U.S. Engineers Undercounted

mcho writes "Red Herring reports that 'The United States graduates far more engineers annually than typically reported in the press, a study said Monday, while the number of engineering graduates in India and China, long considered threats to the U.S.' status as a technological superpower, may be overstated ... the data implies that per every 1 million citizens, the United States is producing more technology specialists than China and India.' Are U.S. Engineers undercounted?" We've reported on the trend of U.S. students leaving the field previously.

Comments

Under-waged

[biocute]

The problem now is not U.S. Engineers being undercounted, it's about them being underwaged by rising countries like China and India.

And let's not be fooled by this per-million figures.

The friendly article stated:

USA: 225,925
India: 215,000
China: 644,106

How's that making USA produced more engineering graduates? And more importantly, what's the point of producing more of a product when nobody buys from you? This kind of self-comforting is poisonous!

If anything, this huge amount of graduating engineers every year is what caused the problems in the first place.

Re:Under-waged

[LordPhantom]

I'm betting the article writer was referring to engineers per capita

A drop in a bucket seems much larger than a drop in an ocean ;).

Re:Under-waged

[thebdj]

Because it is a per million basis. The real number of importance since both India and China are over 1 billion people and the US has around 300 million. I mean we are the 3rd most populous country (according to wikipedia) and a distant 3rd at that. Divide up those numbers per million people and the US puts out 750 per million, India about 215 and China less then 644 per million.

I mean of course there are more engineers graduated in countries with three times the population of the US.

Re:Under-waged

[Quiet_Desperation]

Per capita:

USA: 725 per million
India: 199 per million
China: 493 per million

In other words: fun with statistics!

Re:Under-waged

[hcob$]

And let's not be fooled by this per-million figures.

Ahem... the "per-million" is there for comparison purposes. It would be a sad day for China(in the Billion+ population club) to put out fewer engineers on a geek-by-geek basis. I mean come on! However, if you were to say that China was putting out fewer per-million than the US, that's at least more believeable.

Oh, and of course, 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Under-waged

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they teach you to compare fractions by their numerators? If so, engineering's not for you.

Re:Under-waged

[homer_ca]

"How's that making USA produced more engineering graduates? And more importantly, what's the point of producing more of a product when nobody buys from you? This kind of self-comforting is poisonous!"

Yes, that certainly is a problem. Out of my graduating class of ME's, I'd say easily half are doing IT work. I don't want to say the work is beneath us, but compared to the advanced math and science we learned for engineering, most IT work is like being a high-tech janitor. Right now, I couldn't solve a calculus problem to save my life.

Re:Under-waged

[Anonymous Coward]

They are being under counted on purpose.

1) The colleges and universities will get more federal money to support engineering and sciences if nobody thinks we're turning out graduates

2) Companies like microsoft can tell the government that there aren't enough American software engineers so they need more visas to bring in underpriced labor from third world countries.

Re:Under-waged

[JakusMinimus]

I think I could solve a Calc problem (Diff Eq etc) but my youngest sister-in-law's algebra based physics makes my head hurt ... and I have a B.S. in Physics with minors in Math and Chemistry. I cry everytime she calls me asking for help.

Yes, I write software for a living. (and hobby!)

Re:Under-waged

[penguinoid]

Not to belittle the significance of the raw numbers, but a per-capita count is also important. Consider these figures, pulled straight from my ass: Howaii has 1000 pounds of food per person, and 1 billion pounds of food overall. Meanwhile, Imdia has 500 pounds of food per person, and 5 trillion pounds overall. Which country, then, has more food? Now, I don't know how much this applies to engineers, but I suspect that having more engineers per capita means more of them are free to do interesting stuff, or work on exporting.

Re:Under-waged

[Chowderbags]

75%? I've heard leading market research saying that it's more like 43.6%.

Re:Under-waged

[poopdeville]

The per-capita figure can be seen as sort of a metric of the prominence we, as a society, place on furthering technology. The gross figure can be seen as a metric of what we, as a society, are capable of technologically given ideal conditions (and a bunch of assumptions my short analysis glosses over).

The upshot is that if China has the same number of engineers per capita, we can expect them to outstrip us technologically, all things being equal. Of course, things aren't equal. We have historically held educational and other advantages over the majority of the Chinese population, and so if we wish to maintain our position, we must maintain our educational superiority.

Re:Under-waged

[tyrione]

This speaks volumes to your inability to apply your education to educating others. If you can't solve algebra based physics problems I'd question your credentials. Or you might recall that unless you constantly apply your class work you will eventually lose the tenuous connections to their memory that holds all the recall.

Re:Under-waged

[aword]

Flaimbait..

Why is 'American Engineer' so special?
If the 'American Engineer' is so special & brilliant, why he has to work in underwage positions? Why dont he just startup (using his brilliance) & make a million dollar
The point is, why not let the market decide the brilliance of an engineer whichever country he belongs to??

Re:Under-waged

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we referring to problems utilizing modern algebra? Because I think it's pretty natural to assume that most people writing software don't make use of Riemannian manifolds on a regular basis.

Re:Under-waged

[Asm-Coder]

I expect it is more like 90% or 95% on Slashdot, with some of the figures we get. At least if it isn't made up on the spot, it is made up, and not based on data.

Ever notice that people publish the statistics but not the data? Seems like they are hiding somthing.

Re:Under-waged

[Anonymous Coward]

Chief,you are taking this way too personally..if there's a good product to be had...it would definitely become popular..so what if it came from here,India,China or elsewhere...the way youve put it implies that only products manufactured here and the people behind it are millionaires...did u even consider thinking about a country whose products are used almost everywhere - Japan?

I hope it's wrong

[plover]

TFA says there are 225,925 annual engineering graduates instead of the 70,000 figure typically quoted by the media.

Well, I hope this ISN'T true. My son is entering an engineering school next fall, and a glut of engineers can only make him less marketable. This basically says his chances of repaying his student loans just got 3 times worse!

TFA also says, The report's findings are meant to clear up misinformation about U.S. engineers and the U.S. education system, Mr. Wadhwa said. It's also intended to inspire more young Americans to take up engineering as a profession, he added.

I don't see how telling someone that he or she's got three times the expected competition is supposed to be an incentive or an inspiration.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[doctorjay]

Just because there are more Engr grads than you thought doesnt mean your son wont find a job. The US is apparently "hungry" for engineers. Thats why the companies are outsourcing in the first place. Wheather or not thats BS is another story. I personally think they are outsourcing just because their competitors are and to "stay competitive"..If there were less engineers you should be worried, because that means china and India are taking the jobs to a sufficient ammount to deter americans from persueing the field.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[TheSync]

I don't see how telling someone that he or she's got three times the expected competition is supposed to be an incentive or an inspiration.

I've never understood this "number counting" either. Who cares how many people of X profession we have? As long as the government doesn't over-regulate the production of a profession (as is evident with doctors), there will be enough people to do the job.

It is important for young people to know how much profession X pays, and what the unemployment rate is. For example, electrical engineering seems to have been going through a time of less employment recently (probably brought on by increasing ease of automated design of digital circuits, use of FPGAs and programmable DSP chips, killing the analog design field).

I think every high school student should have to designate a desired career, and then do some role-playing based on their likely financial outcomes. "You want to be an actor. Roll a die. Only 1% of actors can live on acting, you rolled a 23, so now you are a waiter barely making the poverty line, growing older and sadder every day..."

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Murdoc]

TFA says there are 225,925 annual engineering graduates instead of the 70,000 figure typically quoted by the media. Well, I hope this ISN'T true. My son is entering an engineering school next fall, and a glut of engineers can only make him less marketable. This basically says his chances of repaying his student loans just got 3 times worse!

You know I really don't want to sound like a troll, but I see a problem in this logic. For the reason "so (I/my son/daughter/whatever) can be more marketable (i.e. get more money)" there should be less engineers around. This doesn't really benefit everyone else though does it? The progress of technology requires people competent enough to perform, and the less we have, the more our technological infrastructure suffers, then everyone suffers. This isn't even getting into the standard competition arguments about improving quality either (because they don't always hold water, but in some cases they do).

I see this "less is more" idea all over the economy and I don't like it. I think we need to rethink this whole "scarcity" thing, to say nothing of considering the bigger picture.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[HermanAB]

The engineering glut only affects Electronic Engineers, amongst which the jobless rate is about 20%. So, provided that your son is doing Chem Eng, Mechanical or Petroleum, he should be fine. If he is doing EE, then he should switch.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[dr_dank]

Another thing you have to wonder is what qualifies as an engineer in China or India. In Cuba, it was a point of pride amongst the communist government there that they had more doctors per capita than any other country. In reality, they had extremely loose criteria of who can be called a doctor, thus artificially inflating the numbers. Would communist China do anything less to keep up appearances at all costs?

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Eli Gottlieb]

"You want to be a successful business owner or politician, but roll a 'not upper-class', so instead you're unemployed. Should've set your sights lower, ya poor to middle-class dipshit!"

Re:I hope it's wrong

[plover]

Logic? This is purely a capitalist desire, not a socialist one. Normally, I prefer to make choices that benefit society over the individual. But in this one specific case I want what's best for my son, not what's best for the economy, industry, society, you or me. When it comes to their own offspring, I think most parents choose capitalism over socialism.

Besides, you're assuming that "more engineers causes a better society." All I can say to that is how much more gomi do we need? Some level of engineering is required for maintenance reasons, of course, but beyond that it's speculation at best. And what makes you think that there are suddenly three times the number of positions available for engineering graduates? If all other aspects of the economy are flat or in decline, it's not likely that a sudden upsurge in engineering positions will spring forth to correct it.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Ixne]

You know I really don't want to sound like a troll, but I see a problem in this logic. For the reason "so (I/my son/daughter/whatever) can be more marketable (i.e. get more money)" there should be less engineers around. This doesn't really benefit everyone else though does it? The progress of technology requires people competent enough to perform, and the less we have, the more our technological infrastructure suffers, then everyone suffers.

This assumes of course that companies are actually interested in having the most competent people and not just the cheapest.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[nonsequitor]

Having just graduated in '03 with an Engineering Degree in Applied Sciences (thats how they categorized CS), let me say I have never had to look for work. It finds me, and the hiring managers lament that there just aren't enough qualified applicants looking at the moment and they wated to staff the position months ago.

The best thing your son can do is intern and/or co-op to build experience while in school, I had ~2 years experience graduating as a result of internships and co-ops from my sophomore year forward. Many of my peers had higher GPAs than me, but my lower GPA was on account of release deadlines for my software job during the school year. They consistently made the deans list and graduated on track (4 years not 5), but they could not find a job for the life of them. The reason for this is no company wants to pay wages consistent to someone with a 4 yr degree on someone with no real world experience. I learned more about how software is made on the job than can ever be taught in a classroom. That was the edge I had over my peers who regretted not getting experience when it was already too late.

Just my 2 cents (I've also don't have any friends who did intern or co-op and couldn't immediately find jobs).

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Billly Gates]

Its very important from an economic standpoint.

Micro/macro economics teach the following. The larger the supply the less demand per unit and vice versa.

When MS went after netscape they bundled IE all over the place in order to bring the demand so low that a browser market could only exist below cost. IT was a trick that Bill Gates used.

Same is true with labor.

If your an engineering student or professional you have to compete with whoever is willing to work for the lowest price. Vice versa if the demand for qualified engineers overtakes supply wanted in the market, then the engineers dictate their salary. Now the employer decides and if you dont like it tough.

An equalibrium with supply and prices is reached when excess demand or supply leaves a market and a price point for an X amount of quantity is picked. The hope was with less engineering students and a better economy is that the demand (wages) would increase again to reasonable levels.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[TheSync]

The absolute number of people in a profession is useless in itself because it only represents supply. There is no good way to represent demand and the balance between supply and demand without quoting either the market-clearing price or the level of professional unemployment.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[brontus3927]

I know about a dozen engineers, spanning tracks from computer, to electrical, to mechanical, and even some civil engineers. Noe of them had any problem finding a job out of college. If you/he is really worried about finding a job and getting job security, look for openings in small firms. As long as the company is financially stable, once you get a job, as long as you don't do something to jeprodize it, you'll be there until you quit or retire. It doesn't matter if the engineers in your specialty are a dime a dozen, get in with a small company and you'll never have to worry about getting "traded in for a better model" Other advantages of a small firm are greater flexability, and the knowledge that your work actually makes a difference in the fate of the company. One friend adjusted his shift to come in and leave an hour earlier to avoid traffic; all he had to do was tell his boss he was going to do so. Meanwhile, if he has an idea for a new product, or a more efficient proccess, the company will actually care.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[bcattwoo]

I think every high school student should have to designate a desired career, and then do some role-playing based on their likely financial outcomes. "You want to be an actor. Roll a die. Only 1% of actors can live on acting, you rolled a 23, so now you are a waiter barely making the poverty line, growing older and sadder every day..."

Indeed. It is sad to read about people who are struggling to make ends meet saddled with $40+K of student loans because they went to a $30K/yr school to become a $20K/yr social worker or such. Not that it's wrong to pursue a low-paying career if you find it personally fulfilling, but you need to plan accordingly for the financial realities.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[speculatrix]

The big problem at the moment, with the glut of engineers, particularly in software and electronic engineering, is that employers are far too picky: they want an exact match.

Just recently I was turned down before even getting to interview because I only had 9 out of the 11 skills on the requirements! Someone had left the position and they wanted someone to step into the role with no gap.

Don't employers realise that aptitude (ability to learn) and attitude (discipline and enthusiasm) are at least as important as specific skills? In fact, I'd go further to suggest that a perfect fit would actually be bad, because the new employee would have nothing to learn, no reason to strive, nothing to challenge.

I get my technical kicks from solving problems I can only initially *guess* how to do... the first time you do something, it's interesting and a challenge; the second time you refine the process, the third time you get bored and probably create something too fancy and bloated just to make it more interesting*!

(*lets see, Windows NT, Windows 2000, WIndows XP... yep, that confirms my theory).

Re:I hope it's wrong

[jcmb]

This is inspiring for people who thought the U.S. was losing it's luster over the lack of engineers. Today, most of the world, including Americans, think American's are the most decadent and idiotic people in the world that live in a rich society. Although that is probably still true, we can now argue that we do pump out a lot of engineers and that we do have a large diverse pool of engineers for companies to hire from, rather than going to other nations where there is more talent and therefore more competition amongst engineers. You have to remember, if we have a small pool (like the 70,000 quoted before) that means that engineers are less competitive and less diverse and therefore less attractive to companies, which then resort to hiring in countries like India.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Omega Leader-(P12)]

I have to back that up, I am basically a Civil speciallizing in water. There is basically a zero unemployment rate after 3 months of graduation within our field.

As an example, I recently put out a couple of blind positions queries directed to no-one in particular and within 1 day I had three interviews during the same week. These are for positions that are only 70% comparable to what I have experience doing. I always feel that the term engineer is constantly getting polluted and Joe Public really doesn't know what to make of it. (Blame the media again I guess)

Plus unlike EE's you can't really outsource construction oversight or fieldwork (so if your son is an EE get him to switch. Sewage is fun!!)

Re:I hope it's wrong

[penguinoid]

So, provided that your son is doing Chem Eng, Mechanical or Petroleum, he should be fine.

Petroleum Engineering? Does that exist? And isn't that too ... specific? What sort of job security does a Petroleum Engineer have?

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Medievalist]

You are correct, but with engineers it's even more futile to try to use these numbers; engineers are (at least in theory) able to create products that distort the market. For example, engineers created the calculator, and look at what that did to the market for slide rules. THe IBM PC was also created by engineers - look at what that did to every single marketplace!

More engineers might just create more need for engineers.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Omega Leader-(P12)]

Nope a petroleum engineer shouldn't have any real problems, especially now with oil at $60 a barrel, (most are going to be geotechnical or mineral engineers, or chem specialists). The oil companies need to drill new wells and that takes 10 to 12 years including exploration.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Dun Malg]

from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos037.htm "Petroleum engineers search the world for reservoirs containing oil or natural gas. Once these resources are discovered, petroleum engineers work with geologists and other specialists to understand the geologic formation and properties of the rock containing the reservoir, determine the drilling methods to be used, and monitor drilling and production operations. They design equipment and processes to achieve the maximum profitable recovery of oil and gas. Petroleum engineers rely heavily on computer models to simulate reservoir performance using different recovery techniques. They also use computer models for simulations of the effects of various drilling options.

Because only a small proportion of oil and gas in a reservoir will flow out under natural forces, petroleum engineers develop and use various enhanced recovery methods. These include injecting water, chemicals, gases, or steam into an oil reservoir to force out more of the oil, and computer-controlled drilling or fracturing to connect a larger area of a reservoir to a single well. Because even the best techniques in use today recover only a portion of the oil and gas in a reservoir, petroleum engineers research and develop technology and methods to increase recovery and lower the cost of drilling and production operations."

see also http://www.spe.org/

Re:I hope it's wrong

[boule75]

Last time I heard of it, MCSE contained "Engineer" in it. So, is an MCSE counted as an engineer in the USofA ?

It is not in many countries. There are even some that would prohibit the use of this "Engineer" title if a diploma has not been delivered by a state-certified-and-verified cursus.

I compute those are bloody communists.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[HermanAB]

Petroleum Engineering is a branch of Chemical Engineering. Taught at universities in Texas and Alberta. Jobs: Lots, wherever there is oil. Huge shortage of engineers in this field and top dollar pay.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Hognoxious]

It is important for young people to know how much profession X pays, and what the unemployment rate is.

It would be much better to know what they will be, four to six years in the future.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Bloke down the pub]

Micro/macro economics teach the following. The larger the supply the less demand per unit and vice versa.

One, check your verb agreement: economics is singular.

And two, it teaches nothing of the sort.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[HungWeiLo]

Q: What do you call the person who graduated last in his class from the worst medical school in the U.S.?
A: Doctor.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

and by the time he graduates assuming a 3 year course it will have become 9 times as worse.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[vsprintf]

For example, electrical engineering seems to have been going through a time of less employment recently (probably brought on by increasing ease of automated design of digital circuits, use of FPGAs and programmable DSP chips, killing the analog design field).

Electrical and Computer Engineering jobs have continued with high unemployment rates because the goverment has increased the number of imported workers in the field to over 90,000 new workers per year. This is likely underestimated since the DHS recently said the USCIS doesn't have the capability to really control the number of work-based visas. If the goverment was importing 100,000 firemen per year, you'd be better off not training to be a firefighter - it's supply and demand.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap! Wait, I invoke Caffeine of Intelligence +5, Job of Cynicism +4, and use my Amulet of Fluke to create a once-per-character +20 against Failure of Wild-Ass Moneymaking Scheme!

Woo! Dot-com millionaire status, here I come!

Re:I hope it's wrong

[captain_craptacular]

Taught at universities in Texas and Alberta.

And Alaska. And you're right, there is a shortage and these guys make BIG bucks.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[2008]

"so now you are a waiter barely making the poverty line, growing older and sadder every day..."

I'm doing the job I wanted in high school, and I still get older every day. What am I doing wrong?

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary Gygax, is that you?

I take my plus 10 keyboard of coding and attack the vicious perl monster. someone get the elf to cast hate on my mouse.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Heembo]

you rolled a 23, so now you are a waiter barely making the poverty line, growing older and sadder every day..."

But if they roll a 20 do they get a critical hit and get to be a star? Thats a 5% chance on a d20, not bad odds!

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between demand and demand per unit. THis has to do with movements vs units on the supply curve.

less demand per unit means greats demand overall which can cause confusion. For example if the price of cheese fell then demand has fallen as indicated by the price but the demand per unit would go higher as those who actually do buy it buy it in higher quantities.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[smellsofbikes]

The New York Times recently had an article saying basically exactly the same thing: engineers say there are lots of unemployed engineers, while employers say there's an engineering shortage, because employers are looking for a 95% fit rather than a 65% fit that they have to actually invest a little bit of training into. It's part of the new corporate idea that people, like computers or forklifts, are plug-and-play. Companies no longer feel like they need to pay for learning curves. I rather hope that they get what they deserve: little round cogs, rather than the interesting-shaped people who think up Google.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Bloke down the pub]

What is "demand per unit"? Per what unit? If the damand for cars is 2000 cars, what's a unit? If the demand for beer is 1500 litres, what's the unit? If it's a car and a litre, in that order, your concept of "demand per unit" (I've never seen it in any economics text, which tells me something) is pretty useless as it tends to be, ummm, like, 1.

Re:I hope it's wrong

[Bloke down the pub]

More engineers might just create more need for engineers.

Well yeah, somebody's got to fix things when they don't work the first^H^H eighth time.

go figure

[BushCheney08]

This is what happens when you let MBAs do the counting...

Re:go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, MBAs can't even begin to count they can just tell you why counting is important in the abstract and why it's been vital to the development of markets reaching as far back as caveman making the paradim shift to shepherds and how counting allows for ownership and monetization of sheep resources. ;)

Re:go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

A Harvard grad, I see.

Re:go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you let MBAs do the counting...

Say no more

Re:go figure

[vsprintf]

This is what happens when you let MBAs do the counting...

Really, that's more insightful than funny. Engineering math is completely different from MBA math, which says: 20% Engineering unemployment + 100,000 new H-1B imported IT workers = REALLY HUGE BONUS (buy that island in the Bahamas to avoid prosecution and forget the US because I got mine). Engineering math would account for effects to the entire company as a whole. I know there must be a number of good CEOs out there, but they aren't getting their names in the paper over the ones indicted or convicted, and our CEO is a great example of why (just barely skirting the law).

