his own ticket.

Two ugly trends are contributing to the employment problem in high-tech: downsizing and outsourcing. Programmers are getting downsourced out of their jobs because the economy is weak overall and corporations are forced to cut corners by laying off workers, even developers. Outsourcing is related: Employers are turning to outside agencies in an effort to reduce costs and stay nimble (you can reduce the number of consultants on your project by 20 percent whenever you want, without worrying about paying expensive severance packages). More and more, outsourcing includes an offshore component. Corporations replace U.S. developers with Brazilian or Indian programmers who have the same skills but earn much less. The savings drop right to the corporation's bottom line.

For the past few months I have returned again and again to the issue of employability. I have urged you to upgrade your skills regularly, partly because you'll enjoy flexing your learning muscles and partly because you never know when proficiency with a new language or platform will help you land on your feet after you've been downsized. No advice can guarantee safety in the face of large-scale economic trends. But the writing is on the wall: You must devote some attention, time, and energy to making and keeping yourself employable.

You can be sure that I will return to this topic in future posts.

Web recommendation: I love National Public Radio's weekly “This American Life” program, hosted by mensch Ira Glass. Here's a pointer to the most recent broadcast, “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory,” which is generating more than a few headlines around the Web. Listen to the whole program – it's well worth your time. I apologize in advance if the program becomes an addiction for you, as it is for me. J.D. says check it out.

J.D. Hildebrand has written hundreds of articles for dozens of publications and online communities dedicated to software development. He goes for long walks every day, weather permitting.