If only they counted...

[808paulson]

If only they counted by weight, U.S. Engineers will be properly represented.

Re:If only they counted...

[njh]

It would still be measured as a portion of the total population... ;)

Broadcast engineers?

[TheSync]

A number of broadcast engineers I work with did not have an engineering college education, and just learned their way up from camera operator to master control operator to station chief engineer, etc. Yet these people are internationally known experts in fields like digital television (MPEG-2 transport streams, PSIP, 8VSB modulation, and such). Some didn't even graduate from college! While the top folks might be counted as IEEE or SMPTE members, I'm sure many fall through the cracks.

Re:Broadcast engineers?

[TastyCakes]

In Canada at least, you're not supposed to call yourself an engineer unless you graduate from recognized engineering school. There are a couple of exceptions (driving trains etc) but I'm pretty sure "broadcast engineers" isn't one of them. I'm not saying these people are not as valuable as "real" engineers or aren't as good at their jobs, but I doubt they are officially recognized as engineers or that the numbers in this article include them.

Re:Broadcast engineers?

[onkelonkel]

There's more. In Canada the title "Engineer" is legally restricted to registered members of a Provincial Association of Professional Engineers. Just like graduating from law school doesn't make you a lawyer (you have to pass bar exams and be "called to the bar"). The normal route to getting there is to graduate from a recognized engineering school, have about 2 years equivalent of engineering experience, pass the professional practice exams, and if your application for registration is accepted then and only then are you an engineer.

I understand that in the US of A things aren't quite so rigorous, but in Canada the P. Eng. Associations have swarms of lawyers waiting to pounce on any non-member who calls himself an engineer.

There was a big fight with Microsoft over MCSEs calling themselves engineers in Canada, and a university almost lost accreditation for their engineering school when their computer science school wanted to grant degrees in "Software Engineering" without the approval of the local P.Eng Association.

Re:Broadcast engineers?

[carlnorum]

MUN didn't "almost lose their accreditation", and they won (in practical terms) the litigation from the professional engineering association. We'll see what happens, but I expect that the word "engineer" gets a rough time in Canada in the next while... I moved to the USA last year, and it's definitely a lot less rigorous here, but no one in Canada knows what an engineer really is any more than any Americans do.

Move to India

[psunerd]

That is the latest trend..

Technology Specialists, not engineers

[Sporkinum]

Technology Specialists, not engineers. I am not an engineer, but have been in the tech field for 25 years. I think the US probably has more tech-adept per capita than the other countries.

Re:Technology Specialists, not engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

Abso - FUCKING -lutley.

What does it take to be called an engineer these days?

When I graduated with a computer engineering degree, it was the four fucking years at RPI that made me and engineer.

It seems everybody wants to be called an engineer these days.

Re:Technology Specialists, not engineers

[QMO]

"It seems everybody wants to be called an engineer these days."

And most of them have never driven a train in their life.

Re:Technology Specialists, not engineers

[fishybell]

My official title: IT Engineer.

I didn't ask for it, that's just what it became. All I know is that I'm the systems admin/IT support staff for medium sized company. At no time do I "engineer" anything other than slashdot posts.

Engineer Graduates first hand

[drakethegreat]

Most everyone of my friends is a studying to be an engineer. I think the reality is that we are graduating its just taking longer then 4 years these days. I know its taking some people up to 6-7 years in a 4 year program to actually graduate. Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion. They don't give or offer much direction in 4 year state schools. Instead students are left to figure it out on their own and that means they don't always pick exactly what gets them out of there the fastest. Keep in mind people are switching majors a lot more these days too.

However I have noticed that the graduate times for students at private universities in the US is less then state schools. My honest opinion is that the state governments have underfunded certain parts of our public universities but not everything. Its understandable cause they needed money for something else right now that we can't afford. Thats one of the reasons why I transfered to a private university, I feel the education I am getting right now is a more expensive but the quality is a lot higher.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Quiet_Desperation]

It took me five years because of the general education classes heaped on us.

Now, generally (bad pun intended) I didn't mind because I like lots of things outside my field, but the *selection* of classes that qualified for GE requirements was dismal. The were some gems, like "Comic Spirit" where we studied the theory and practice of comedy, and got to watch stand up acts in class, but most were such banal trash it made a grown man weep.

I also took an introductory journalism class where I met many journalism majors. Let's just say the degradation of the journalistic arts over the years came as no surprise to me.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[plover]

You should have picked the right state's university. The University of Minnesota offers studends a four-year guarantee. The idea is that if you follow their advisor's advice, they'll make the courses you need available to you when you need them, make substitute courses available, or pay the tuition. Whatever it takes to get you out in the four years. Of course, you still have to pass all your classes, fill out forms in a timely fashion, etc., but they are at least working on solving this particular problem.

At least that's what the four-color glossy marketing blurb promises. I think they also offer tooth fairy anatomy, easter bunny sightings and north pole tours guided by Santa himself.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[amightywind]

Most everyone of my friends is a studying to be an engineer. I think the reality is that we are graduating its just taking longer then 4 years these days. I know its taking some people up to 6-7 years in a 4 year program to actually graduate. Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion.

What a terrible attitude! As an adult you are expected (heavens!) to make some choices about you future, and project your life a few years out. You expect someone else too? Maybe a year in the real world would cure your Catcher in the Rye immaturity. The 7 year program was made for people like you. Enjoy those student loan payments.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[misleb]

Hmm, I thought the reason Engineering degrees took so long was because there was just that much more to learn. Well, general eduction + the technical stuff. Isn't 5 years pretty much standard for EE's? Do the private schools cut corners on the general education or something?

-matthew

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[ozydingo]

I think 4 years is pretty standard for engineering. There was a 5 year Masters program (for undergrads) at my school. I've also seen plenty of 5-year coop programs in engineering. But for a plain BS in engineering, there's no reason you can't do it in 4 years. It just may require more all-nighters than something like, oh, say, psychology. (No offense, psych majors, but there were far too many psych majors at my school were there for no other reason that it was one of the easier majors to come out with a 4.0 average from. If you went ahead to get a higher education in psych i supopse you may consider yourself exempt from that statement.)

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Newander]

However I have noticed that the graduate times for students at private universities in the US is less then state schools. My honest opinion is that the state governments have underfunded certain parts of our public universities but not everything. Its understandable cause they needed money for something else right now that we can't afford. Thats one of the reasons why I transfered to a private university, I feel the education I am getting right now is a more expensive but the quality is a lot higher.

So high, in fact, that you can almost tell the difference between then and than.

I graduated in six years from a public university, and it was all my fault. I actually knew a guy who graduated with CprE and EE in three years, but he was taking 19 or 20 hours a semester the whole time. He did most of his sleeping on the weekend.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[fupeg]

The University of Minnesota offers studends a four-year guarantee

The very fact that they have such a guarantee only shows that it's been a very significant problem for them.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you'd think that with your new and improved private education you'd be able to put together a complete sentence.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

However I have noticed that the graduate times for students at private universities in the US is less then state schools.

Hmm... you don't think the fact that many more of the students at state schools are working their way through college as compared to the private schools has anything to do with that?

It's a lot easier to graduate in 4 years when you aren't delivering pizzas at 1 am.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[whitehatlurker]

you still have to pass all your classes

This would be a sticking point.

While not true in every case, primary reasons for not completing a degree on time would include
a) not passing a class (or more than one);
b) not having enough money to complete on time (requiring working part time or similar);
c) pressures external to the coursework. (As a prof once said "... and then they discover sex and their marks go to hell.")

Some of these may be related. However, none of these apply to the "guarantee" offered, which just says "we'll make the courses available" (or make arrangements). And they should - if their class administration is so bad that their students can't finish their program, the university should be held responsible.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[CastrTroy]

The only people I knew who took 6 or 7 years to get their engineering degree are those who failed many courses, sometimes more than once, and only go through by the skin of their teeth after being put on academic probation a couple times. Most people I know either did it in the 8 semesters or 9 semesters. It might have taken 5 calendar years because of Co-op programs and such, but they knew it was going to take that long. The course load is heavy, and it's a lot of work, but you can get your degree in 4 years. If you are taking 6 or 7 years, you are either failing a bunch of courses, or having a more relaxed courseload than everyone else in the engineering program.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[mla_anderson]

Well part of the reason you see engineers graduating faster from private schools has to do with the cost. I'm still paying off my loans ten years later.

I don't know about other schools, but where I went I was floored by the attrition rate for engineering degrees. At the beginning of my freshman year the head of the enigneering departments (small school) got all the freshmen engineering majors together. There were about 300 people (very small school). For graduation all of us that made it sat in one row, about 30 people made it out the other end as engineers. If other schools have a 90% rate of attrition as well I can easily see the 70,000 number as accurate.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[fd]

I graduated with an EE and a specialization in computer engineering in 4 years back in 94. It was not that difficult. Maybe it's different now, but everyone around me who took 5 or 6 years did so because they were goofing off (Netrek and MUDs flunked out several of my classmates) or they weren't really sure they wanted an EE degree (so they were taking other courses they didn't need) or they were not passing classes the first time through.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

It may not be finishing in four years, but a guarantee is certainly useful.

http://www.engineering.wright.edu/cecs/employment- guarantee.shtml

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[TykeClone]

I actually knew a guy who graduated with CprE and EE in three years, but he was taking 19 or 20 hours a semester the whole time. He did most of his sleeping on the weekend.

Which weekend?

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[schmerk]

I graduated from the University of Minnesota with an engineering degree (in 4 years). I also participated in the 4-year guarantee. My friend who also did the 4-year guarantee program there was getting screwed on classes. He was not getting the classes he needed to graduate in the 4 year time frame. He brought up that the 4-year guarantee said that the university would do everything to get him in the classes or pay for the added classes. He was told in no uncertain terms that the 4-year guarantee and a dollar would get him a cup of coffee. So I wouldn't put much stock in the guarantee and the U of MN living up to it.

I also remember a semester where they conveniently scheduled two classes that were needed to complete the 4-year guarantee schedule on top of one another so you couldn't take the both classes you needed to be on the 4-year guarantee. When I brought this up to the under-grad advisor he had to double check it and then he was perplexed. And said that he had just blindly told all the people he had seen previous to me to just follow the schedule. Of course you learn quickly that the advisors don't really care much and that you are on your own for the most part.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[HardCase]

The best that you can assume is that it's been a problem for somebody, not necessarily them.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know how to plan, it takes you 5-6 years to get a degree.

Spend most of your time planning your schedule for all 4 years before you sign up for anything freshman year and you should be fine.

By always taking prereqs as soon as I could, rather than when they were reccomended, I managed to pick up a 4 year engineering degree at Penn State in only 3 years. I even had time for a co-op. Many other people ended up being part time for a fifth year getting the same degree because they hadn't gotten the prereqs and limited offering courses taken care of when they should have.

Before you complain that it isn't fair, it is excellent preperation for the real world. You need to be aware of lead times for things. If you need something, you make sure you get it when you can, rather than waiting until the last minute and finding out that it isn't availible.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anitra]

There are a few flaws in your statement.

1) It's not just state schools, and it does depend heavily on the program. My alma mater, an private engineering school, has many people that we call "super seniors" (5th year) or "super-duper seniors" (6th year). This usually happens because they failed a few classes - once you fail more than 2 or 3, you are beginning to fall behind in your requirements. A few (like me) didn't fail anything, but switched majors late in their academic career. And with yearly tuition over $30,000 (not including room & board), those extra classes add up really quickly.

2) It's not the lack of direction that's holding you back... well, it is, but it's your own fault. I realized (too late) that your assigned academic advisor is a suggestion. If their advice isn't useful to you, ignore it. Find a professor who you respect and ask their advice instead. And you can't be afraid of doing real research to figure out what you need to do to meet your goals. They're your own goals, not anyone else's (or at least they should be)!

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[HardCase]

You can do it at the university from which I graduated (Boise State University), but only if you're academically prepared when you get there and you come ready to work your butt off. I wasn't academically prepared, so it took me an extra semester, plus classes every summer. I also worked part time all four and a half years, full time in the summer. And in the middle of it, I got married. Pretty much the only thing that saved me, I think, is that I spent 10 years in the Navy before that, so I learned how to sleep anywhere. Oh, and all my partying was behind me.

-h-

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Moofie]

I don't know about you, but I didn't know how to go to college when I started. I needed somebody to explain to me how the system worked. I would have liked that person (let's call him an "advisor") to suggest to me that perhaps taking three lab courses in one semester, along with fifteen credits of engineering courses, is probably not conducive to either sanity or academic success.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[grgyle]

He has the right attitude and expectations IMHO. Advising and schedule management is what the students pay the colleges to provide. Self-discipline is fine, but very few students (especially as young students who haven't had to sink or swim in the 'real' world) have those skills, nor should they be expected to possess them.

I could realistically study most (if not all) of a degree program by visiting libraries and taking MIT open courseware. However, I currently pay a *lot* of money so that I can have a managed program, disciplined schedule, advising and consulting, teaching assistance, and evaluation. I could pursue this on my own, but I'm realistic to know that I wouldn't be able to discipline myself to do so successfully as I would in a university setting.

The 6-year-bachelor syndrome is very much (but not entirely of course) the fault of inadequate advising and support from the university administration, and the attempt to satisfy ridiculous special-interest degree requirements.

I speak as one whose degree was delayed in large part to false promises and non-existant support from schedule advisors, never knowing that I needed a cultural anthropology course that was only offered one term per year at a weird hour to graduate for a BS in Physics.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[panaceaa]

I feel the education I am getting right now is a more expensive

If you're using feeling to judge something that's easily quantifiable, perhaps engineering is not the right discipline for you.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[focitrixilous P]

While no such guarantees are made, most Introduction to Engineering classes at Minnesota State have a plan to graduation as a requirement to pass. Your advisor or instructor checks to make sure everything is in proper order, and you are also taught all the bizzare prerequisites for General Ed stuff, in case you can't get into a class. Engineers are also given the option of joining a learning community, which gives you priority over other students for math, science, and engineering courses.

However, State doesn't offer tooth fairies and/or easter bunnies. All we have is hockey and beer. You get what you pay for, I guess.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[HungWeiLo]

At UW's intro C++ programming course, divide-and-conquer can be illustrated very well by the class size. There were 3 midterms, and the class size approximately shrunk by half after every midterm. Divide and conquer and Darwinism in one fell swoop!

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[engineer_uhg]

Thats one of the reasons why I transfered to a private university, I feel the education I am getting right now is a more expensive but the quality is a lot higher.

I strongly agree. Here at Cedarville University (a private college with an excellent engineering program), both the professors and advisors are awesome.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Your Pal Dave]

Public institutions are more likely to attract "non-traditional" students. That is, older, employed students taking a lighter courseload because they have jobs, families to support, etc. This would tend to skew the graduate times upwards.

Not every engineering student is a 19 year-old with a trust fund.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[SkorpiXx]

Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion. They don't give or offer much direction in 4 year state schools. Instead students are left to figure it out on their own and that means they don't always pick exactly what gets them out of there the fastest. Keep in mind people are switching majors a lot more these days too.

Not True

It seems that college students, as well as the media, tend to fix the blame of their own problems onto the administration, etc. I am a junior at a major public university. There is no horrible advising problem; rather, undergraduates choose not to take the initiative to find their advisors (freshmen are required to see their advisors the first year). Students are not left to figure it out on their own. If they want help, they can go find it. The same applies with financial aid, residency, and any sort of paperwork. The help is there -- kids are lazy.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[KC9AIC]

I'm in the same situation, at LeTourneau University, where a full half of the students are engineering/engineering tech majors. It's a great way to focus on what's important to me. Of course, there are several times more guys than girls...

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[bzipitidoo]

Horrible advisors are not a fiction or convenient excuse. They're all too prevalent. One time I listened to one of these jokers tell me I needed to take a discrete math class, so I did. It didn't count because I'd already passed the classes for which it was a prerequisite. Got 0 hours of credit for that. Infuriating. Tough to graduate in 4 years when guided into stuff like that. Another time I refused to take advice that I ought to take Trig to get the last 3 hours of credit I needed in math. I'd already passed Calc 1, 2, 3, and Linear Algebra, and here this arrogant senile advisor who routinely steered students towards courses suited to, as he saw it, their limited abilities was pushing me to take Trig. He knew I'd passed all those other math classes. Good thing I ignored him and signed up for Diff Eq. I learned later that the Trig wouldn't have counted.

These guys are supposed to be mentors. Advice from dorm rats about to flunk out is one thing, advice from experts and professionals is another. What lessons are we supposed to learn from such experiences? Trust no one's so-called expertise? The least a uni can do is provide technically correct info. Hard to make good choices with bad data, and unfair to chalk that up as "well, you have to be responsible for yourself!" If your car has a defective tire and its failure causes an accident, you are not going to say "I should've taken more responsibility for my tires".

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think that all depends on what university you select. I'm attending the University of Illinois, and honestly feel I'm getting a first-rate education. You're right, I'm actually going to take 4.5 years to graduate with a degree in CS... and also a degree in economics.

I have found that most people here who actually take the time and plan out what they're going will do fairly well and graduate in 4 years if they'd like. Those that claim they don't get the help they need usually don't seek it out.

YMMV, however; I can only speak for my college.

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

"Last yeer I cudnt spell engineer. Now I am won."

Re:Engineer Graduates first hand

[Trepalium]

What a terrible attitude! As an adult you are expected (heavens!) to make some choices about you future, and project your life a few years out.

Because blindly rushing headlong into something and finding yourself overwhelmed is a much better strategy. Which is more immature? Screwing up because you were too proud to ask for help, or admitting you don't fully understand what's required and asking for advice? Don't forget that students are paying for the privilege of being educated, and advisers are supposed to be part of that package. The advisers are supposed to understand the labyrinth of offered courses and degree requirements in order to give the student good advice on how reach these requirements based on what the student wants to learn.

Graduates versus Engineers

[sunderland56]

There's a large difference between people who graduate in a field, and people who end up working in that field.

If you don't believe me, ask at any McDonald's.

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in engineering school I overheard a great conversation between my modern physics prof and a student (physics major).

It went............

Student: So what are some of the great jobs a physics major can get?

Prof: You mean like a waiter?

Engineering education is like all those other things in life; exercise, love, slacking off at work.........you get out of them exactly what you put in. Graduating with an engineering degree means nothing if you cheated your way through (you know who you are) and don't know integration from sanitation. If on the other hand you applied yourself then your prospects are great IMHO.

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[mc900ftjesus]

You mean ask a History major, right?

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[masnare]

Well, if you major in Women's Studies, Philosophy, or that dog's dinner of a major - Multi-Disciplinary Studies, what more can you expect? I had the pleasure of working for several liberal arts degree holders in the mall...

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a large difference between people who graduate in a field, and people who end up working in that field.

If you don't believe me, ask at any McDonald's.

I never thought about it. How many people graduate with a degree in McDonalds?

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[Intron]

About 65,000

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[johnny cashed]

This cuts both ways. Unless you are a PE (professional engineer). Engineer isn't a well defined term. My short definition is a person who solves practical problems with the application of science and mathematics. That is a broad definition. I don't have an engineering degree. I'm a drop out. I worked for the university I dropped out of as an Engineering Tech. II. Before that my job titles have been: research assistant, lab machinist, Engineering Tech. I. I worked there 7 years, mostly helping graduate students in their research and maintaining equipment. I currently work for a professor (Ph.D) at his home business. My title? Engineer. I was studing ME. I did well in most of my engineering classes. I didn't do well in some others (I don't do any fluid mechanics at my job, for example). I can handle a lot of engineering work and I can learn more as the job requires. I am an acomplished machinist (and I really like machining). I know if I'm in too deep, and can tell my boss if I am outside of my realm (hasn't happened yet). I've done circuit design (nothing fancy), and a lot of testing (boring, but it is necessary). Mostly, I'm doing mechanical design. I'm quick to tell people who question me that I don't have a degree, but that question doesn't come up very often, and it usually doesn't matter. My experience and work speaks for itself. I didn't fit in very well at school, so that is why I dropped out (and the money ran out). I'd make more money I'm sure if I had a degree, but I've never been lacking in the employment department (I didn't have college loans to pay off). My boss (whom I really like) is good about recognizing talent (he sees a lot of engineeers) and knows how to use people's strengths. I'm still young, and I don't regret not graduating. Before anyone flames me, I don't design bridges, dams or life support equipment. There is plenty of engineering work that isn't glamorious or life threatening. But I am one of those who skew the statistics. Experience counts for a lot in this world and it can make up for degrees.

True story: one day in the machine shop, a senior engineering student, working on senior project, asked the shop manager how one makes the wrinkles in the hole. "wrinkles?" the manager asks, to which the student replies "you know, for screws" "oh, you mean threads?" This is a senior ME student, not an EE. Small anecdote, but an example of some of the engineers who get their degree. Of course, you really start learning things on the job, a degree is just a starting point. And to the student's credit, he knew by the time he graduated, what screw threads are, so the school did its job.

Re:Graduates versus Engineers

[TheStonepedo]

You redundant so-and-so. I wish I had a karma bonus. :-P

What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[RootsLINUX]

As a caucasian American in my major (EE), I have always been in a minority. I'd estimate that between 60-75% of the students in my classes are students from outside the country: India, China, Indonesia, etc. Does this study even consider taking that into account? Glancing it over briefly, it sure doesn't seem so.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[dada21]

You beat me to this point!

All my relatives from Europe and India (I'm "bi"-racial) that came to this country to study took engineering classes, graduated with a decent engineering degree and fled back to their home country. A few pushed themselves too hard, graduated, and live on a couch in the U.S. in their parents' basement.

I believe I am the only one in my family that didn't do more than 1 semester of college, and from what I can tell at family gatherings, I'm the least stressed about the future. The Indians (and some Europeans) tend to get scared of everything the future might throw at them. Small wonder that they returned back home with their degrees -- who is counting them in the totals?

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[shotfeel]

Was wondering the same thing myself. Based on my experience its about 50-50 US citizens to non-citizens.

From what I'm seeing it also doesn't specify area of specialty. There can be a big difference between a Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, and Chemical Engineer (to name a few). How well is each area represented?

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[aztec rain god]

Don't forget building cleanliness engineer!

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[nikremt]

Same thing I was thinking. It only says students who "graduate from american universities", not US Citizens. Surely they were not that stupid up there at Duke. I am betting it was just a sucky reporting job.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[Josuah]

As a caucasian American in my major (EE), I have always been in a minority. I'd estimate that between 60-75% of the students in my classes are students from outside the country: India, China, Indonesia, etc. Does this study even consider taking that into account? Glancing it over briefly, it sure doesn't seem so.

You realize that unless you actually ask each of those students what their citizenship is, you are making assumptions based on their ethnicity (i.e. physical appearance). There do happen to be a lot of non-Caucasian Americans in America.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[cide1]

I counted in my computer architecture class the other day. It was 15% American, with the rest being an even split between Indian and Asian. Anyone who believes that engineering numbers for Americans are rising is just wrong. The size of Purdue's ECE class has dropped form over 1200 to about 850, while diversity has greatly increased. Walk onto any top 10 school campus, and look at who the engineers are. Just looking at the restaurants around campus's gives an indication of who the student population is.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[HungWeiLo]

It was 15% American

Did you personally ask everyone their nationality? Or did you just assume any non-whites or Engrish-speaking individuals were not American?

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming that all engineers will be taking Applied Differential Equations (needed for all engineering transfers), and since there is only one class being taught per semester at my community college, I can probably take that as a safe census of the engineering graduates of my class.

All but 7 students dropped, and of those who remain, only 1 of those is a foreign exchange student.

So you see, 6 out of 7 graduating engineers are American! My point is that although many students in engineering are foreign, the majority are Americans.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[the_ed_dawg]

According to Google Maps, it seems that Purdue is composed mostly of cheap drunks. :) Sorry, Doug! :)

Seriously though, it's my experience that diversity depends heavily on the level of education. The undergrad computer architecture class that I teach is about 60% white, 25% Indian, and 15% Asian. (No hispanics or blacks, and only one girl out of 64). As one of my sibling posts mentions, I don't know for sure if they are American or not, but given the demographics of Indiana and the rest of the midwest, I think the margin of error is pretty low. My undergrad at the University of Arkansas had similar numbers, although we had a few more girls.

In contrast, the graduate school is amazingly international, and yes, I am very sure of that. Case in point, I have had exactly 3 out of 7 classes in my Ph.D. program where the professor was American. 25% Americans (I am certain about that) in my distributed systems course this semester. Similar trends in my other courses, although I don't remember the numbers. I can honestly say that my research group is the only one I know with four Americans in it. Hell, I'm going to school on a minority fellowship, and I'm a white male! When I did undergrad research, the group (composed mostly of grad students) I worked in had 5 Americans out of 23. Whether it's Americans not getting advanced degrees or sheer numbers of Asian and Indian students coming overseas for their education, there is no doubt. Grad school is an exercise in diversity and ethnic relations.

On the bright side, I learned Go, and they learned about football. Unfortunately, I believe the point of diversity is still not being achieved. The administrative point of view is that diversity brings people of different backgrounds together to suggest different ideas and lead to better research. The fact is that the Chinese students hang out together, the Korean students hang out together, the Indian students hang out together, and the American students hang out together. The only time the groups seem to interact is when they have to because everyone seems to be too uncomfortable stepping out of their comfort zone to talk about homework, research, or whatever with the other groups.

In the words of Tyler Durden, "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." Simply admitting tons of international students does not provide the diversity goal that the administration wants. It requires an active role on the parts of the students. I know several international students who have gotten involved in student organizations and experience American culture. In exchange, they decorated the student lounge, and ECE celebrated Chinese New Year. We're working together through HKN (ECE Honors Organization) to improve cooperation between international and domestic students. However, these people constitute a minority of students, and breaking the self-imposed segregation is hard.

Yes, this has gotten off on a rant, but the point is that there are a lot of international students in engineering, this is not a bad thing, but the way it works out in practice is clearly suboptimal.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[erice]

You realize that unless you actually ask each of those students what their citizenship is, you are making assumptions based on their ethnicity (i.e. physical appearance). There do happen to be a lot of non-Caucasian Americans in America.

Of course, but I will give the OP credit for actually talking to them. College age citizens, even naturalized, are easily distinguised from their foreign counterparts as soon as they open their mouths.

People who spend thier childhood and teen years in the States pick up the accent and culture. Those who naturalize later in life are harder to distguish as they tend to hold onto to their linquistic and cultural heritage/baggage.

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[nwbvt]

What about them? They go to school in the US. They graduate in the US. They currently live in the US. And they likely will be working in the US. For all intensive purposes, they are Americans. Why shouldn't they count just because they don't have white skin?

Re:What about foreign students? DUH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

... or Engrish-speaking individuals were not American?

They are Texans!

Someone needs to hire some engineers...

[digitaldc]

...to count the number of engineers. It would also help the unemployment figures.

What about foreign students?

[Neoprofin]

The study says that almost 300,000 graduate from U.S. Universities but it doesn't say how many of them are U.S. citizens with plans on staying in the U.S. and how many of them are just in on student visas. Although I don't think this makes up the entire gap between the two sets of findings it may explain at least some of the difference.

Furthermore, the problem, as stated by a sibling post, is not that these engineers exist in great numbers, it's that they are availible at lower prices than the typical American engineer.

Re:What about foreign students?

[Neoprofin]

Only with Slashdot moderators could the the fourth post, part of which makes some reference to the second post, be redundent.

Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another question .. How many of these US grads are american .. and/or staying here?

Re:Americans?

[homer_ca]

In my experience, most of the undergrad engineering students (and the grad students working towards a MS) are American while most of the graduate engineering students working towards a PhD are foreign. I suppose not having a work visa is a good reason to stay in school and be grad student slave labor.

Re:Americans?

[Golias]

Another question: Who cares?

Engineers are engineers. Everybody's gotta eat. Why should I whether a Chinese engineer has a job and an American engineer is out of work or vice versa?

Re:Americans?

[vsprintf]

Engineers are engineers. Everybody's gotta eat. Why should I whether a Chinese engineer has a job and an American engineer is out of work or vice versa?

So does it make any difference if an American engineer who made many contributions to the success of the company is put out of a job so that the profitable American company can replace him/her with a cheaper and less experienced Chinese engineer and thereby redirect even more profit into the CEOs compensation? That is what it is about. There are little or no cost savings being passed on to the customers. The cost goes down while the price remains the same. The added profit goes somewhere, and it is not benefitting the long-term health of industry in this country or the country in general.

Re:Americans?

[Lord Ender]

"There are little or no cost savings being passed on to the customers"

You should look in to this thing called "capitalism."

Re:Americans?

[vsprintf]

You should look in to this thing called "capitalism."

I think I'm fairly well-versed in the concept at least. What does that have to do with the plutocracy practiced in the US? Capitalism, like communism, has never really been tried except in very small communities. Personally, I like the ecomonic concept of capitalism better, but in every case, both break down when confronting government regulation and the personal power that allows - some are always more "equal" than others. (You should be able to recognize the source.)

Re:Americans?

[Lord Ender]

Hm. I don't work in a heavily regulaged industry. Perhaps what you say is more true in those industries. I'm in software.

Suppose two publically traded software companies make software for the same problem. The CEO of Company A outsources development and reduces costs by 5%. Perhaps the shareholders agree that the CEO gets 5% of the new proffits and they get the other 4%. Shareholders win.

The CEO of Company B will see this and do the same. Now both CEOs have incentive to steal marketshare from eachother by lowering prices. Eventually this will balance out. There will be more money in the shareholders' pockets. The software consumers will see a drop in price. Plutocracy doesn't enter in to it.

Re:Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in reality software prices are increasing, not decreasing, and shareholders are left holding the bag while executives loot companies into the ground. That isn't capitalism.

Re:Americans?

[vsprintf]

Suppose two publically traded software companies make software for the same problem. The CEO of Company A outsources development and reduces costs by 5%.

The problem is that it doesn't actually reduce costs, it is just a sound-bite that gets the approval of the financial pundits who laud Company A's stock. The CEOs of companies B and C follow suit because company A's stock went up and company A's CEO got a whopping bonus even though the profits were down. (See Carly Fiorina if you think I'm kidding.)

Perhaps the shareholders agree that the CEO gets 5% of the new proffits and they get the other 4%. Shareholders win.

No. The shareholders have no say in it. The board of directors decides the CEO's compensation, and they answer to nobody - usually, they are CEOs of other companies. CEOs of major companies are already being paid millions of dollars per year. If they need extra incentive to do their job, then they really need to be fired. I don't tell my company that I'm only going to do minimal work unless I get a bonus, and I only make 1/600th what the CEO makes.

The CEO of Company B will see this and do the same. Now both CEOs have incentive to steal marketshare from eachother by lowering prices. Eventually this will balance out. There will be more money in the shareholders' pockets.

The first part is exactly what has happened. Other companies are jumping on the outsourcing bandwagon whether it makes sense for their company or not. It has not resulted in lower prices for customers, nor have shareholders benefited more than a pittance (as I can testify).

Plutocracy doesn't enter in to it.

When you have a wealthy class that dictates who runs corporate America, and when corporate America dictates what legislation will be passed, it sounds like a plutocracy to me.

Re:Americans?

[japhmi]

The board of directors decides the CEO's compensation, and they answer to nobody

The board of directors is elected by the shareholders.

Re:Americans?

[Lord Ender]

I'll correct you:
CEO answers to Shareholders by way of Board.
CEOs need incentives to do their jobs well. If they don't have them, they will make the least-risky (and so the least-rewarding) decisions in order to keep their jobs as long as possible.

Re:Americans?

[vsprintf]

The board of directors is elected by the shareholders.

Generally, the board of directors is approved by the shareholders. A rubber stamp. Big difference. The only way to make the board of directors answerable is to sue, and they are mostly protected under the articles of incorporation. You'd have to have a really good case for failure to perform fiduciary duty to get one convicted of anything or personally liable for anything. If you're saying that a director could lose that position and be replaced by a clone, big deal. Two fewer meetings per year for a CEO making millions - that's more of a reward than a penalty.

Re:Americans?

[vsprintf]

I'll correct you:

I'm all ears.

CEO answers to Shareholders by way of Board.

So why is it that so few members of the board of directors of most major companies are shareholders in that company? Why is it that Disney's board pretty much ignored the uproar from shareholders during the uprising in 2004? Eisner's salary certainly didn't take any hit, nor was he removed from his CEO position. Why is it that Enron's board ignored the interests of shareholders and freely walked away from their mess?

CEOs need incentives to do their jobs well. If they don't have them, they will make the least-risky (and so the least-rewarding) decisions in order to keep their jobs as long as possible.

So you're saying that CEOs are less responsible and less honest than the rest of us who agree to do a job to the best of our abilities for the salary that we agree to? That is so sad that anyone could believe that that is a reasonable position for any executive officer of any company. Also, that least-risky decision you allude to is most likely the best decision for the long-term health of the company. And that is what this is about: the health of the company, not the risky decision and short-term financial health of the CEO.

Re:Americans?

[Golias]

So does it make any difference if an American engineer who made many contributions to the success of the company is put out of a job so that the profitable American company can replace him/her with a cheaper and less experienced Chinese engineer and thereby redirect even more profit into the CEOs compensation?

Again, why should it?

If the Chinese engineer can get the job done for less, why should he not be allowed to? Both guys are just trying to make a living. Is the Chinese one a less-worthy human being to you than the American engineer?

Re:Americans?

[vsprintf]

What are you doing hanging out in the archives? It's dank and moldy, and you're going to catch a cold.

Again, why should it?

It's because of the reason. What is the justification for some recently hired CEO to get rid of good, productive people who made the company a success when the reason is for his/her personal profit? Do companies exist for the good of the CEO in your brave, new world?

Thanks to bad laws passed in the name of reform, US executives tend to get a lot of "compensation" in the form of stock options. This leads executives to make business decisions based solely on what will make short-term stock price swings (that move their options above water). Carly Fiorina is a typical example. As an untalented late-comer to HP, she decided to outsource many jobs even though the company was profitable and healthy. While this got some good reviews in the financial press and a short-term stock price increase, it eventually devastated the company, and she walked away with millions after ruining the lives of thousands of productive workers, and probably the company as well (time will tell).

If the Chinese engineer can get the job done for less, why should he not be allowed to? Both guys are just trying to make a living.

Why should someone who worked for years making a company into a success suddenly be kicked out because some MBA thinks all engineers are interchangeable widgets? They aren't. Does the new replacement engineer come with an injection that gives him/her the experience and institutional knowledge of the original? Should a company fire an older, experienced Chinese engineer to hire a cheaper, newly-minted American engineer? Obviously not, as long as the current engineer is productive.

Is the Chinese one a less-worthy human being to you than the American engineer?

There's a saying that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but I think you proved the saying wrong. It has nothing to do with an individual's "worth" as a human being; it's about an employee's inherent right to be treated as a human being, a professional, and a valuable resource instead of as a disposable widget at management's greed-driven whim.

oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[mekkab]

thats not even real engineering!@

/B.S. in E.E.
//M.S. in Comp Sci
///yep, I'm a S.W. Eng, baby!

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[javaxman]

thats not even real engineering!@

You're moderated as funny, but I work in an office of licensed electrical engineers. Practically every other job I've ever had included the title "Engineer", but here I'm a "Computer Programmer"... never mind that the P.E.'s are entirely reliant on the computer programs they use to do any and all actual engineering.

Calling myself an engineer around here would result in nothing but pointless arguments.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[rherbert]

If you have a BS in EE, then you're forever tainted. Sorry, you can never become a real Software Engineer.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[d03boy]

I am studying to becoming a Software Engineer. The difference between SE and Programmers is that we learn all of the processes involved in Software Projects. We learn how to manage a development team, we learn PSP, testing, all sorts of other stuff. We actually put very little focus on programming itself. Just 3 classes first year. From there the programming is at a standstill until junior or senior year.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[I_can_not_believe_I_]

The timing on this comment is actually fairly appropriate, we've just recently had the regional engineering association going after software companies which are not using Enigineering Professionals (aka P.Eng/P.E.) to check the accuracy of engineering programs and calculations.

At the same time, I never have implicitly trusted any numbers spit out by software (which is normally a black box) without at least sanity checking the numbers (or in more common cases, getting a junior to go back and backcheck the software results). Any engineer that blindly trusts something he can't validate is just begging for a liability lawsuit (I can't be bothered to check references; however, I believe that the use of software which contained unknown flaws has not been suitable defence for due dilligence in tort law cases).

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[CastrTroy]

I graduated from an accredited program in software engineering. Granted I don't have my P. Eng. yet, but I still think that software engineering is still a real profession. My current job is a software developer. I wouldn't call it software engineering by a long shot. I don't think many companies care about having software that is engineered. They don't want to take the time or the money to do it right. The software they are getting with their current methods is good enough. Only the military and NASA currently see a need to make sure things are actually engineered. If all companies wanted their software engineered, it would cost 10 times as much, and take 10 times as long to get done.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[robgamble]

Don't believe it. The only difference between Software Engineer and Programmer is the person writing the job requirements. I've been at this a long time and there are a dozens titles typically applied to individuals who manage, create and maintain software. *YOUR* current definition is your own (and you're welcome to it), but the software development industry as a whole doesn't really have a sensible standard. The unfortunate term "Software Engineer" is just as meaningless as "Systems Analyst".

Don't believe me? Look at the hundreds of job openings on Monster.com in your town alone, each with different titles and the SAME requirements and skill-sets. Recruiters are primarily responsible, but that doesn't matter now. All they care about is what you can do, and if people can stand you while you do it.

Don't get too hung up on your title, friend. Just graduate, and work hard to land a gig where you are fulfilled by your work (let your income dictate your lifestyle, not the other way around). Your first job won't likely be your dream gig, but pay your dues and it will come.

I gather requirements, recommend technologies and tools, mentor teams of developers, communicate technology to business personnel and vice versa, craft application AND system architectures and yes I do much of the hands-on development... so do a lot of other senior-level developers. (I also write run-on sentences, like that?) Some of my clients call me a "Programmer", but this "Programmer" enjoys the respect of his peers, works from home and makes a lot of money.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[Explodo]

If all you do is develop GUIs or other such dreck, then you're right, they're not engineers. If you develop mathematical algorithms for a living, you're doing all of the work of an engineer. I'd love to see some standards applied that would force software folks to live up to a standard to get the engineer title. There are a great deal of software engineers in the world, but there are far more software developers.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[Omega Leader-(P12)]

In Canada it is not. (Eugh, Law and Ethics, how I hate thee.) I assume it is similar in the states, but i'm not sure (I'm an EIT, not a lawyer).

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference and it exists regardless of whether you or a recruiter are too stupid to know it.

I'll give you a hint: "programmers" can be easily outsourced to India, engineers can not.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[javaxman]

we've just recently had the regional engineering association going after software companies which are not using Enigineering Professionals (aka P.Eng/P.E.) to check the accuracy of engineering programs and calculations

Frankly, even though I'm a Software Engineer ( sure, call me Computer Programmer, i'm not going to care ), such a check is a reasonable requirement for software that a P.E. is going to use in their work. We certainly have our P.E.s check the output of our software programs before they are put into production use. Software Quality in engineering applications is extremely important, and, sadly due to a number of factors ( like market size ) is often not given the attention it requires.

, I believe that the use of software which contained unknown flaws has not been suitable defence for due dilligence in tort law cases

If you have some expensive engineering project, and you screw it up because you didn't double-check important data provided by a computer program, nobody is going to care that the program was at fault... you won't get the job the next time a contract comes up. Completely trusting software in such cases can be a problem even if you somehow avoid being dragged into court.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is most certainly a difference between a software engineer and a programmer -- one has an accredited degree, and one doesn't. Job titles don't enter into it.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[Viv]

Not to mention fines from the state, more than likely.

Re:oh yeah, like "software engineer" even counts!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only the military and NASA currently see a need to make sure things are actually engineered."

Are the military and NASA the only ones lofty enough to require such things these days?

I'd have thought the majority of software outside of in-house and SME applications would require engineering. But apparently aircraft control systems, operating systems, telecommunication network software, hardware control software, and--god-forbid--games, don't need engineering.

bullshit alert.

[Anonymous Coward]

'The United States graduates far more engineers annually than typically reported in the press'
 
no way. i don't see level 3 sentry guns and ammo dispensers everywhere. i myself preferred demoman or pyro. never hwguy. ever.
man, im blowd

Finally!

[GweeDo]

I have been doing the work of four people for years...now I am finally counted correctly!

Private Sector Detours

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

You get a lot of American engineers who found out (at least during the dotcom boom) that they could make more money as programmers, technologists, SysAdmins (etc.) than they could in an entry-level engineering job. A lot of them may end up going back to get their degree later, or else starting their own company. Makes it hard to compare to an economy when credentialism is mroe important.

Crow T. Trollbot

We're graduating enough engineers

[Eli Gottlieb]

I think Bill Gates and Co. can stop complaining to the government now about how they need help getting lower-paid foreign engineers and hire some of the homegrown boys and girls.

Re:We're graduating enough engineers

[smellsofbikes]

Ah, but see that's the point. They keep complaining they can't find engineers to hire. There ARE engineers, but not the ones who precisely fit their requirements -- or, at least, oddly enough, no American engineers, just people they can hire from China. NYT did an article about this last week, and their take was basically that if you set the requirements correctly, you can ensure that all your new-hires are low-price.

But look even closer...

[gasmonso]

The US numbers are somewhat inflated because they count sanitation engineers who are merely garbage men and custodial engineers who are merely janitors.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:But look even closer...

[ozydingo]

Or how about someone like the chairopractor I went to once, who graduated from undergrad as a packaging engineer before deciding he wanted to pursue his current profession? He also said once that as an engineer i've been through "like a zillion years of school."

I haven't been to a chairopractor since.

Re:But look even closer...

[joemawlma]

Try being a garbage man. Seriously, hop into any number of their vehicles and start driving and using the equipment. Good luck.

Re:But look even closer...

[PitaBred]

It's not really rocket surgery. It'd take me about 20 minutes of playing to figure out how the controls on a garbage truck work. Do you think a garbage man will figure out how to program in C or design a bridge in 20 minutes? Take your haughtiness elsewhere.

Re:But look even closer...

[glitch23]

What about the domestic engineers who are stay-at-home Moms/Dads?

Re:But look even closer...

[skeptictank]

Hey buddy!

I will have you know I am a Household Fluid Evacuation Engineer in good standing and I make 5 times what you do!

But how many work as engineers?

[tktk]

Are the number of graduates that important? What about the number of engineers looking for jobs?

This is my little anecdotal story.

Having 2 engineering roomates, I was friends with a qute few engineers in college. We all graduated around 1997, give or take a year or two.

Out of 20 that I'm still in contact with, I'd say that 6 are still engineers today. Some have moved up to management or higher and, by their own admission, don't do any engineering work. The rest have moved on to other jobs completely.

Re:But how many work as engineers?

[lixee]

Engineer's prerogative! Ever seen an MBA ending up working as an engineer? Not me.

Re:But how many work as engineers?

[tktk]

I have!

Right before the explosion.

j/k

Re:But how many work as engineers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar experience. After ten years, of the eight or so that I've kept track of, there's only one "real" EE left from graduation.

The rest: financial consultant, exchange inventory, government department (not IT), retail, clerks, etc.

Me, - tech support. Definitely not engineering.

Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

Really, does this matter? IMHO, society puts too much focus on education level and not enough on freedom and independent thinking.

For example, is used to be that people could run successfull businesses without a high school degree, but then the government took away some economic freedoms, and when people had troubble making it - they said that's because you should have a highschool education.

Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said both you and your spouse should work.

Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said well you should go into debt to buy a home and a car.

Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said well you should put your retirement money into tax free IRA's and sighn up for tax free employer sponsered health plans.

Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said well you should get a college education and go into debt to pay for it.

So, IMHO, while education is important, society is pushing it as an end in itself when all it really is - is a hoop that distracts us from what really matters. Freedom is an end in itself, rationality is an end in itself, education is a consequence of these not an ends.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they went libertarian all the way and it made it all irrelevant because less than 1% of the population could afford any kind of education anyway.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, Hong Kong didn't have public schools for the longest time, and they were doing better than the US is now.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you name few of those freedoms for each point. Or was this just the usual libertarian rant.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Peyna]

Does that independent thinking you're talking about also involve independent spelling and grammar?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

Could you name few of those freedoms for each point. ...

How about bilking the tax payers over 6K per head for public schools at a rate that is twice as high as the average private school with half the results?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a problem with your local or state government and a lack of accountability. My primary education school district spent about $2.5k per head.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[toleraen]

I think you disprove your own argument by making so many grammatical and spelling errors. Not to flame, but one of the major educational values pushed during my time at college was solid communication skills. So yes, education level is very important. Without it, you would have a very difficult time expressing your "independent thinking".

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

Taxes and regulation are killing American industry. Look at your paycheck and add up all the taxes. Then add the 15% (approx.) in taxes that your employer pays for the privilege of hiring you. Now add property taxes, car taxes, fuel taxes, etc., etc. I'd wager more than 50% of most peoples pay goes right into taxes. In other words, your employer could afford to pay you 50% less and have the same standard of living you do today if they could ax the taxes!!! Where this really gets interesting is that everything you buy was inflated in price by added taxes too. THAT is why the US is at a huge economic disadvantage when competing with Asia for jobs. Insane, out of control, treasonous spending levels by our government. Yeah I'm cranky today.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

Sure, just as soon as you think of something that isn't taxed or regulated.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

Actually, to me it proves it. While everyone was brow beating me to learn my spelling and grammer in grade school, I blew it off and started to teach my self how to program this new device they had out called a computer. I was the first kid in my school and neighborhood to have one. Do I make a spelling error or grammer error every once in a while? sure. But IMHO, in terms of accomplishments and success I tihkn I've blowen away my peers inspite of all those teachers who wrote me off as a failure.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[ADRA]

Umm, ok.

So, the big bad government has come and made your life a living hell... What can I say... I could make some witty comment about globalization, world economies, foreign policy, tarriffs, and maybe a few other points. I won't, because I'm not an economist and I doubt that you are either. Really, if you want to oversimplify it all down to the government screwing you over, then have at it.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about bilking the tax payers over 6K per head for public schools at a rate that is twice as high as the average private school with half the results?

Say what? If the public schools charge twice as much as a private school with half the results, isn't that a wash?

I think I think I understand what I think you think you said, but it gives me a headache.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[AuMatar]

No we couldn't. Without the taxes there would be;

*No roads
*No police protection
*No fire departments
*No primary or secondary education
    *As a result of which, 90% of our middle class would be being paid substinance level wages, working 12-16 hour days to be able to eat. You know, like we did before we enacted regulations to stop that shit.
*No military, so we'd likely be part of China by now
*No social security, so we'd have elderly people competing for jobs in order to live
    *A large homeless problem, as elderly people will frequently lose the competition
    *A much lower expected lifespan, due to the above and lack of medicaid
*Garbage all over, since we wouldn't have garbage pickup and people would refuse to pay

I could go on, for several chapters. While there is undoubtedly waste in government spending, the vast majority of it is for needed purposes. Without it, life would be a hellhole. Just study your history, particularly the middle ages and the industiral era before the populists and progressive movements.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap! It amazes that people as dumb as exi1ed0ne can form sentences, and I'm floored that his/her dumb ass knows what a paycheck even looks like. I agree that taxes get a bit out of hand at times, but eliminating taxes is not the way to go. Do you enjoy driving on paved roads, drinking water from taps, having a group of people in a big red truck douse the flames when your house is on fire, getting protected from convicted violent criminals, or being assured of a public education? Taxes are essential, nitwit.

Then again, if there was no taxation, I would be free to slap you in your silly head with no fear of being arrested by the police that wouldn't exist...

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[ADRA]

You pay the American government for your quality of life. If you don't like it, there aren't export controls on your citizenship. Leave and find a country that doesn't make you whine so much. Taks away the taxes and regulations, and you get companys running a muck like they do in Asia, you get delapidated government services and social programs. You think your government's social programs do nothing for you now? You wouldn't want to live outside of your walled neighbourhood with armed security drones, and if you can't afford one of your own, you can get fed to the lions! Actually I'm taking this much too far, but so are you. The gov tax you to continue economic development, and frankly, your country isn't doing too badly when comapared to most westernized nations. I'd look at this as a growingly painfull adjustment to the balancing of the world's quality of living that globalization will -eventually- result in.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

Sorry to add to your troubbles, but if you think that's bad, just wait about 6 months. You will find out about how the government takes awy economic freedom by forcing people to use a banking system that effectively prints up and loans out money. It leads to unhealthy levels of debt and bankruptcy on one side, and high inflation on the other side. Housing is about to crash, and consumer savings are at zero - speaking of thinking - anybody who understands the implications of that better start buying precious metals like it's doomsday right now - cause it almost will be.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[hswerdfe]

I would argue that "Joy|Happiness" and "knowledge|Wisdom" are the only 2 ends unto themselves.

and Freedom sometimes causes "Joy|Happiness".
and that without joy freedom is a distraction.

but hey what do I know...

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

Please, explain what you mean by "they took away some economic freedoms."

What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?

And what 'economic freedoms' did we have in 1900 that we don't have today?

If by "they took away some economic freedoms" you mean, "People weren't satisfied with what they could afford," then I might agree with you.

What is boils down to is that the typical American quality of life is much better than it used to be, and all those gains cost money. The employment market, not any mysterious 'they,' is what determined that a college education leads to better jobs. The empowerment of women in the late 40s and early 50s is what led to dual-income households, and the fiscal benefit that conveys.

The government never mandated you need a high school education to get a bank loan -- banks did that, since people without an education tended to be poor credit risks.

Do you think that in 1900 everyone could get by with a decent standard of living only working one job? Do you think that non-working spouses had it as easy as today? How about the people who worked 80 hour weeks just to have room and board for their family -- if they were lucky? How about the countless people who starved or froze to death in the great depression?

Read some history books. Then go read some more. Then read some period fiction from the past century.

And realize that what we consider to be a barely decent standard of living would have been considered very comfortable or even luxurious 50 years ago.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live on a dirt road, and get my water from my well. I'm far enough from the VFD that I will pretty much have to put out my own fires. We don't see many violent criminals out here, and much like the fire situation, response time for the county sheriff is not good, so I'll have to shoot my own bad guys, if it comes to that.

As for public education, the teachers from grade one on pretty much agreed I was far enough ahead of the rest of the class that I could just do independent study.

Taxes have done fuck-all for me, directly. I suppose there's some benefit to having OTHER people go to school, maybe.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[TedCheshireAcad]

You're right. Without taxes, we wouldn't have such wonderful things as:

* Welfare, for people who don't feel like workin'
* Social Security, for people who don't feel like savin' for retirement
* Pork projects, for politicians who don't feel like campaignin'
* A war in the middle east, for presidents who don't feel like diplomatin'
* FEMA relief debit cards, for people who didn't feel like evacuatin'

The list goes on. I'm not saying that taxes should be abolished, but if we had some sensible spending, we'd be paying a lot less in taxes.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

"In other words, your employer could afford to pay you 50% less and have the same standard of living you do today if they could ax the taxes!!"

So, the same standard of living, without roads, hospitals, schools, research grants, bridges, mass transit, courts, police, etc... or do you think that stuff is free?

"THAT is why the US is at a huge economic disadvantage when competing with Asia for jobs"

erm, no. Not at all... or do you think exchange rates are fixed and don't take inflation into account?

The real problem: people in the US expect a much more expensive lifestyle than people in Asia. How many Americans are willing to have a dozen people living in a tiny three-room house with no AC, no car, no dining out, and few or no consumer luxuries?

Stop blaming taxes, and start blaming yourself for not being willing to suck it up. Or, move to a cheap area yourself so that those wages are good enough for you.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[toleraen]

in terms of accomplishments and success I tihkn I've blowen away my peers inspite of all those teachers who wrote me off as a failure.

From what it sounds like, you wrote yourself off as a failure by blowing off your own education. If you had paid attention during your education, would you not have accomplished as much as you have now? Are you continuing to prove my point that without a proper education, one may be unable to properly communicate their ideas with others? I fail to see how poor spelling and grammar equates to more freedom and innovative thinking. Innovation and freedom are not produced through apathy towards the English language.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

Of course! We didn't have ANY of those things before 1913, did we? That was incidentally when the Internal Revenue Act was put into law by Congress. Other than for a few brief periods before then, our country had ZERO income taxes.

Seriously, read a book once in a while.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

I don't blame taxes. I blame incompetent people that keep voting in Politicians with no clue about basic economics. As a FYI: taxing incomes didn't start until 1913 when Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act. If I remember correctly, we still had roads, police, etc before then.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[MarkCollette]

I'm going to respond to your list of things we'd lose without taxes. As such, I'm not commenting on what other things each level of government provides. I don't know about you Americans, but here in Canada we have municipal, provincial and federal taxes.

I spend around $1000 a year in property taxes to pay for intracity roads, police, fire department, primary education, and garbage pickup.

My provincial taxes are around $6800 and pay for secondary education, and intercity roads.

My federal taxes are around $8000 and pay for military, and our social security equivalent.

Can you see the pattern here? The lowest level of government pays for the stuff that I need the most, at the least cost. Each higher level of government costs more and more for things that I need less and less. And I'm not even counting all the taxes that the province and the feds get off of my employer.

The real bitch is that I know that most of my federal taxes are going to paying interest on debt. If the baby boomer generation hadn't sunken us all into this hole, then I could easily have $3000 less taxes right there.

The solution, chronologically, is quite straightforward:
    1. Spend less. This is hard, and it hurts. Tough luck.
    2. Pay down debt. Free us from the interest yoke.
    3. Reduce taxes. With no debt, we can afford to reduce taxes.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[I_can_not_believe_I_]

In some ways, yes it does matter. There are certain things for which I want to know that the practitioner has a certain base level of qualifications and experience. I don't want a doctor cutting me open because he thinks he can do it. I don't want a lawyer taking cases just because he thinks he's a pretty good arguer. Engineering as well, I want to know that the bridge I'm driving (and the car I'm in) have been designed and checked by people with experience, and the sense to take the extra care required. There are reasons some professions are governed by associations and restrict membership. They do this to protect society and make sure that only properly trained and experienced people undertake tasks which can pose significant risks to others. Unfortunately, one of the easiest ways to qualify people is through training and testing (aas in getting that Medicine/Law/Engineering degree). Not that it is the only way, and in fact the regional engineering association is letting technologists with sufficient experience and demonstrated skill practice Engineering.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[ChaosDiscord]

Your rant about economic freedom is really off topic. And as an added bonus your claims are filled with questionable assumptions and faulty logic.

This isn't about kids with BAs in business. This is about engineering degrees. Hard stuff. People who design CPUs, cars, airplanes, bridges, buildings. This isn't a field for someone with only a high school degree. When I get on an airplane I want the engineers who designed it to know their field inside and out. An engineering degree provides a certain base level of knowledge. The only option for someone with only a high school degree is self educate. Some can do it, but how would you know if a given applicate had the necessary base level of knowledge? Could you be sure the person hadn't accidentally overlooked some important areas? A university degree isn't a guarantee of suitable knowledge, but it's better than nothing.

This isn't about some mysterious them taking away your unspecified economic freedoms. This is about the world having moved on. While you weren't looking, technology has become increasingly complex. If all you've got is a high school education, you lack the groundwork for the significant jobs of today and tomorrow. It's possible to overcome that limitation, but it's a big hurdle to leap.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

"You think your government's social programs do nothing for you now?"

They take over 50% of my income and give it to others. Robbing Peter to pay Paul sucks when your Peter. The problem is more Pauls vote.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[I_can_not_believe_I_]

Crap, sorry for the excessive bolding, and lack of paragraphs (hmmm, maybe I should learn to use the preview button.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

"I blame incompetent people that keep voting in Politicians with no clue about basic economics. As a FYI: taxing incomes didn't start until 1913 when Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act. If I remember correctly, we still had roads, police, etc before then."

Sure we did, but we didn't have tons of other things, nor did we have them to the extent we have them now.

Anyway, it doesn't matter where the tax is assessed, except to give preferential tax treatment to certain individuals or companies or industries.

No matter what, those public goods cost money, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Are there inefficiencies? Sure. But if you think there were no taxes before 1913, you've got to be kidding me.

Oh, BTW, icome tax was instituted in the US under Abraham Lincoln... it wasn't until 1913 that it was made permanent.

Also, infrastructure today is much more expensive, even adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1913... you think we had highways back then? The highways that our industry depends on in order to remain competitive?

If you want to go back to the dark ages, feel free... just don't drag the rest of us down with you.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[keymygrip]

The parent comment would be insightful if you would state what economic freedoms the government has been taking away. I am not saying that you are incorrect, I am just saying that you are general and not convincing. But I also think that you are slightly incorrect. It is not the government taking away your freedoms, it is the government allowing the rich to take your freedoms.

But it does not matter because I disagree with your thesis. The reason a high school education is not valuable anymore is because almost everyone has one. The reason you and your spouse go to school and work is someone convinced women they could be educated too. We are competing for limited resources. Everyone wants a nice house in a nice part of town and families with dual income will pay more for it than a single income person. The end result is that in keeping up with the Jones's, a college education and dual income has become the status quo. Do you think that my parent's house they bought for $30k 25 years ago is worth $450k now because the government took away our economic rights? It is in grabbing for all we can that we screw over uneducated people.

I am not trying to say you don't make a good point, I just want to know how you reached that conclusion because I don't buy it. Education is a freedom that many choose to exercise because it better prepares them and makes them more economically valuable. College is expensive because it is a limited resource. But in the end the only way the government is to blame is not protecting us from the extremely rich and from ourselves.

Back to my original thought though, this is nothing new with numbers being misrepresented. Companies like to talk about shortages in worker supply in efforts to keep salaries low. You advertise a shortage to get more people interested in specializing in what you need. Now you have a bigger pool to choose from so you take the person that is qualified and will cost you the least. Economics do not lie. If there is a shortage a premium will be paid or substitute will be found.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Mark of THE CITY]

Any internal (as opposed to external, i.e. tarriff) tax was, according to the Constitution, apportioned among the states according to population. An amendment to the Constitution was required before income tax laws could be passed by Congress.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and then another 'reform' in mid 40's and 80's.

Complaining that Government and the rich are eroding the middle class will accomplish nothing. Instead think how you can get into the category where the rich are.

Brief summary
Rich don't work for the money and aren't looking for employment, people are looking to get employed by them

They tend to buy assets that generate money as opposed to drain money from your pocket (and when banks say that house is an asset they just don't say who's asset your house is [their asset])

Here, pay attention, rich get to invest before paying taxes, you get to invest after paying taxes.

Rich have almost nothing in their name but they are in control (in terms of corporations). The rich don't buy things, their corporations do.

As much as I don't see similarities between humans and Bush administration, I'm thankful that they were in power as I started looking at the world differently.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

"Anyway, it doesn't matter where the tax is assessed, except to give preferential tax treatment to certain individuals or companies or industries"

And there is the problem. It moves the advantage to those folks who are connected to the political elite. Haliburton anyone?

Highways wouldn't exist without government taxes? Please. If there is an economic advantage to highways, they will exist. Same with every other "service" the government is supplying. That is how a free market is suppose to work. Folks like to extract taxes because it is far easier to raid the public coffers than to work for it.

Why is infrastructure more expensive? Maybe regulation and oversight adds to the cost of doing business? Not only are we taxed to manage and oversee, but also prices go up in response. It also raises an artificial barrier to entry for new businesses. Don't believe that? Try and start a small business.

In case you haven't noticed, we are already headed to the dark ages (in the US anyway) due to massive fiscal irresponsibility. Do you know what the US Treasury budget was for just November? Negative 80+ billion!! Just for November!

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[khallow]

There's so many problems with your post that I'm surprised it's not modded down as flamebait. Let's try one of the more difficult rebuttals.

You claim that these services wouldn't exist if it weren't for taxes. The US, for example, has a number of examples of private services filling each of these needs. Even now, there are a large number of private primary and secondary schools in the developed world despite the presence of cheap public education.

Social Security (especially the US kind) does a terrible job of actually protecting the elderly from being poor especially when you compare it to private investment and savings. Why are we shuffling hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep a few hundred thousand people out of poverty? Surely it would be easier to pay these people directly.

Further there are serious problems with paying the elderly not to "compete". Namely, that we take away the most experienced portion of our population. This is foolhardy.

Medicaid is a disaster. It needs to be destroyed not funded.

Garbage cleanup? Come on. In a lot of places that is already private.

I could go on, for several chapters. While there is undoubtedly waste in government spending, the vast majority of it is for needed purposes. Without it, life would be a hellhole. Just study your history, particularly the middle ages and the industiral era before the populists and progressive movements.

I'm sure you could. But what would be the point? You already are out of touch. Just to use a couple of examples you cite, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, we have a huge portion of government spending in two entitlement programs. Now, perhaps entitlement programs aren't automatically waste, but these two programs do very little aside from shuffling wealth among people who don't need it (and being used as a sneaky way to increase government spending), and helping to boost the inflated medical costs in the US. Both are what I'd consider waste.

Let me add, it surprises me how a certain class of person can talk about how important taxes are, and then ignore the full range of what these taxes get spent on. For example, US citizens have paid, so I hear, half a trillion dollars on the Iraqi invasion. Some people apparently don't appreciate this war, but appreciate US taxes. You get the whole package with government.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you, of course, will be voting for the party that has been reducing the Canadian national debt for the last decade ?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

Well said.

We haven't paid for the Iraq war though - we've been borrowing over 2 billion dollars a day for it in addition to what we've plundered out of the Social Security superfund. It would be bad enough if we paid up front, but instead we got our children (and their children ad infinitum) to foot the bill.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

Government does not exist outside the market. Government is part of the market. Those services that the government provides are provided due to demand for them...

" If there is an economic advantage to highways, they will exist. Same with every other "service" the government is supplying."

That's bullshit. Capital investment cost of some things are just far too large for private enterprise to take on, especially if they'd lose money for decades. Not only that, but some goods provide a net benefit to society, but not all of the economic benefit is directed to the investors. So by not building the infrastructure, the economy as a whole loses out... even if it means that no one decided to take the loss on building it.

"In case you haven't noticed, we are already headed to the dark ages (in the US anyway) due to massive fiscal irresponsibility. Do you know what the US Treasury budget was for just November? Negative 80+ billion!! Just for November!"

Which is still a tiny fraction of our GDP, which is the only valid way of expressing budget numbers that size. I agree the federal budget deficit is a problem. But it's not as large as people would make it seem. Worst case scenario, we renege on some of our debt. The world economy cannot afford to have us profligate, and if we can swallow our pride, we could weather the storm.

"Maybe regulation and oversight adds to the cost of doing business?"

Sure it does. But when done properly, results in a net benefit to society.

"It also raises an artificial barrier to entry for new businesses. Don't believe that? Try and start a small business."

It's only a slight barrier to entry, and again, at a net benefit to society.

If you want a truly free economy, you've got to find a way to account for all the intangible costs that businesses accrue but society pays for in the long run. Environmental degradation, pollution, brain drain, etc. Your economic model doesn't work without accounting for all costs. A lot of these costs are borne by government because they will be ignored otherwise, until it is too late.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats because public schools have the burden of educating every loser, thug or ignoramus that is within any given school district. Private schools are good not because the teachers are better, but because the students all come from good backgrounds.

I went to a public school and my younger sister went to a very hoity-toity private school. My teachers were actually better then hers. It was just that a large chunk of my classmates were from the ghetto, and were more worried about bling-bling and shooting dice, whereas her classmates were all the children of rich people. Of course the offspring of the rich kids are going to do better.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[exi1ed0ne]

The definition of a free economy is one unencumbered by government. Is it perfect? No. However every problem you state (polution, waste, "brain drain") can be shown in the "government gone wild" environment that we have today.

Society is a word that doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary group of individuals. When individuals can decide what is best without pressure or artifical incentives from external entities (Gov't, big business) you'd see a much different world.

So what is good for society? Leaving others the hell alone and pay for your "services" out of your own pocket, not mine.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[AuMatar]

Unless Canada is radically different than the US (it may be, it may not) a lot of things you think the states pay for really comes from the feds. The feds give the money to the states, who then spend it locally. Roads are among the biggest things there. Also note that by far the largest organization, military, is only federally funded.

That said, I agree- we should have a balanced budget and pay down the debt. The OP wasn't about that though- it was a typical libertarian all government and taxes are evil rant. And my methods on how to pay it down likely differs- I'd like to see deductions completely removed from the tax structure, and the middle and lower class brackets heavily reduced to make up for it (and so noone loses their houses due to mortgages not being deductions). At the same time, taxes on those making a combined 200K should not be reduced, and those making 1M should be increased (combined with the removed deductions- in other words the rich should be paying shitloads). Spending cuts should only come where it can be done without service loss. It makes no sense to cut 10M from an arts program while paying billions to a military contract that will never be completed, like the Comanche.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Maxo-Texas]

No statues of christ in piss.
No publicly funded groups of musicians who play ancient music.
No 300 million dollar bridges across a bay to 50 people.
No 55 million dollar high schools closed down 7 years after built.
No publicly funed but PRIVATE pension plans for "public" servants which pay more per year in benefits than I'll ever earn as a salary.
No 10% annual tax increases when I'm getting no pay increase because they -say- that my house is worth more now.
No private 70 thousand dollar roads on public servants properties.
No viagra pills for convicted rapists.
No public funds for "homeless" who never worked a day in their life even tho they were physically capable (fortunately, Clinton put an end to most of that nonsense.)

Your examples are great-- the problem is that is probably about 50% of our tax burden. The other 50% is wasted, leached away by corruption.

I think taxes should be limited to 25% of your income- once you hit the cap, you are done. You get to decide what you do NOT want to fund if you are taxed over that level. Our politicians are spending money like there was no limit and they are destroying the country for our children and they don't seem to care. Could it be that many are fundies who feel like James Watt (Reagan era Interior guy) that we are "in the end times" and so we don't need to be concerned about the next generation.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

"However every problem you state (polution, waste, "brain drain") can be shown in the "government gone wild" environment that we have today."

You think these problems would be less with a free economy? Hah.

What you fail to realize, is that government is not an outside actor on the economy. It is fully part of the economy.

"Society is a word that doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary group of individuals."

No, it's not an arbitrary group of individuals -- it is the all-inclusive group of individuals.

When individuals can decide what is best without pressure or artifical incentives from external entities (Gov't, big business) you'd see a much different world."

You're right -- much different. Much worse. Profit and personal wealth the only pressure on business activity? Fuck that, despotism sucks, unless you're the despot or his crony.

Look at Africa and the Caribbean if you want to see how quickly unbridled economies turn to crap at feet of personal greed.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

No, it's not an arbitrary group of individuals -- it is the all-inclusive group of individuals.

I hope you realise that there are billions of people in "society" who probably think they can use your money better than you can. Do you really want to go there?

Also, what were you talking about before? The US had a thriving private interstate industry before the interstate commerce act - which immedaitely killed it. Where do you think the idea for an interstate highway system came from?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[MarkCollette]

I've heard that in the USA, the cities have to talk directly to the feds for funding. In Canada, the cities belong to the provinces. So in our system it's a little easier to see what each level is responsible for.

Regardless of what level pays for what, I believe that the local expenditures that directly affect our quality of life, are a fraction of our total taxes. The majority of taxes, in Canada and the USA, go towards either debt interest payments, or to programs that I think should be reevaluated. And it might not be simple, there may be a lot of tough calls, where that money is helping someone, but it still has to be taken away.

I'm not so sure that rejigging the tax structure is the way forward. That won't solve the problem, it only has the potential for changing the problem. So you come up with a way to make the progressive income tax system penalise the rich even more. Well then they'll just move their assets into corporations and trusts, so they have no income.

I agree that there's no sense cutting some things to the bone, while other more blatant problems remain. The most gregarious offenders should be targetted first.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[AuMatar]

You claim that these services wouldn't exist if it weren't for taxes. The US, for example, has a number of examples of private services filling each of these needs. Even now, there are a large number of private primary and secondary schools in the developed world despite the presence of cheap public education.

And thats just fine. But without the public systems, large numbers of children, perhaps the majority of them, would not be able to go to school at all. This makes it very unlikely to find high paying jobs, meaning their children won't either. Its a perpetual cycle. The reason for public school is to ensure that EVERYONE can get an education, not just the children of the wealthy.

And please, don't parrot the "public schools suck" meme at me. Study test scores of suburban private schools to suburban public schools (in other words, well funded middle class schools of each system). The two are about equal, within percents of each other. The reason inner city schools perform poorly is a lack of funding, and parents who don't care about education combined with children who pick up that attitude. No number of vouchers or dismantling of the public schools in favor of private ones will help this problem, they'll only make it worse, as those parents who don't care sure as hell won't pay money for it.

Social Security (especially the US kind) does a terrible job of actually protecting the elderly from being poor especially when you compare it to private investment and savings. Why are we shuffling hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep a few hundred thousand people out of poverty? Surely it would be easier to pay these people directly.

SS isn't a retirement plan. Its retirment INSURANCE. If all your investments fail and you end up with too little money to live, SS will make sure you can have a roof over your head and food in your stomach. Getting rid of SS will result in even bigger bills down the road, as we have to institute a new program to feed and shelter them when their investments fail (and some percentage of them always will).

As for paying them directly being cheaper- we do pay them directly. We send them checks. I'm not sure how much more directly you want. I suppose you might be able to save by getting rid of the paperwork and just giving everyone over X years of age a paycheck every month. If that was cheaper, I'd be ok with it.

Further there are serious problems with paying the elderly not to "compete". Namely, that we take away the most experienced portion of our population. This is foolhardy.

In engineering, experience means something. Most people aren't engineers- they have minimum wage jobs at WalMart, Target, etc. Experience there doesn't matter. It just increases the labor supply pool, deflating wages even further. Which means they save less, which means they can't retire early, and cycle.

Medicaid is a disaster. It needs to be destroyed not funded.

Compared to the rest of health care in the US, its almost sane. The US badly needs national healthcare so we can get rid of the middle men that are draining the industry. But failing that, our elderly and infirm need drugs to live in decent helth. That means medicaid/medicare must continue. You don't throw out a working system, no matter if its flawed, unless you have the replacement ready. We don't.

Garbage cleanup? Come on. In a lot of places that is already private.

Some places. Even there its the government hiring a contractor. I'd rather have the government do it directly at a cost savings, but that wouldn't work for smaller cities. The governments real job here, though, is enforcing payment. Without the government, you'll end up with people who don't pay and don't bother with it. So don't complain when you see trash all over the street because people were too cheap

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[MarkCollette]

I don't want to get sucked into a Liberal Party vs Conservative Party debate here. But suffice to say, I am not impressed with either party's platform decisions this election. Both are vying as to who can come up with the best way to spend billions of dollars. Well, here's my novel approach: Don't spend it. Leave things as they are, and put any excess money towards paying down the debt. It sounds pretty boring, and it'll get a little repetitive trying to sell that idea for the next decade. But hey, once the debt is gone, then we'll actually truly have money that we can argue as to how to spend on whatever.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[AuMatar]

If the rich try games like that, eliminate trusts and tighten the laws regaurding incorporation. If they get caught breaking them, several years in jail and federal seizure of all funds. In other words, draconian punishments. Won't happen, since the rich own congress. But there are ways to make it work. It just requires honest people in charge.

And thats really the problem- until the people control Congress again, nothing will get fixed. I personally give it another decade or so- radical leftward political change seems to happen every 30-50 years in the US (1820s and Jackson, 1860s and emancipation, 1900s and progressives, 1930s and new deal, 1960s and civil rights). Always preceded by a strong conservative period. Bush is the conservative period, we're due for a change soon.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?

It's part of the myth that the "free market" automatically solves all economic problems and converges around the optimal solution for society. This myth is also based on the idea that competition will dominate in a "free" market, and will push everything toward this optimal solution.

Unfortunately, it's just a myth. With every company left to act in its own best interest, it is in the best interest of every company to remove competition. Therefore, competition does not dominate, but is instead crushed, and customers are left with monopolies, conglomerations, or singular choices. Thus, a "free" market leads to the breaking of the underlying driving force of capitalism: competition.

The end result is that free markets are not so free. New players are restrained from entering, existing minor players are restrained from acting, customers are restrained from choosing.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[JesseL]

The things that bring people joy and happiness (j&h) are as numerous as the people that experince them. So how would you propose maximising j&h in the world?

How about ensuring that people have the freedom to pursue whatever brings them j&h, limited only by what is detrimental to the freedom of others?

If an individual feels that for the sake of their personal j&h they must surrender their own freedom and submit to the will of another they have the freedom to do so.

I would argue that to forcibly remove an individuals freedom to pursue their own j&h for the supposed benefit of anyone elses j&h is degrading, a denial of the individuals ownership of their own life, and morally reprehensible.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

And thats just fine. But without the public systems, large numbers of children, perhaps the majority of them, would not be able to go to school at all.

In places like Hong Kong that had no publically funded schools for the longest time, realities like that never turned out to be true. Also, what the hell are you saying - would you promote robbing banks at gunpoint to for paying for childrens education too?

And please, don't parrot the "public schools suck" meme at me.

OK. I won't but I know for a fact the my parents were paying $2500/yr to send me to a good college prep boarding school while those kids in gettho high LA up 20 minutes north, were costing the state about $3000/yr per student to run.

SS isn't a retirement plan. Its retirment INSURANCE.

When you coerce people to participate in an "investment" scheme that they don't want to - it called a "racket" and it's a fellony in all 50 states for a reason. When you pay the interest from new participants "contributions", that's called a "pnozi" scheeme, and is universally shunned by any competent investment advisor. What kind of loonacy causes people to think that when the government does these things - that all of a sudden the consequences aren't important?

Compared to the rest of health care in the US, its almost sane.

There's a city of 50,000 healthcare professionals in rochester minnesota that is better known as the "Mayo Clinic" - the whole opperation is effectively supported by Canadian's seeking health care. Gee golly, why would people with such "nice" free health care do that?

The military is far and away the biggest US expense....

Well it isn't, but still, the purpose of government is to protect freedoms, not to protect freebies. Get it?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[AuMatar]

In places like Hong Kong that had no publically funded schools for the longest time, realities like that never turned out to be true. Also, what the hell are you saying - would you promote robbing banks at gunpoint to for paying for childrens education too?

Apparently someone's never been to SE asia- for every educated person, there's 10 illiterates.

OK. I won't but I know for a fact the my parents were paying $2500/yr to send me to a good college prep boarding school while those kids in gettho high LA up 20 minutes north, were costing the state about $3000/yr per student to run.

Boarding school- and room and board were what? Thats where most of their money comes in. And like I said- inner city schools have other problems than just funding. Parents who don't value education being one of the primary ones. Poor teachers being another (why risk your life at an inner city school when you can work in one in a decent neighborhood? So inner city schools get the dregs of an already underpaid profession).

When you coerce people to participate in an "investment" scheme that they don't want to - it called a "racket" and it's a fellony in all 50 states for a reason. When you pay the interest from new participants "contributions", that's called a "pnozi" scheeme, and is universally shunned by any competent investment advisor. What kind of loonacy causes people to think that when the government does these things - that all of a sudden the consequences aren't important?

No, its a tax. Yeah, its a ponzi scheme, ignore that part. You're being taxed to pay the elderly and infirm who can't work a pittiance. In return, you'll get a pittiance when you're old and infirm yourself. Thats part of the main job of society- to take care of its own.

There's a city of 50,000 healthcare professionals in rochester minnesota that is better known as the "Mayo Clinic" - the whole opperation is effectively supported by Canadian's seeking health care. Gee golly, why would people with such "nice" free health care do that?

No, the whole operation is supported by a large number of rich people who go there, because they have some of the best doctors in the world. Probably some Canadians as well, the doctors there are good. If you need life saving or experimental surgery, and are rich, its not a bad option for them.

As for free medicine sucking- all the people I know in New York and the East try to go to Canada when they get sick. Funny how that works. But I trust my bullshit heresay stories more than yours- the US is the only western nation without national health care, and the others seem to be doing just fine. Many are rated higher than our own. Our top end stuff is right at the top of the list, but given that 25% of the nation can't afford insurance, our system sure as fuck is NOT working.

Well it isn't, but still, the purpose of government is to protect freedoms, not to protect freebies. Get it?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Thats the purpose of government. Liberty is an important part of it. Promoting quality of life is an equally important part- notice promote the general welfare and form a more perfect union are in there too. SSI and the like are important programs twoards those goals. In this case, quality of life wins- getting every last dime you "earn" is not an issue of freedom. No matter how much you libertarians tell yourself it is.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[MarkCollette]

Not only are those measures unlikely, as you've noted, but they are impractical. Trusts and corporations have their legitimate purposes. And I'm not convinced that it makes sense to put the burden of our society, so disproportionately, on the rich.

This is why I think it's very important to focus on the most effective measures first, because we can all drown our efforts in ineffective and potentially counterproductive measures, like what you have described.

Also, a system should benefit from, but not depend on, having honest people in charge. The US system of checks and balances is a clear acknowledgement of this reality. Focus on incremental reform of your political system, instead of hoping for broad sweeping revolutionary changes. Because in any great change, there is little oversight for the many small mistakes.

In Canada, our previous Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, pushed through some legislation a few years ago to limit corporate political donations. Now parties have to rely much more on individual donations. And there are caps so that no individual can give a very large amount. I'm positive that this will reduce corruption, more and more, over time.

Another problem common to the USA and Canada is that many federal ridings are effectively uncontested. That is to say, one can say with certainty which party will win in the vast majority of ridings. These boundaries tend to be geographic in nature, and cement regional divisions. If we could implement some form of limited proportional representation, then we could enter a new era. No longer would crappy politicians be guaranteed to get into office merely because they run under the favoured party. The USA could break the back of the two party system. Maybe then someone who is fiscally conservative would not be limited to voting for someone who is socially conservative. Or, put another way, someone who enjoys freedom won't be limited to voting for someone who wants to blow all our money on who knows what.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[the_soothsayer]

In places like Hong Kong that had no publically funded schools for the longest time, realities like that never turned out to be true. Also, what the hell are you saying - would you promote robbing banks at gunpoint to for paying for childrens education too?

Apparently someone's never been to SE asia- for every educated person, there's 10 illiterates.

You're just talking out of your ass. So you're saying that the literacy rate in SE Asian countries is 9.1%? Maybe if you read and found out a little bit more about the world before you spoke then you wouldn't look like such an idiot. Do you even know what the SE Asian countries are? Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Philipines, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Timor Leste Go to the UN website and look at the stats for those countries. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_seri es_results.asp?rowId=656 What has Hong Kong got to do with SE Asian countries anyway?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[geekoid]

"The empowerment of women in the late 40s and early 50s is what led to dual-income households, and the fiscal benefit that conveys."

well, those benifits were temporary. Now in order to be middle class, two incomes are required.
Personally, I think it would do this country a lot of good if only 1 spouse worked.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[geekoid]

first, if you are paying 50% of your income to the government, I suggest you get someone else to do your taxes, because I can't think of any income group that pays 50%.

Even when I made 120k(referred to as 'the good ole days') I only paid 20-25%.

your not being robbed when you get services from your taxes.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Servants]

What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?

And what 'economic freedoms' did we have in 1900 that we don't have today?

Plenty. In 1900 you could hire children, maintain monopolies, fix prices, break unions using hired goons, and ignore worker safety, to name a few. It wasn't called laissez-faire capitalism for nothing, you know.

What's less clear is why the grandparent seems to think such economic regulation has made it more difficult for people to make ends meet.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

"I hope you realise that there are billions of people in "society" who probably think they can use your money better than you can. Do you really want to go there?"

Yes, yes I do. I currently do go there, though not with billions of people. I still have control over where most of my money is spent (supposedly all, but I do realize that I really have no control over my government, though I tacitly agree to it by continuing to live where I do).

"Also, what were you talking about before? The US had a thriving private interstate industry before the interstate commerce act - which immedaitely killed it. Where do you think the idea for an interstate highway system came from?"

The railroads prior to the interstate commerce act strangled a lot of business... they also strangled competition. The railroad industry was fraught with uncompetitive business practices, each railroad working its damnedest to maintain their monopoly. Charging higher rates to small carriers, removing them from competition; kickbacks, bribes, strong-arming, murder... whatever it took. When railroads expanded into eachother's territory, it was ugly. The railroads really weren't broken by federal action until much later, the Esch-Cummins Act, which forced railroads to maintain unprofitable lines (this was after railroads were returned to private ownership after WWI). Competition from buses, cars, and trucks is what drove in the last nail of the railroad era.

The interstate highway system did not come from the same kind of legislation as the Interstate Commerce Act. The interstate highway system came about because of extensive lobbying from auto makers, who were looking to profit from the mobility of the public in the 50s, and from the goodwill they earned during WWII. The Interstate Commerce Act came about because of public complaints about railroad activity. Also, while profits declined for the major railroads after passage of the interstate commerce act, competitive commerce actually increased -- which is a net benefit to the economy.

In one case you have a portion of the market (mostly consumers) exercising their collective power to limit the 'aggression' of an industry that was driving up the prices of goods; in the other case you have a portion of the market (mostly producers) exercise their collective power to get indirectly subsidized. It's importqant to note that the consumers gave the producers the power to get themselves subsidized in this manner.

Either way, government did not 'limit' the economy... certain segments of the economy manipulate government to benefit them. Government is a tool, that's all... and sure, I'm often disappointed with how that tool is used, but the idea of government isn't invalidated by that.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Bonhamme Richard]

It also used to be that you could drop out of high school, get a job as at the local steel mill / coal mine / other physically demanding job, and make a decent enough living to support a family. The market changed, probably due to automation of many of those jobs, and now having a strong back and a weak mind isn't enough to get by on.

I don't think I'd blame the government, just the market, though if you can offer some examples of those lost economic freedoms I'd be willing to change my mind...

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[Red Flayer]

"well, those benifits were temporary. Now in order to be middle class, two incomes are required."

That's because the quality of life for middle class has changed. No more washing laundry by hand, year-round access to fresh produce, greater variety and quality of goods available, two cars (or more!) per family, larger houses, more entertainment.

The middle class lifestyle was remarkably different then than it is now, the need for two incomes to be 'middle class' is more a reflection of the fact that more families are dual-income now. Part of it is the metrics used, if you want to say that anyone within two standard deviations of the median (which is a better metric than the mean), then that median is shifted up by the fact that so many people are in dual-income households, and therefor have a higher income.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[raoul666]

I'll agree with your general premise, but some of the specifics make me cringe.

Welfare is not just for people who don't feel like working. It is also for single mothers who can either look after their children or work, people who are faced with illness and disability and can't work, and the mentally and physically handicapped.

Social security is also good for those folks who've been working hand to mouth for 50 years and have never been able to save for retirement. I doubt you could manage to put together a nice nest egg on $6/hour.

Leaving New Orleans when you don't have a car and everything you own is in your house/apartment might not be the easiest thing in the world. Maybe you need a couple bucks to buy some food and clothes for your family.

There's a lot of waste in the system, I'll grant you that. But what would you do instead, let people starve to death? Let the elderly die because they can't afford their rent? Personally, I don't mind contributing a little bit of my paycheck to people who don't have what I do. I recognize it's for the common good. Yes, there are pork projects, yes, the war in Iraq is a gigantic waste of life and money, yes, people in NO should have gotten the hell out. In a perfect world, everybody would have a job, have enough to pay for their basic needs and save for retirement, and taxes would be nice and low. Until then, I'll stick with taxes, thanks.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[argoff]

My point about the billions of people is that there is always going to be somebody worse off than you are, a lot of somebodys. If the world ran off the attitude that it's alright to for govt to take from people because they have for others who dont - then nobody will get nowhere.

Perhaps I got the law name wrong, but my point was that freeways were being privately created before the government ever did. When the government went into the freeway business, it pretty much killed that industry. So the premise that roads and infrastructure won't be created unless the money for it is coerced from the masses is wrong.

The railroads are not a good example, the government paid them 40K per mile of track they laid at taxpayers expense, which is a lot of money now, but a fortune back then. Not to mention, lots of other regulations that kept new entrants out. Like most industries that act abbusive - the biggest and easiest tool for them to use is government, which is why it's a good idea to limit its ability to take from people.

Government is a tool, that's all... and sure, I'm often disappointed with how that tool is used, but the idea of government isn't invalidated by that.

Maybe I missed something in one of the parent posts, but I don't have a problem with government in the form "lets organise together to secure and protect our liberties", but as for government of the form "lets organize to grab a bunch of freebies coerced at others expense" - I have a huge problem with that. Right now, government has encroached on too many freedoms, which is why working to limit its power to take from people is a worthy cause.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[smellsofbikes]

>Then they took away some more economic freedoms and people had troubble making it, so they said both you and your spouse should work. This is a tragedy-of-the-commons thing. There was no big authorial Government They that said in a huge booming hollow voice "both you and your spouse should work". What happened was that women started working during WWII, we had a brief period of economic stability afterwards, where they didn't have to, and when things got even slightly tight some women started going back to work, and since now the supply of workers exceeded the demand, wages started dropping and more women started going to work, until the economy stabilized with a 40% larger workforce and resultant lower per-person wages. At every individual point, for each individual family, having both parents work was good for the family, nearly doubling its income, but bad for the community as a whole, slightly reducing wages.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[benjamindees]

Private schools are good not because the teachers are better, but because the students all come from good backgrounds.

Around here, good backgrounds or not, a large portion of the students at private schools are there because they were expelled from public schools.

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[JesseL]

You're only counting income tax. Start counting state and local sales tax, gas tax, property tax, inheritance tax, vehicle registration, etc and see what it adds up to. Then think about how much the cost of everything that you buy with the remainder of what the government leaves you is inflated by taxes.

And what's this about having you're property taken under the threat of violence not being robbery as long as the perpetrator gives you something? Is it ok to start mugging people as long as I give them back a cracker jack prize? How big a cracker jack prize does it have to be to make it ok?

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[khallow]

And please, don't parrot the "public schools suck" meme at me. Study test scores of suburban private schools to suburban public schools (in other words, well funded middle class schools of each system). The two are about equal, within percents of each other. The reason inner city schools perform poorly is a lack of funding, and parents who don't care about education combined with children who pick up that attitude. No number of vouchers or dismantling of the public schools in favor of private ones will help this problem, they'll only make it worse, as those parents who don't care sure as hell won't pay money for it.

Name a private school that would be allowed to operate at the level of say the Los Angeles Unified School District. As you note, only the best public schools operate at the level of private schools.

As far as vouchers go, if for example, the voucher were $10,000 per student plus a payment of up to $1,000 directly to the student for good grades, then we'd see a vast improvement over the current situation. So claiming "no number of vouchers" will solve the problem is based on BS. We chose not to fund education at a level that would enable vouchers, but that's a far cry from claiming they won't work at any level.

SS isn't a retirement plan. Its retirment INSURANCE. If all your investments fail and you end up with too little money to live, SS will make sure you can have a roof over your head and food in your stomach. Getting rid of SS will result in even bigger bills down the road, as we have to institute a new program to feed and shelter them when their investments fail (and some percentage of them always will).

I agree that SS isn't a retirement plan, but it isn't retirement INSURANCE either. It's a pyramid scheme (as has already been noted) and a BRIBE to the US voters that allows Congress to spend a couple hundred billion more a year. INSURANCE pays if something goes wrong. There are disability funds in Social Security that meet this definition, but the vast majority gets paid to you whether or not your investments worked out or not. This has resulted in the current elder generation being unusually wealthy. For example, from the Survey of Consumer Finances the net worth of households with heads under the age of 35 jumped by 10% (inflation adjusted) from the 1992 survey to the 2001 survey while the corresponding net worth of households with heads over the age of 75 jumped by 31%. This larger growth in networth has been consistent over a couple of decades, so it appears to me. Currently the 75 and over household has about two-thirds the networth of the under 35 household, but it no doubt has fewer dependents.

My take is that there's no obvious sign here that we need universal "insurance" against retirement. Especially the kind that provides incentives for the elderly to stop working.

As for paying them directly being cheaper- we do pay them directly. We send them checks. I'm not sure how much more directly you want. I suppose you might be able to save by getting rid of the paperwork and just giving everyone over X years of age a paycheck every month. If that was cheaper, I'd be ok with it.

Sorry, I meant here the elderly that were actually poor. Not everyone and their toy poodle.

In engineering, experience means something. Most people aren't engineers- they have minimum wage jobs at WalMart, Target, etc. Experience there doesn't matter. It just increases the labor supply pool, deflating wages even further. Which means they save less, which means they can't retire early, and cycle.

Bull, experience means a lot even in jobs where you flip burgers. Plus, older people tend to be more competent. And having people work who can work seems a lot more rational than paying someone to not work because of some hypothetical labor surplus.

Compared to the rest of health care in the US, its almost sane. The US badly needs national health

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[hswerdfe]

if your system of Maximizing J&H by relating increasing freedom, can be statisitically shown to be valid.
I would be happy to implement you system.
just as soon as I become supreme dictator of a group of humans. I will be happy to let them do as they wish, assuming of course your system can be proven valid.

cheers,
your soon to be (and short lived) new overlord

Re:Seriously, Does this matter?

[JesseL]

I am supreme dictator of all humans, but I have already chosen to allow them to do as they wish. Unfortunatley some of them have become deranged and started abusing each other's freedom. Not only that but they have constructed elaborate structures of rationalizations, institutes of indoctrination, and organized thugs to perpetuate their crimes against each other.

I only hope I can guide my subjects to realize the error of their ways so they can happily leave each other the hell alone.

Certainly

[ch-chuck]

They need to count sanitary engineers, field engineers, train engineers, etc.

Huge Difference

[J05H]

THere's a huge difference between a "technology specialist" and an engineer. Any monkey with an MSCE or Red Hat training is a tech specialist, it doesn't mean he can design rocket engines.

Josh

Re:Huge Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

neither can you. I know how you are.

Re:Huge Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with $500 can get an MCSE. I have seen hairdressers with the MCSE.

Why should there be more engineers in the US?

[geneing]

If we are talking about civil or mechanical or chemical engineers why do we need more? The infrastructure in the US is very much built out and there is not much new construction going on. India and China have a lot of new construction going on and that's where engineers are needed most.

Isn't it just like saying that US has fewer farmers than India or China? True, but who cares if they can supply all the food we need.

Re:Why should there be more engineers in the US?

[evilviper]

Why should there be more engineers in the US?

If you had bothered to read the few few sentences of the article, you would know the answer:

[...] long considered threats to the U.S.' status as a technological superpower, [...]

Isn't it just like saying that US has fewer farmers than India or China?

No, it is nothing like that at all.

Re:Why should there be more engineers in the US?

[Skagit]

The infrastructure in the US is very much built out and there is not much new construction going on.

Wow, that's incorrect. The infrastructure in the US, as graded by the American Society of Civil Engineers (who might know a thing or two about the subject), is pretty miserable. Just look. The levee failure in New Orleans was a single tragic example of infrastructure failure. The next one could be an Amtrak commuter line going through a bridge into the Hudson River or a refinery blast spewing a zillion gallons of crude into the Delaware. The US needs engineers to repair the infrastructure.

Drive through the suburbs and look at all the new housing developments springing up. Drive through New York City and Philadelphia and Boston and Washington and look at the forest of tower cranes and new high rises. Look at all the pedestrian protection lining the sidewalks. Construction is growing and, according to the Engineering News-Record, civil engineering departments can't keep up.

So, in a word, "no."

Reminds me of the US census thing.

[Douglas Simmons]

The number of engineers is important to estimate accurately, but so is the population of this country. Why oh why can't we just extrapolate a little and do some fuzzy math so as not to grossly undercount the number of US citizens? What do other countries do?

Vocational mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

I graduated with a an engineering and computer science degree. Since then I've been a salesman, writer, mechanic, a music producer, a volunteer counseller for homeless vets, and now I am considering retraining as a plumber. There's a reason for this and it's simple psychology really, IT jobs are the most thankless and stressful in existence. Reading the ealier post on Top 10 Admin Truths made me sweat with bad memories. Almost all the time you are working for dumbasses who don't understand anything, don't know what they want, but want you to fix it right now. They think that because you are a techie you must be some kind of minion who sorts out all their problems while they make all the money and treat you like shit. So called 'managers' who fail to manage, PHBs with disgusting attitute problems, dotcom maniacs who think they can just throw up a server and it will print money for them, there seems no end to the fakes and blaggers occupying the top ranks of IT. My my own admission I have an 'attitude problem'. The problem is that I'm happy with my attitude not to be taken for granted by idiots. It's a shame because computing could be such a challenging, stress free and worthwhile occupation, but I've had to look elsewhere for job satisfaction. The problem is not a shortage of skilled engineers, it's a shortage of decent employers.

Re:Vocational mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, maybe not so mch so with the other jobs you listed. But you do realize that "Plumber" and "IT Job" are virtually identical in all ways with all the same problems you state right? :)

Re:Vocational mistake

[amightywind]

and now I am considering retraining as a plumber.

Nothing wrong with that. Your knowledge of networking and graph theory is immediately applicable. Demand for your services is inelastic and resistant to outsourcing.

Re:Vocational mistake

[Malc]

I had a plumber come in to one of my apartments once due to a blocked toilet. He had it unbolted and turned upside. WHAT A MESS. Literally shit everywhere. If you can handle that, you deserve the high-paid plumbing job! Me? I think I would rather be an electrician. Still get to drill holes in people's homes, make a mess, and then leave without cleaning it up!

Re:Vocational mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

did he clean all that shit for you afterwards? or did you have to pay extra for that..

Re:Vocational mistake

[T-Ranger]

THREE RULES OF BEING A PLUMBER

1. Payday is every second Thursday
2. Shit flows downhill
3. Never, never lick your fingers.

link to the actual study

[uujjj]

The Red Herring article fails to link to its source. Ironically the actual study criticizes articles like these for failing to identify their sources. So here is the study itself. Enjoy.

Re:link to the actual study

[uujjj]

From the study, the number of 4-year degrees in engineering given in the US is 137437, in India 112000, and in China 351537. The number of 2/3-year degrees (think MSCE-level) in the US is 84898, in India 103000, and in China 292569.

Re:link to the actual study

[danmart]

The actual study shows that what the now inflated US numbers count are associate degrees along with bachelor degrees.

US
BS in IT 84k
BS other 137k
AS all 84k

Total 222k

Hey the Indian and Chinese numbers are fake and ours are not! Wait, if we include all our associate degrees and all our non-IT degrees then our fake numbers are higher than their fake numbers! Yay for America!

MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL!

[Eli Gottlieb]

If I had mod points and hadn't commented in this article I'd do it myself.

Heavy courseload for four years

[everphilski]

Most of this has to do with horrible advisors in my opinion.

No, it mostly has to do with the fact that you have a heavy courseload. Take aerospace engineering (my field... graduated a year back). Five classes on top of a fully accredited Mechanical degree. Yes, they had an "example four year course" outlined in the student handbook. I know one person who managed to pull it off. Not to mention the chains of prerequisites - not just one but two dimensional in many cases - often screwed a student over. I took five years to graduate and enjoyed my college experiance.

-everphilski-

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[richdun]

On the other hand, as an aerospace engineering graduate who finished last year after only four years and had a blast doing newspaper, student government, and a wealth of other activities, it depends on where you go - go to a tech school, and it's four years easy (plus a minor in Materials Engineering for my Tech Elecs). Two semesters at 15 hours, two at 18, and the rest 16-17. If you want to be an engineer, go to a school with an engineering curriculum, not a general curriculum with engineering tacked on top. Most of my friends finished in four, or took 4+ or 5 to get two degrees. It's not impossible, you just have to choose the right school.

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in California, most of the state schools make you take like 50-60 General Ed units in order to get your degree. Your actual major is only 50-60 units. So basically they are forcing you to get a degree in liberal arts, with your particular chosen major tacked on top. Students not in this type of system have an advantage in the workplace because a higher proportion of their time in college can be spent studying what they are actually there to study instead of jumping GE hurdles.

This applies particularly to fields such as engineering and accounting which require so many classes. All the engineering students in the CSU system have these extra 60 or so liberal arts units tacked on which crowds out their major classes.

You are right, the school system you are in makes a huge difference.

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[Tired_Blood]

It entirely depends on where you go. Perhaps the difference here is between a technical education and a university education.

I went to an engineering school and saw an average of 20 hours per semester. They offered a very popular option of spreading the courseload over five years (with no additional tuition fees) to reduce that average a bit. I think it was a total of 156 credits, but if you ignore the PhysEd (I think it's a NJ mandate) and humanities credits you approach the 'standard' courseload which doesn't resemble your example of a general curriculum with engineering on top - closer to the opposite, actually.

As for dual degrees: a roommate of mine was attempting to get a BE and Masters within 4 years before he figured out that 30 hours may be a bit much. I think he envied my 5 hours of sleep each night.

I was able to participate in a sport and a have a limited role in a couple clubs but, due to the heavy courseload, time was a very precious resource and everybody understood the situation.

Lastly, the commuters probably had it worst: a perennial problem with parking in addition to the traffic nightmare of being closely situated between two of the three roads connecting NJ and Manhattan. Beautiful view, though...

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[chickenmonger]

I'll be finishing in 4 years this spring, with an Aero E degree from Iowa State. As the parent said, it's not impossible. Just don't fail classes, and take 15-18 credits a semester. Take prerequisites and tech electives early in your program. Don't save your two Social Science classes for your last semester. Don't screw around partying, because that's not what you're there for. In fact, get a job to pay for tuition, and you won't even have time to screw around. And finally, professors and advisors will do everything they can to keep you from graduating in four. Fight that downward spiral everytime they try something shifty.

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[JPriest]

The problem with "tech schools" is that they are often not nationally accredited engineering universities and the Engineering degree you get from them is not worth the paper it is printed on. They often don't transfer well either if you want to advance your degree.

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop discouraging other students. I did a BS in AE in 4 years as well, no summers. Just put the time into it, don't fail anything. My .02

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[everphilski]

Good luck with that tech degree. You probably won't go far... is it accredited by ABET? Didn't think so... that's the gold standard in this field, anything else is just playing around.

-everphilski-

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[richdun]

Wrong. You're thinking of "technology schools". "Tech schools" is a term that has been around for decades, way before the for-profits started. The "tech schools" are schools like Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Michigan Tech, Texas Tech, Louisiana Tech, FIT, MIT, IIT, CalTech, Stanford, Purdue, etc., not DeVry, ITT, and the other for-profits, some of which are now accredited by a group formed by the non-accredited schools... There's a big difference between the "tech schools" and the "technology schools."

Re:Heavy courseload for four years

[richdun]

I said tech school, not technology school. There's a huge difference. See my reply to another above. My tech school is ABET accredited, and has been for decades. In fact, one of the schools that merged way back in the day to form my school helped start accredidation in the early 1900s.

And I'd count working for NASA for a summer as definitely getting pretty far, added in with the hours and hours of research I was able to do as an undergraduate (yes, real research, on things that aren't public yet). You can't get that at a non-accredited school, or at a big state school - at least not in the quantity and quality I did.

Everybody count off!

[kybred]

I'm 1.

Re:Everybody count off!

[Anonymous Coward]

2 here, but I'm unemployed. So I think we have a big problem if number 2 is unemployed.

Re:Everybody count off!

[Anonymous Coward]

you're 2 ???

no no, you're supposed to count in binary, you're 10

ok, now, let's start over.

Re:Everybody count off!

[ozydingo]

8'b1;

If your post overflows you have to change the bit-width of all previous posts.

(Sometimes that seems to be the attitude at my job...let's hear it for code maintainability!)

Re:Everybody count off!

[Anonymous Coward]

me too! ;)

Re:Everybody count off!

[c4ffeine]

Binary? I thought we were supposed to count MOD 2. If they think there's a shortage, we get paid more, right?

don't they count

[irglasses]

those who end up being engineers because they were at the right time and place? sig get your mega Infrared glasses http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZcheap_stuphQQhtZ- 1

designing rocket engines isn't brain surgery

[raygundan]

No, for that you need to be the fabled Rocket Scientist, and I doubt they'd be much good troubleshooting Red Hat.

Besides, designing rocket engines isn't brain surgery. ;)

Re:designing rocket engines isn't brain surgery

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, when a brain surgeon screws up only one person dies at a time.

The purpose of H-1B's is?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the American economy is producing a sufficient number of domestic engineers (as the legions of unemployed American engineers long suspected), then what is the purpose of H-1Bs? Apparently, the answer is wage suppression. Go unions!

Re:The purpose of H-1B's is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of this sort of tripe on slashdot in the past couple years.

What do you unemployed folk have against foreigners? Of course, I can only assume that you're unemployed-- pardon me if I am incorrect. It's just that you seem to have an impossibly incorrect grasp upon industry realities. For the not-so-short length of my career, I've only seen H1Bs used for one purpose: hiring excellent people, regardless of origin.

Being called an Engineer is not cool enough

[AB3A]

If you want a big salary, in today's market driven world, you need to think big. You're not an engineer, you're a technical plan implementor --or some other such balderdash. That's the problem with job titles where I work. If you want better pay, you have to stop calling yourself an Engineer, even if that's what you do. So they have engineering managers, control system specialists, Antenna site managers, and so forth. These are all jobs which require an engineering background.

So, when someone goes to our company to count the number of Engineering positions, we don't have many. But we do have lots of people with engineering educations and engineering backgrounds. Now the managers want to know how many engineers they have. They have already recast most of us in to different titles. So the count the few who still work under the old titles, and GASP! they don't know where all the engineers have gone.

This is why they write idiots guides to management, but not idiots guides to electrical engineering.

Why not embrace it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how telling someone that he or she's got three times the expected competition is supposed to be an incentive or an inspiration.

Or maybe you can see it like this .. more engineers and smart people .. the more diverse things that can or will be invented and need to be built .. thus creating more demand, jobs, and quality of life.

No need of fearing more people.

True for every profession: Mgmt is crit resource

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been in a lot of jobs also, as have many of my friends. My brother is the only person I know who has gone from high-steel work to computer work (sysadmin and programming), and repeated the cycle a couple of times. (Great guy, looking for a job just now, BTW.)

The number of companies individuals we would love to work for in our combined experience is perhaps 3 per working lifetime, another 3 who were OK. Thus, 8 of 10 managers are folks we would rather not work for.

Management is the critical resource. Not investment dollars, not ideas, not engineering talent.

Lew

built out?

[conJunk]

If we are talking about civil or mechanical or chemical engineers why do we need more?

built out? I know it's pulling at obvious strings, but does New Orleans mean anything to you? Built-out == old and crumbling in a great many cases. how about today's apartment building collapse in new jersey? civil engineers are needed in droves to keep people alive (that's totally conjecture, but you know what i mean)

my housemate, for example, is a CE who's field is earthquake engineering... here in CA that's a pretty important field! and as for chemical engineers? i don't know about you, but i'm not going to buy a car until it runs on something other than petrolium products. our future as a society is entirely in the hands of next year's civil, mechanical, and engineering graduates

Why do you even need a advisor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I studied EE at a big public university. Never even saw an advisor, let alone spoke to one. I had no trouble graduating in 4 years, even while working part-time the whole time.

The only people who have a good excuse for taking an extra year are those who double major, or change majors halfway through.

Private schools may offer a better education, but there's a lot more hand-holding, and I think that's more detrimental. I've worked with engineers from very good private schools who couldn't do anything on their own unless specifically instructed.

How China now dominates in system engineering

[sidles]

There's not much doubt that the US is being seriously out-performed by China in system engineering (http://courses.washington.edu/goodall/MRFM/whats_ new.html#n0036). As the web page shows, most of the peer-reviewed articles in system engineering are now written in Mandarin, not English.

This is a new phenomenon: it began about five years ago. And the number of such articles is increasing by about 30 percent per year.

Graphic here: http://courses.washington.edu/goodall/MRFM/pg_0035 .png

Road Blocks

[sgt scrub]

I wish it was as simple as being undercounted or underpaid or even unwanted. I think the biggest reason is engineers are inventors. In china and India the only thing holding you back is enough money to put it on the market. If someone in the US invents something they have to worry about getting sued for patent infringement.

Is it just me who gets bothered by this comment

[snitmo]

"You cannot outsource leadership," Ms. Johnson said. The Pratt engineering school has research programs, leadership dinners, and an ethics program so its students have an edge over others graduating from Indian and Chinese universities, she said.

This seems to me an ignorant attack against Indian and Chinese universities. How can she be so sure that the foreign universities do not have research programs, leadership dinners (what?), and ethics programs? To claim the foreign universities have lower educational standard without backing it up with data is arrogant. Judging from their products (graduates), they are doing a fine job.

Re:Is it just me who gets bothered by this comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an Indian student almost done with my Computer Engineering degree at Purdue. I don't know about China, but IMHO, I think that the engineering education in India (even at the best Indian universities) is just text book learning. Students don't work in teams, I don't think the colleges back in India even assign projects.

Ethics - as far as academic honesty is concerned - are forced onto them by competition. Its so competitive that there is no one to help a potential cheater - which is a good thing. However, there is not much taught about ethics involving social responsibility as an engineer.

The great thing about the American university system is that research and education are strongly intertwined. Professors get grants for research, provided they also teach. Two birds are killed with one stone over here. Back in India, you have research instituitions and you have academic instituitions. I don't think much research gets done in academic instituitions. Most undergraduates do research in India only to prove that they are good graduate school candidates while applying to American universities.

Now, I am not saying that the Indian education system is messed up - its great. But theres so much pressure on students that I don't think very many of them get to enjoy engineering as an undergrad.

Re:Is it just me who gets bothered by this comment

[pkphilip]

I completely agree with your assessment of the situation in India. I have also graduated from India and yes, engineering graduates from India have very few 'real' skills or knowledge and for the most part only have theoretical knowledge obtained from the prescribed engineering texts.

The Indian education system - including the engineer training system, does not stress applied knowledge and very few engineering graduates really know how to work with tools, draw up designs, develop and fabricate components etc. This situation can be mitigated by tying in funding to research conducted by professors. But I don't see this happening very soon, even in the IITs.

Private schools bilk taxpayers too

[technoextreme]

How about bilking the tax payers over 6K per head for public schools at a rate that is twice as high as the average private school with half the results?

Not sure about where you are from but my parents pay taxes for kids that attend private schools and the dam school doesn't even do as well as the public one.

Why these articles don't mean anything to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a CS major. I see lots of articles about engineers or programmers and the lack of jobs, decreasing salaries, flooded markets, outsourcing, and foreign labor. None of this has ever bothered me though. I'm not a CS major because of the job or the money. I have a love for computers and programming. I do this because it's what my brain's designed to do.

Because I know I'm good at programming, I'm confident I'll find a job. It doesn't matter if I'm getting $80K or $30K. The only thing that matters is that I'm spending my life doing something I enjoy doing.

Re:Why these articles don't mean anything to me.

[Maxo-Texas]

That feeling lasts until about your late 20's.

Then you get tired of being poor and having trouble keeping a relationship because you are poor.

With a few exceptions, you are going to need more like 80k if you buy into consumer society at all. If you really are happy with a 27 inch TV, living in a cheap apartment with tatty furniture, riding public transportation, never going on those skiing or rafting trips with friends, or going out to big events, never having really sharp clothing, and being low status then you are a saint and can probably retire well on a 30k income. If you are at all normal tho, you'll have a car ($20k+), a house ($120k+), eat out ($3k per year), etc.

While you might find "miracle spouse", money is way ahead of sex for breaking up relationships. So if you work on that low salary, you'll have more arguements, struggle a lot more if you have kids, etc.

You can be as good as you want programming, but MANY good programmers are forced out of the field once they hit their 50's. Age discrimination is rampant in the field- I -STILL- see ads for "YOUNG, dynamic individual" which by rights should get the company sued left, right, and sideways. Most are smart enough to say "dynamic individual willing to work long hours" as a way to get around the age issue while letting you know they really care about the age issue. As a good example, INFOSYS, is very pointed about wanting to know your EXACT HIGH SCHOOL graduation date. That's the new way businesses are getting around the age issue since everyone learned to dye their hair before interviewing.

Anyway, my point is that it is very romantic to be poor when young but it gets old.

Re:Why these articles don't mean anything to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you get tired of being poor and having trouble keeping a relationship because you are poor.

If you find yourself in that situation, maybe you should stop dating prostitutes?

Re:Why these articles don't mean anything to me.

[Master of Transhuman]

You know any female who ISN'T a "prostitute" in that respect (other than Angelina Jolie, who fucks because she likes it and has more than enough of her own money)?

Re:Why these articles don't mean anything to me.

[Maxo-Texas]

Jeez man, you don't know anything- a good hooker (hell even a bad hooker) is a lot more expensive than a girlfriend- tho a ton cheaper than an "ex-wife."

You have to be rich to get the best quality prostitutes. Those are the ones who don't even realize it themselves- you know the 22 year olds that really "fall in love" with a bald, fat, ugly 68 year old guy (who always just happen to be incredibly rich.) I hear that it's a growing market for young guys and older, yet rich, ladies as well.

Re:I can explain this

[eutychus_awakes]

90% of my job is half political.

Metric?

[infinite9]

How's that making USA produced more engineering graduates?

They're producing metric graduates.

Re:Metric?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the U.S. is producing imperial graduates.

Re:Metric?

[Hognoxious]

Not since 1776.

I want to drive a choo-choo train when i grow up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be an Engineer and drive a big choo-choo train!
Toot-too!!

Wrong Doctor, Dimwit

[woolio]

You went to a "chairopractor"? Did he use a chair on you?

It spelled "chiropractor", moron.

Re:Wrong Doctor, Dimwit

[ozydingo]

Hey look I'm gonna find some completely pointless and irrelevant spelling error made by any posts and point out their stupidity. Cause it makes me feel superior, cause that means I know more than these people.

Get a fucking life. I've seen it spelled both ways, and quite frankly I didn't care enough to check because WHO GIVES A SHIT. It's not exactly a word I'll be using that much in the future. And when i do spell it wrong, clearly the meaning is still understood. Good enough for me.

Not surprising

[tsotha]

These numbers depend on who you ask, and there's a reason. The big tech companies can only get the H1-B visa cap raised if they can convince Congress and the media there's going to be a shortage of engineers in a year or two. There's never been a shortage (outside of the boom, which was driven by extraordinary demand) even though "they" forcast one every couple of years.

It turns out all you need to do to fool the media (and Congress, which gets its information from the media) is turn out a scientific-looking study showing a large gap between the number of graduates and the projected need. The vast majority of reporters and editors have no math skills whatsoever (remember, these guys are the journalism majors for college), so they don't have any way to evaluate the garbage churned out in advocacy research.

So they raise the H1 cap. That way the high-tech companies in the US have a way to exert downward pressure on engineering wages. And all for the price of a couple of bogus "studies".

So am I surprised US schools are turning out lots more engineers than we've been led to believe? Nah, not really.

Re:Not surprising

[RexRhino]

Except that H1-B visa employees are not really any cheaper than hiring a domestic employee.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired of the H1-B bashing that such articles invariably produce on slashdot. Do you really think American employers would hire foreign workers if they can find equally qualified American workers willing to work for the same wages? (I am sure there are a few companies flying below the immigration authority's radar, but by and large, most employers follow the stringent rules required to apply for a H1-B visa simply because doing otherwise is illegal and the risk is not worth saving a few thousand dollars.) The fact is that every American engineer/programmer/sys admin/web designer wants a salary at the $70k range. Well, the "prevailing wage" is never going to be at that level because we are competing in a global marketplace with plenty of qualified people willing to work for far less in Asia and Eastern Europe (by taking advantage of their lower cost of living). You can increase wages in the US by installing foreign worker quotas - until *all* engineering jobs get outsourced as it will be impossible to produce price-competitive products in the US.

Get used to globalization. America wrote the rules for this game, so play fair.

I did'nt have any problem understanding him.

[HornWumpus]

But then again I'm not a crazed grammarian. My brain does'nt seaze up (SPELLING ERROR! SPELLING ERROR!) when I run into a little free form language.

I are an engineer. We hire low paid liberal arts majors to fix our grammer, they're called tech writers. Now if we could only find some smart enough to understand what is being written about well enough not to mangle the meaning while fixing the grammer and run on sentences.

For interoffice communication spelling and grammer make little or no difference. The communication skill that I most need at work is a working knowledge of Cantonise.

Re:I did'nt have any problem understanding him.

[toleraen]

Crazy. As an engineer as well, where I work we have a process called "Peer Reviews" that take place with other engineers. I don't know anyone in the area I work that has any sort of degree in tech writing, but I know during reviews that any errors are caught. It's also expected that we create quality documents that are checked over for common mistakes prior to the review. We don't have special tech writers; we just create well written documents from the start. Sounds like an inefficient process to me, maybe you should schedule a meeting with the Bobs.

Except...

[infinite9]

So except for the Roads, the Police Protection, the Fire Departments, Primary and Secondary Education, the good working conditions, the Military, Social Security, Homeless Shelters, a longer life span, and Garbage Collection... What have the Romans ever done for us?!

What is the definition of an Engineer?

[Secrity]

When I was working in Saudi Arabia in the 1980's, I came across two types of workers that were called Engineers but they would not be considered to be engineers in the US. One group was called "Electrical Engineers" (nationality unknown, they were Muslims and looked Asian) which were doing (sloppy) electrician type work. The other group that I came across were called "Mechanical Engineers" which were Pakistani and I believe that in the US they would be considered to be very good diesel mechanics.

Re:What is the definition of an Engineer?

[AK Marc]

I know some British people that are "electrical engineers" who would be simply "electricians" in the US. The engineering professional organizations in the US have tried to redefine "engineer" here to a specific meaning that isn't the same as used world-wide.

Re:What is the definition of an Engineer?

[Starcub]

In the US, electricians and mechanics are considered technicians. Engineers in the US are trained to solve problems, usually technical problems. Engineers have to have at least some familiarity with the technical side of thier field, but they also deal in areas of 'higher learning' where they apply problem solving concepts to the design and modification of systems. Technicians on the other hand are more highly specialized in thier field and are better capable of dealing with the more practical nuts and bolts fix-it jobs in thier field.

Engineers are generally more adaptable to work outside of thier field then are technicians. However, engineers are also a higher pay grade of personnel. In todays market, that means that the jobs people with engineering degrees are often forced to fill pay below the level of thier expectations and capabilities.

how many us grads are foreign nationals?

[swschrad]

somebody is dragging a red herring across the trail here. both times I was in college, there were a tubload of foreign nationals studying for bachelors and advanced degrees in the US.

don't go counting total grads and equating that to all-US grads. red herring, indeed, masking the scent.

Re:how many us grads are foreign nationals?

[the_ed_dawg]

both times I was in college, there were a tubload of foreign nationals studying for bachelors and advanced degrees in the US.

In fact, there are so many here in Purdue's ECE graduate program that I qualify for a minority fellowship, despite being an American white male. :)

Yes, but what do they produce?

[castoridae]

I'd say the number of engineers in any country isn't really an important metric. The important metric is what do the engineers in that country produce? How many innovations? What is the impact of those innovations? I'd love to see statistics on this, but it's so hard to measure - I think revenue is probably one good measure, but still obviously flawed as that also takes into account things like effectiveness of sales & marketing.

Also along these lines, how much more valuable are those engineers who first create a new innovation versus those who simply replicate those innovations elsewhere?

Amusing statistics

[brokeninside]

First, the Duke study criticizes other studies for counting engineers in other countries with less than a four year degree:

These massive numbers of Indian and Chinese engineering graduates include not only four-year degrees, but also three-year training programs and diploma holders.

But then, they count US graduates with less than a four year degree:

Total Bachelors and Subbaccalaureate*** Engineering, Computer Science and Information Technology Degrees
US ---- India--- China
222,335 215,000 644,106

** Subbaccalaureate degrees refer to Associates degrees in the United States, short-cycle degrees in China, and three-year diplomas in India

First, over 80k of the new US number comes from precisely these subbaccalaureate degrees.

Second, the IT degrees from many universities are offered by the business college rather than the engineering college.

I suspect that if you only counted four year comp-sci and engineering degrees that the numbers would be far closer to the 70k number provided by the National Acadamies. IMO, the study ought to have done a better breakdown. I'm also curious as to why postgraduate work wasn't included.

What a Crock

[argoff]

No we couldn't. Without the taxes there would be;

*No roads
*No police protection
*No fire departments
*No primary or secondary education .....

No, you are wrong. You should have said Without the taxpayers there would be; It is they who we owe for all the good things in society, it is they who are owed respect of the income THEY EARNED, and who need to be empowered not the other way arround. Government owes us bigtime and it is disengenuious to presume that the people owe government anything. There are an infinite number of nice things you can do when someone else if flipping the bill, but success in the world doesn't cone from freebies, it comes from freedoms. Everybody can promise freebies at someone elses expense, but freedoms is now the government earns their keep. Waste in government spending is an irrelavent issue when the governmnt is limited in what economic freedoms they can take from people to begin with. How big does government half to become before people like you get it?

Engineering Software

[theblacksun]

If all companies wanted their software engineered, it would cost 10 times as much, and take 10 times as long to get done.

...and work at least 5 times as well. And integrate better into the next project. And require less maintainance. And so on.

I'll bet in 5-10 years software engineers are going to be the pimps of the playground. It's more abstract that most engineering fields, and the need for quality software is only going to continue to rise.

Re:Engineering Software

[CastrTroy]

But most companies don't have that long term vision. I know that in the long run, software would be much better off if we had software engineers doing it, that took the time to do it properly. The hard part is convincing the companies that it is really in their best interest. Companies work on a project by project basis, and as long as the project is good enough, that's all they want. They don't think about how well the project will work with other projects, or whether an extemely similar project has been done before. In software this is important, and can save them tons of time and money, but they haven't figured this out yet.

Re:Engineering Software

[theblacksun]

I know that in the long run, software would be much better off if we had software engineers doing it

I made no assertions of ignorance. I'm simply predicting that properly engineered software is going to be a continuously growing field as more corporations integrate more complicated software in more systems. I don't just mean workstation/gaming/server software, I'm thinking also of embedded applications such as blenders and all the mundane. Eventually software engineering is going to be so pervasive in the engineering fields that the quality demanded will be much higher.

Economic Freedom

[argoff]

What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?

C'mon, total taxes can exceed over 50%, the govt prints up and loans money like it's doomsday ... and you can't guess what an economic freedom is?. With all due respect, it is you that needs to start reading up because by your own admission you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Quit attributing improvements to government that were bound to happen anyhow and did often happen inspite of them.

Also, I don't recall saying that women shouldn't work, or people shouldn't be educated. - C'mon, you know better than that too.

Look, the simple fact is that they are pushing these things to make up for lost freedoms. I'm calling bullshit, respect our freedoms first and let the rest follow on it's own.

Re:Economic Freedom

[Red Flayer]

"C'mon, total taxes can exceed over 50%, the govt prints up and loans money like it's doomsday ... and you can't guess what an economic freedom is?"

Nice straw man. I'm asking you to define 'economic freedoms' because your OP makes no sense; maybe your definition could help shed some light on it. Are you saying that an economic freedom is just not having to pay taxes?

You make these stupid sweeping statements that have no basis in fact, and expect everyone to guess what you're saying? I see, if you can't define the terms, there's no way of disputing your garbage statements.

Government is part of the market. Don't forget that. Economically, it just represents the collective wants and produce of part of the population. The need for superhighways (which, by the way, were heavily lobbied for by the auto industry) was met by government, simply because that's how a significant part of the market established how to do things like massive infrastructure building.

"Also, I don't recall saying that women shouldn't work, or people shouldn't be educated. - C'mon, you know better than that too."

No, you said that dual incomes and education requirements for high incomes were caused by "[government] taking away economic freedoms," which is total BS. You ignore the real causes, which have nothing to do with taxes. I was pointing out the real causes, which were social modernization and the market. Don't throw up the straw man again, my points were to dispute what you say caused specific results in today's job/wage environment.

"Look, the simple fact is that they are pushing these things to make up for lost freedoms. I'm calling bullshit, respect our freedoms first and let the rest follow on it's own."

What are 'they' pushing? Give me specifics, not only of what they are pushing, but how they are pushing it, and what that has to do with 'freedoms' that are casuing it.

What lost freedoms? Give me specifics, or are you just railing against taxes?

You seem to connect a lot of things that aren't connected, to attribute causation where there is none, to make general sweeping statements that are devoid of meaning.

Re:Economic Freedom

[FleaPlus]

Government is part of the market. Don't forget that.

You keep on saying this, but I don't think it's quite right. A market consists of voluntary trades between persons. The actions of a government are performed with the coercion of its monopoly on defense, and are pretty much by definition non-voluntary. Granted, the actions of government can be influenced by popular votes and elected officials, but in the end government actions are not mutually voluntary.

Re:Economic Freedom

[geekoid]

"..and are pretty much by definition non-voluntary. "

the government is forcing people to submit bids? wow.

Re:Economic Freedom

[Red Flayer]

"You keep on saying this, but I don't think it's quite right. A market consists of voluntary trades between persons."

Well it is voluntary -- you choose to be governed by living where you do. But maybe I can explain better.

Government is a collective agreement to be bound by rules established by said government. Sure, not everyone agrees, but you accept your government by not moving out of its provenance or by revolting.

So how does government function economically? Basically, as a huge collective bargaining agreement. Of course, it's very possible that the US government has grown so large that agreement is no longer there... but consensus allows it to continue to grow and act in its own interest (or rather, the interests of those employed by the government).

Here's an analogy: Say you have four buyers of a good, and four potential suppliers. Say the good isn't profitable to a supplier unless all four buyers buy from that supplier. So, if the buyers don't agree on a supplier, nobody can buy the good, as all the suppliers go out of business. What happens, assuming that the buyers are aware of the situation? They make an agreement to pick a single supplier, this agreement governs their future actions in the market. Who knows, they may also come to a collective agreement with the supplier to provide the good at a set price. In this manner, even the supplier is governed by the agreement.

In an economic sense, this is how governments operate. In the US, we elect people to make those agreements for us. These agreements include restrictions and subsidies for both suppliers and consumers.

So really, all government is, economically, is an agreement between parts of the market. Sometimes this becomes a tool that greatly benefits a particular party, but that's a problem that involves transparency (since market theory requires perfect knowledge) and individual involvement.

Counterpoint

[TheStonepedo]

Hamburger University. Lots of McDonalds employees go to this business-oriented school. Then again, lots are still in high school and are unlikely to get degrees in high-schoolin' so you do have a good point.

self-comforting is poisonous

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Never a more true word spoken.

Most engineering is not a per-capita exercise. It is for some civil engineering and structural design stuff where you need engineers on a per unit basis (ie. design of each road, bridge etc), but in typical Geeksville (electronics, software etc) the design effort is about the same for software selling to 1000 customers or 1000000.

Are US engineers underwaged? Perhaps, perhaps not. It all depends on your way of looking at things. Nothing lasts forever. Consider the age of the minicomputer/workstations. Not that long ago you could get a graphics workstation from Intergraph, DEC etc for the cost of a few cars. Slowly PCs became more powerful and undercut these monsters. The workstation companies could not sell any more workstations and had to redefine themselves to stay in business. Intergraph managed to do so, and DEC didn't. If Intergraph had just complaned that that PCs are too cheap then where would they be now?

The same will probably happen to many parts of engineering as things get globalised. Engineers will have to reinvent themselves to stay in the game. Those that can't won't make it.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[vsprintf]

Engineers will have to reinvent themselves to stay in the game. Those that can't won't make it.

Well hey, you leave us all waiting for the answer. Engineers should "reinvent themselves" into what? A lot of American IT workers have been asking the same question. C'mon Kreskin, if you have the answer, give it up.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[TapeCutter]

Arrrgggg, please no, not that, not the "where's my cheese" video again!!!

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Those that have to ask are obviously doomed. Not everyone can change into the same new role. Here are a few ideas:
Upskill and find a niche. Embedded, artifical intelligence or whatever. But, be real, all these niches will also dry up with time.
Become a plumber or electrician. Nobody has figured out how to offshore a plumbing problem yet :-).
Whatever.

The need to move with the times is nothing new and is not geek-specific. I think it is mainly because geeks got it so good that they don't like reality checks.
A hundred years ago there was an occupation called "lamp lighter". This was the dude that walked around lighting street lamps. Then came electric lamps and the many lamp lighters got replaced by one switch flicker.
There was an occupation called "computer". These people spent all their time cranking out calculations by hand. They got replaced by electronic calculators and computers of the electronic variety.
There was an occupation called "telephpne operator". Got replaced by dial phones.

Same goes for checkout operators, typists, whatever. Why should geeks think they are different?

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[metlin]

I would say innovation, for one.

What made this country great is the enterprising and innovative nature of folks. People went ahead and did things that no one else did, people took risks and came up with cool ideas. People started new enterprises and made an effort to go into areas that no one else had.

But these days, more people complain than do something about it. There are plenty of areas in technology that could use a lot of innovation. IT is used up? No problem, look at domains like bioinformatics that use technology.

If you are being replaced, then become irreplaceable.

Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. What will, however, change is if you got yourself a skill that is not easily replaceable.

But I never notice a Slashdotter saying that s/he will go out and do something new, that they would go out and learn something different. "I did IT, and I want to continue to do the exact same thing I did - and if I can't, I will complain about it."

That simply does not work in the real world. You will always be replaced. Either by machines, or by cheaper labor, or you will just become obselete. The way around it is not to complain but to do new things that no one has thought of before.

Innovate and you will come out on top. Be enterprising and start your own startup - there is no dearth of cool ideas and the market is doing peachy right now.

You want the answer? I'll give you the answer - as an engineer from one of this nation's better technology schools, let me tell you this: if you are good quality material, there is no dearth of opportunity. And if you are willing to work up ideas in an area which has hitherto been unexplored, you'd be making a whole lot more than you could ever imagine.

But hey. Most folks on Slashdot are no different than most folks elsewhere. They would rather whine than do something about it.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[vsprintf]

Not everyone can change into the same new role.

I think there is an oxymoron imbedded in that.

Become a plumber or electrician. Nobody has figured out how to offshore a plumbing problem yet :-).

Sure. That is taking up a new occupation - it is not an engineer "reinventing" themself in the context of their profession and education which may have cost many thousands of dollars. That is also giving up what they want to do for a living.

There was an occupation called "telephpne operator". Got replaced by dial phones.

Domestic engineers are not being replaced by machines, they are being replaced by foreign engineers who make a little bit less. What happens when there is nobody left in the country who can make the phones work? Should we really be dependent on others for basic infrastructure? Alexander Hamilton said no, and that was very a long time ago - it still holds true.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[vsprintf]

You want the answer? I'll give you the answer - as an engineer from one of this nation's better technology schools, let me tell you this: if you are good quality material, there is no dearth of opportunity. And if you are willing to work up ideas in an area which has hitherto been unexplored, you'd be making a whole lot more than you could ever imagine.

As an engineer with degrees in two different fields, let me tell you this: you completely missed the point. Engineering is not generally about "hitherto unexplored" areas; it is about applied science. It is not about making more than you could ever imagine; it is about doing your job in a professional manner, with all that implies, including adherence to standards of performance, conduct, and ethics. And all that has little to do with the real reasons for local engineering unemployment.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[metlin]

As an EE engineer with graduate degrees in Physics and CS, let me tell you this - you can apply science anywhere.

You can apply science and engineering principles in any domain. Just how hard is it to diversify into another related area? What's keeping people away is not the difficulty but the ineptitude to be creative and explore other domains.

Work for the humanities, write a graphics program for archaeologists (someone I know does this for a living after he lost a graphics programming job at a game company). Hell, go back to school and get yourself a graduate degree. Do research. Start your own company.

If all you want is to do your engineering job, then you deserve what you get. Sometimes, you need to be able to do things you weren't taught to do. Improvise and move ahead, or die out - I do not mean to sound callous, but it is the truth. It always has been, and just because folks here aren't ready to admit it does not make it not so.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, it looks a lot more like you're a professional student playing at small business owner, rather than an electrical engineer. Being a math post-doc I cannot in good conscience tell engineers that they should just obtain further formal education (which may have limited actual market value) rather than be meaningful participants in the actual workforce. If you attempt to compete with a dramatically larger population with much lower expenses associated with education and employment, you will lose in the long term. If I were going to posit as to what a sensible career move would be for displaced engineers, it would be investor; specifically in the emerging markets that are displacing their work, while their domestic currencies maintain comparative superiority.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[vsprintf]

If all you want is to do your engineering job, then you deserve what you get.

If only that were true, so many American engineers would be satisfied - if they got what they deserved.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[Anonymous Coward]

Engineers will have to reinvent themselves to stay in the game. Those that can't won't make it.

Well hey, you leave us all waiting for the answer. Engineers should "reinvent themselves" into what?

Let's see here...from my fellow graduates from the end of the 80's, accountant, management consultant, broker, doctor. To be fair, you can add two P.ENGs, and two university profs.

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[superflippy]

What's keeping people away is not the difficulty but the ineptitude to be creative and explore other domains.

Definitely. On a large project I'm working on, we need physical oceanographers. The stuff they're doing is all fluid dynamics modeling - physics and engineering and computers. But I don't think it occurs to many physicists/engineers/CS people to look into oceanographic research. (Interestingly enough, the guys doing the modeling on our project are all from China.)

Re: self-comforting is poisonous

[vsprintf]

Thanks for the anecdotal data. I think that supports my contention that "reinvent" is really just a euphemism for the less digestable "get a new profession".

Researcher Outsourced ! ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!..The important researcher involved in this study himself in NOT an American!
Vivek Wadhwa is an Indian !

degree != profession

[Khashishi]

An engineering degree does not an engineer you make.

Say it again, brother...

[awfar]

Absolutely the way I feel after 23 years! Every dolt, sleazebag, sociopath, and generally mean person ended up in the field. And that doesn't even describe the recruiters, head hunters, and HR people.

I also have avoided (re)entering the field as to not be taken for granted as well (just having gotten a M.Sc.), avoiding taking just any old position, because of the lame people I have met in the past.

As I am just finishing up a new home (someone else did the rough-in), I can echo your sentiments about being able to do a job, with your hands, and avoiding it all.

WHAT grammatical errors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two posters have referred to "grammatical errors [plural]". I don't see a single grammatical error in ths post. (Some of the punctuation is questionable.)

Grammatical writing is nice, but the important thing is clarity. It's a good idea not to make grammatical errors because people make all sorts of bizarre assumptions when they see grammatical errors, but half the time the grammatical errors are imagined. Even if your writing is grammatically perfect, some of your readers are bound to condemn you for a split infinitive (with which there is absolutely nothing wrong, grammatically).

As for spelling, my wife, who is a freelance editor (and an excellent speller) has convinced me that spelling is largely a matter of how your brain is wired. Some people are naturally good spellers and some aren't, but either way it tells you nothing about whether their ideas are any good.

Re:WHAT grammatical errors?

[PitaBred]

It does tell you about how their brain is structured though. I wouldn't want a bad speller as an engineer. It's a symptom of unclear, unfocused thinking, or even worse, completely focused thinking without concern for any outside influences. Communication is the only thing that is cross-profession important. If you can't do that effectively, then you lose much of your value right there.

undercounted and underemployed

[Wansu]

Industry trade groups periodically whine about shortages of engineers, scientists and programmers. I graduated from engineering school 25 years ago and every few years they trot out the same old dog-earred dire projections. And yet, those of us who work as engineers, programmers and scientists never see these shortages materialize. Their magazine articles are plants used by their lobbyists to justify the need for increases in work visa quotas to the politicians they court.

The majority of those who graduate from engineering schools do very little or no actual engineering work. That's because there ain't enough engineering work to go around. It's been like that since I got out of school and older engineers told me that was their experience as well. Engineering schools seem to still be fighting the cold war. The old timers told me engineering schools went into high gear after the Russians launched Sputnik and only now are enrollments beginning to decline. Only after a 5+ year tight engineering job market are some of the prospective engineering students reevaluating their choice.

It's been a real challenge to stay employed in technically stimulating work. Somehow I've done it but my circumstances have been better than those of many engineers burdened with more intense family obligations. I've worked hard and I've been lucky. I'll stick with it because I'm pushing 50 and it's the best option I have. But through no fault of my own, I may be forced out of technical work before I reach 65. If and when that happens, I will no longer be counted as an unemployed engineer in the statistics should I accept a job doing something else. Instead, I will be counted as an employed hardware store stock clerk or whatever. One more engineer will have disappeared into the employment statistics to be counted no more and the industry trade groups will continue to whine about shortages.
 

Re:I can explain this

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

In America an engineer has to be 80% politician!

I'm I the only engineer here who finds working for their company is 80% political and 20% engineering? I've learned so much about lying and trickery I'm considering running for office.

Why do you think that's exclusive to engineering? Every job is like that. Politics (as in lying and trickery, not as in political philosophy) is the natural result of human relationships. You need to know how to wield it to do anything.

It isn't that onesided

[MickLinux]

Lessee... you say that without taxes, there would be no roads, no police protection, no fire departments, no primary or secondary education....

As a result of which, 90% of our middle class would be being paid substinance level wages, working 12-16 hour days to be able to eat...

... could I interrupt a second here? The British, at least, were empowered to do exactly that with the Irish, after taxing all their land away. Taxes have nothing to do with man's inhumanity to man. That happens both with and without taxes, though more often with taxes.

My real problem with taxes is corruption. That is, the real purpose of taxes as we actually see it, is to create raidable nest eggs that corrupt government officials can divert to their own assets. The more taxes, the more corrupt officials are supported. The less taxes, the less they are supported.

I have yet to see a single tax-based fund that isn't usually mismanaged and often outright stolen from. That includes Social Security, road building, school construction, Government pension funds, school operating funds, NASA... the list goes on.

Okay, thank you. Please go on...

simple math

[circletimessquare]

the chinese can graduate an order of magnitude less engineers per citizen than the usa and still bury the usa in engineers

mental exercise: if we both have one engineer per one thousand citizens...

(1.3 billion / 1000) > 4 * (300 million / 1000)

Re:simple math

[geekoid]

would you need to take in the availabilty of educational sources as well as the population?

Is this deliberately vague?

[RobinH]

It seems deliberately vague for everyone to talk about engineers these days. There are so many ways you could group people as engineers that the numbers are meaningless without a very specific ruling of who they're counting.

I graduated with a degree in computer engineering from an electrical and computer engineering department at a university. However, I don't have my professional engineer's certificate, so technically I graduated from an engineering program, but I'm not licensed to practice engineering. If a person went to law school but never passed the bar, would they be a lawyer? If someone went to med school but never got licensed to practice, are they a doctor?

Never-the-less, there is also a tendency for people who didn't take engineering programs at university to call themselves engineers. For instance, someone taking CS might call themself a software engineer. Someone taking "civil engineering technology" at a community college might call themself a civil engineer. I also worked at a company back in the late 90's where the sales people were called sales engineers.

Going back to engineering programs at universities, different countries have different bodies that certify or accredit these programs for meeting standards that have been set by national regulatory bodies. These standards differ from country to country.

As a Canadian guy in engineering, it was drilled into me that the title 'engineer' was specifically to refer to someone who was licensed by the appropriate licensing body. I have noticed that this definition is less respected in the US, but Canada does have it's share of sanitation engineers picking up garbage on the curbside (which is an honest living, but the job title is incorrect).

To get to the point... I think all the numbers including these are probably useless, and we should stop comparing numbers of engineering graduates. I would rather compare average scores on international math and science tests.

Yeah, US engineers "have an edge" over Chinese

[Master of Transhuman]

because they get "leadership dinners".

Translation: They make friends with Bush cronies so they can get hired at Halliburton and rake in taxpayer money.

Meanwhile, the Chinese work for one fourth the wages - and they work seven days a week - no time out for football and local bars.

Sorry - the US is out of business and has been so for the last twenty years (disregarding the IT industry - which unfortunately can't make anything work - just spent the entire day trying to get two HP/UX boxes running the same SSH servers and clients to talk to each other - still isn't working...POS HP crap...now I have to become a fucking "Master of SSH" - AGAIN - in order to get something done...)

Send me an email when you geek morons actually manage to make something work in IT.

Oh, wait, my SBC email account tonight says "Maildrop busy"...

Fucking morons. Buy another fucking server, you dolts!

I hope you were going for funny

[Gr8Apes]

He graduated, and he's probably still more qualified than the top of their class banana republic unaccredited "medical" school. Note I said "probably", because there's always the chance that the unaccredited "medical" school might have a self-motivated savant type graduate.

Why Oh WHy?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this news?

Does anyone really care what some statistic is?

I am a Civil Engineering graduate. I design telecommunications networks for a living. Am I being counted? Probably not! And, who the hell cares?

Why don't we just ask the question . . . "Which country creates more ideas per capita?" That would be just about as useless a statistic as the engineering numbers.

Move along . . . nothing to look at here . . .

Elderly People, etc.

[leiahdorus]

*No social security, so we'd have elderly people competing for jobs in order to live
*A large homeless problem, as elderly people will frequently lose the competition

I personally feel that one of the cancers of our society is the growing idea that we as individuals are only responsible for ourselves, and that it is the government's job to take care of any individual that for whatever reason isn't completely self-sufficient. This attitude that we are all completely alone against the world is not a healthy one. In many current and past societies it is assumed that those having difficulties should first and foremost look to their families and other social circles for support. This has traditionally applied especially to the elderly, who normally have descendents in the producer demographic that are in a position to help them out a little. We don't expect the state to take away parents' income in order to provide for their children (at least, not much -- yet), and so I don't see why we're so eager to do the same think for other relationships. I can only imagine it's fed by selfishness. Certainly there will be those that fall through the cracks, who are not helped out by family or friends because they don't have them or because they're jerks, and who evade aid from charitable organizations. I'm certainly in favor of deciding, as a society, that we will help these individuals. I am just very uneasy about this being the expected norm, rather than a last resort.

Re:I attack the LichKing with my Sword

[skeptictank]

You roll a 1. You miss the LichKing and accidentally chop off your priest's head with your critical failure. Roll a d20 saving throw and then roll percentile dice.

Re: Good point (and...

[Red Flayer]

what I was hoping he would say)

"What's less clear is why the grandparent seems to think such economic regulation has made it more difficult for people to make ends meet."

Because apparently, taxes provide zero direct benefit. Im not sure the OP can realize that the indirect benefits of taxes are enormous.

my degree is useless in this country

[jen_savage]

I have a CS degree from WPI and several years of internships where I picked up development experience, but I'm in a job that underutilizes my skillset because it's all I can find. For the amount a database programmer/admin (my desired field) is supposed to be paid in this country, companies only hire people with a great many years of experience. Heck, I'd be happy to accept a job in my chosen field for the amount I'm currently making, but it just won't happen. Even in the case of a plain old programming position, it's hopeless; when my company needs to develop a new addon for our product suite, it gets shipped to India and my CS degree is useless! All those student loans... for nothing. Am I not an engineer because I work tech support instead of development? Do I not count?

I've even been thinking of giving up this field completely and looking someplace else for work, but I would feel as though my life has been taken from me...

Note to Bush Administration Advocates

[blair1q]

A note to advocates for the Bush administration:

There is no such thing as a "Massage-Therapy Engineer."

Our engineering jobs and the impetus to train engineers is moving to the other side of the Pacific.

Fix that, and stop trying to con us.

Nice Excuse

[himanshuarora]

This is a nice Excuse for everything. Duke researcher who did this is an Indian.

Engineering isn't a wise choice

[enmane]

OK, we all realize that engineers tend to be very bright people BUT they just aren't smart enough.

Disclaimer: I'm about 1yr away from a PhD in, God forbid, Mechanical Engineering.

Here are some of my thoughts...

    One of the lies that we are told growing up is education leads to increased incomes and that is true up to a point. The other lie is that the more we learn the more we make - also true up to a point. For PhDs that isn't necessarily true.

1) Engineers are overworked and underpaid compared to their managerial counterparts.

2) The road to wealth doesn't lie with engineering. It lies with insurance industries - in particular, medicine or better yet pseudo-medicine. My Chiropractor makes $500k/yr. That's with a BS in basket weaving and another 2yrs of coursework and another 2 yrs of interning-type work in an educational setting. With 4yrs of education with respect to his field he's making 5x what I could expect to make because he can bill like crazy. I guess now would be a good time to mention that he works 3.5 days a week. My dual-certified MD sister-in-law was ripped when she heard those figures (I also happen to think that MDs aren't as educated in their field as much as a PhD is in their field but that's another aside).

3) we claim that we need/want scientists, mathematicians, and engineers but are unwilling to pay them what they are worth. If you want to make $$ in your company then you need to climb the corporate ladder while taking all of what you learned with you. Engineers should be paid just as much as the managers w/o having to leave the job that they succeed at.

A perfect example of the screwed up situation is US auto companies

a) they are losing in the market because of their shoddily created products. The quality just isn't there and that is just common knowledge.

b) to improve quality you need to improve the engineering (possibly even the engineers) and even assembly (this includes subcontracted parts).

c) ask yourselves who gets cut first when the belt tightens and it is the research, engineers, and assembly guys. You know, the guys that add value to the product. How do the managers add quality or improve the product?

It's no wonder why we can't compete. We don't respect the potential impact that quality engineers could have on a company and force them to jump into management to make more money.

My take on this is to have engineers leave companies and form a consulting group and consult for companies. Something tells me they'd have no problem paying engineers 2x what they'd normally pay them in-house as consultants. Something else businesses do that doesn't make any sense.

In summary, we're undervalued, underpaid, and most people don't have ANY clue just how talented engineers are. Heck, most of my friends are only working at 10% of their potential - and they aren't happy about it. They want to do more TRUE engineering but the damned managers get in the way.

Again, I'm smart (truly I am) but not smart enough to get out of engineering and into a Chiropractic College although I AM thinking about it. Ultimately, we have to be happy at what we do and we have to provide for our family. What if we "could" be happy providing for our family at 5x the rate, working 3.5 days a week, and being an engineer the other 2 days a week. Ultimately, doesn't your happiness lie with what you do when you are NOT working (i.e. family, friends, vacations, wealth, etc). I'm hoping that I smarten up soon.

How does this persist?

[Ivan Matveitch]

When a capitalist discovers a dysfunctional firm, he may buy it, fire its overpaid boss, and bring its outsourced operations back in house. This, according to your logic, would boost the firm's bottom line and thus increase its value; it could then be sold at a profit. If capitalists are greedy, they will find and exploit all such opportunities, thus turning the tide of outsourcing and bringing executive salaries down to earth.

Yet this has not happened---why? Perhaps capitalists are not motivated by greed and frequently forego potential profits; or, more likely, perhaps they think that outsourcing and expensive executives are not so bad after all. In this opinion they may of course be wrong; but then, one can only pity them for their unfortunate ignorance.

Re:How does this persist?

[vsprintf]

If capitalists are greedy, they will find and exploit all such opportunities, thus turning the tide of outsourcing and bringing executive salaries down to earth.

Who said capitalists are greedy? Our current crop of CEOs are greedy. The tide of outsourcing is already turning because the profits claimed by proponents are often not there. Many CEOs jumped on the bandwagon and hurt their companies; that's just poor, and really overpriced, bad management. Despite the fiascos, executive compensation is still rising.

Perhaps capitalists are not motivated by greed and frequently forego potential profits; or, more likely, perhaps they think that outsourcing and expensive executives are not so bad after all.

That would be a generous way of looking at it. I'm a bit more cynical. When you have a controlling class that dictates the rules instead of true capitalism, it doesn't have much to do with capitalists or their views. Obviously, overpriced executives are a drain on any company and anathema to any real capitalist.

graduates in India?

[x86processor]

Having done an undergraduate degree in India, an MS in the US and been working in India, I [shakthimaan.com] can definitely tell you that the quality of so-called "engineering" education is poor in India. I don't even consider students in engineering colleges as "engineering students". The syllabus is outdated and never reviewed, often. Students are not taught to think laterally or do they involve themselves in problem solving. Most of the time they just get a degree for the sake of a job. The HR give the tag of "software engineer" for most of the people who work in the service industry, and they really don't do any "software engineering". Its usually testing/maintenace work that comes to India. Its only cost cutting that companies send their jobs to India, trading quality for cost.

I really enjoyed the study culture in US universities. It was so dynamic and flexible. Its quite unfortunate in the US that they have good facilities and professors, but, no jobs for their quality of work.

Most Indian companies have half-implemented stringent policies in the name of corporate culture and ISO. If you get the time, do read my article on "/Work.in.India" at shakthimaan.com.

This isn't a study. It's a sales pitch for Duke.

[Animats]

This isn't a "study". It's not even a refereed paper. It's a sales support piece for the Master of Engineering Management Program at Duke University.

The division of engineers into "transactional engineers" and "dynamic engineers" is unique to this paper. (Try those phrases in Google.)

More engineers per million?

[aclarke]

...the data implies that per every 1 million citizens, the United States is producing more technology specialists than China and India.

That's great and all, but I've really been looking for data on how many more engineers the United States produces per THOUSAND...

Sorry, the article was obviously not written by an engineer, or hopefully at least not an American one ;-)

Bullshit...

[benjamindees]

my parents pay taxes for kids that attend private schools

You must be incredibly stupid to even believe this, let alone do it. Where do you live?

Re:creative spelling...

[benjamindees]

That's ironic coming from someone with a made-up word in their sig.

I'll bite...

[benjamindees]

*No roads
And what do you call what we have now? I call it "rocks, holes, and unofficial speedbumps". I'm considering throwing in the towel on trying to maintain an SUV, for gods sake, because I can't drive regularly without something getting screwed up on it: shock absorbers, electrical problems, etc.

*No police protection
Good. The last instance of "police protection" I received was being pulled over and ticketed $20 for not wearing a seatbelt. I'd pay not to get that kind of "protection".

*No fire departments
We've had three cases here recently of firemen getting caught starting fires. Two weeks ago there were twelve mysterious grassfires all over the state in one day. And guess who put them out? Volunteer fire departments.

*No primary or secondary education
        *As a result of which, 90% of our middle class would be being paid substinance level wages, working 12-16 hour days to be able to eat. You know, like we did before we enacted regulations to stop that shit.
You can get an education without the help of the government. And if you're too dumb to do so, you're better off working 12 hours a day, because it would be wasted on you. By the way, my mother has a college degree, and works 10 hours a day in a factory, so let's not pretend that education has much to do with working conditions or job availability.

*No military, so we'd likely be part of China by now
If I had back the taxes that I pay and freedoms that I sacrifice to support all the ridiculous US military excursions around the globe, I'd do just fine defending my country the way it was intended to be defended: by citizens, not by mercenaries. As it is, the US government more often attacks US citizens and creates terrorists and dictators than protects us from foreign threats. And the Chinese nuclear arsenal was built by a man educated through the generosity of the US taxpayer. So, no, I don't exactly see how my taxes are being used to protect us from China, or anyone else.

*No social security, so we'd have elderly people competing for jobs in order to live
I don't give a shit. Young people compete for jobs in order to live. There's nothing magical about the elderly that makes them immune to the decisions they have made in their lifetime, good and bad. Life sucks, you have 70 years to learn to deal with it. If you haven't done so by then, tough. Don't expect to impose your stupidity on future generations.

*A large homeless problem, as elderly people will frequently lose the competition
Elderly people can live with their families, like they have done for thousands of years. Those without families should have that much more retirement money to live off of.

*A much lower expected lifespan, due to the above and lack of medicaid
Yeah well everybody dies. Get over yourself. And lifespan is more affected by improvements in healthcare for the young than by using the elderly as an excuse to ruin the economy.

*Garbage all over, since we wouldn't have garbage pickup and people would refuse to pay
I have (private) garbage pickup. And I pay for it. And if I didn't, it would get burnt in an incinerator or buried in the backyard, which is exactly what the garbage people do with it anyways.

Sure, but what rules do you have in mind?

[Ivan Matveitch]

I mean, of course you are right that, in places such as France and Japan, vested interests block corporate takeovers; but in America they have less power, so private-equity groups can often turn around mismanaged companies. This simply tends to suggest that obvious and significant mismanagement, of any kind, would soon be vetoed by the market.

Re:Sure, but what rules do you have in mind?

[vsprintf]

but in America they have less power, so private-equity groups can often turn around mismanaged companies. This simply tends to suggest that obvious and significant mismanagement, of any kind, would soon be vetoed by the market.

I think I see what you're saying, but that would only be true with small-cap companies. There are few groups that would try to buy mismanaged companies like Disney or HP with (shrinking) equity in the billions of dollars (and huge liabilities). And that is where employment and employees are affected the most by bad management.

Yeah.

[Ivan Matveitch]

That's a fair criticism.