Is American Innovation Losing Its Shine?

kenekaplan writes "American ingenuity and innovation, the twin engine of the country's economy since World War II, is in danger of losing steam and job growth potential if federal legislators allow 'automatic' spending cuts to kick in next year rather than earmarking federal funds to advance education, research and manufacturing, according Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Susan Hockfield."

Comments

Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the only way to truly innovate and be competitive.

Re:Do more with less

[bobstreo]

Nope, it's

Do more for less, for more for less.

Re:Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The premise here is that the private sector won't do anything innovative and will just go down in flames. With or without the gov't dole, the private sector will strive to find new ways to make money.

Re:Do more with less

[hedwards]

Yes, at the expense of the workers. The reason why we're losing our competitive edge in innovation is primarily the extraordinary costs that it requires these days to take even a simple idea to market. Patenting is expensive enough that individuals can't afford it and yet cheap enough that Amazon can manage to patent all manner of obvious thing hoping that a few will stick.

If we really want to go back to innovating we need to cut the crap with the bullshit software and biological patents. Not to mention preventing the use of patents as gatekeepers to entire branches of research.

And, we need to ensure that workers have enough money that they don't need to work two jobs so that they have time to innovate on their own time.

Re:Do more with less

[sycodon]

Just glancing at the headline I thought this might be an interesting article and discussion. But just the first sentence shows it for what it is, yet another "Sky is Falling if our funding is cut" article.

Re:Do more with less

[deapbluesea]

So you are for cutting regulation then? I'm currently working on an aviation product. The only way for me to get it to market is to go through FAA certification. That certification process is there to make sure the software and hardware are flight worthy given the potential loss of human lift, but if you look at the requirements, it's much more of a "pay us enough money to certify your stuff and we'll let you into the club" type regulation. The requirements do not, in themselves, make better software, I just saw a speech by the COO of iRobot where he listed all the certifications his company has received over the last 10 years so they can be a federal contractor. He calculated the cost to be over $40M and stated quite plainly "not one penny of that went to a better product, a cheaper product, or a more efficient process - it was merely the cost of access to the federal government". You want to help out workers? Cut regulatory requirements. The "CEOs are making too much money" tripe isn't typical of most small businesses. You are complaining about the actions of the fortune 500 companies who have spent a lot of money to create regulatory hurdles for the little guys. Cut regulatory requirements, and the big fish who are misbehaving will suddenly have competition from those who are willing to accept a leaner CEO compensation.

Re:Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

At the expense of the workers? Seriously? Do you think that innovation comes at no cost? Who is doing it? Perhaps folks who have jobs because of it? Who makes the resulting products? Perhaps folks employed to do so? By virtue of having a job, they've benefited, have they not?

Yes, patents are bad. I think most can agree they don't uphold the spirit of their original intent which was to give some semblance of protection of an idea and the resulting implementation of the inventor. In this fast-paced world, the antiquated model of holding patents as viable for several years is broken. Amazon's One-Click patent should have had effect from the date of file for 2 or 3 years, 5 years on the outside. Gives them a head-start on everyone else, but doesn't kill the market forever. That's assuming it's a valid, new & unique innovation - I think it's crap, but an example nonetheless. And, unlike most on here, I have an abundance of real IP law experience.

The problem with salaries begins far before employment. Consider how the universities have grown. They have to have the latest and greatest everything, pay shitty professors exorbitant salaries, and fleece the government for subsidies (which extends to the taxpayers and your "workers"). People graduate with a 4 year degree with little hope of paying it off. Change that, you change the world.

Re:Do more with less

[hedwards]

No, regulation is definitely required, what I'm for is cutting away at ridiculous fees the patent office charges. The fees are large enough to discourage small time inventors and yet don't inhibit the folks like Amazon, Apple, MS, MPEG LA and various others that are abusing the system.

Personally, I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that hadn't been certified by the FAA.

There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the Fortune 500 companies would be harmed more than helped by cutting regulations. It also isn't particularly germane to the topic of innovation as deregulation has always led to less competition in the US, I'm not aware of any cases where that didn't happen.

Re:Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

Go educate yourself. The fees are not exorbitant. It's the attorneys fees that are needed to properly file an invention that are out of control.

FAA certification is a farce. A government agency says the plane is ok? Ya, that makes me feel better. How about a private enterprise that certifies planes and has some liability in the matter? How about manufacturers facing losing their market and their business if their planes crash? No, let's rely on yet another broken government agency.

And my other post doesn't even get into the costs of regulation as the fellow in aviation mentioned. I don't have a citation, but it's been widely reported that the cost of regulation in the US has exceeded all revenue taken in from income taxes. That's just insane.

The costs of employment and regulation are out of control. They do nothing but take away from the pool of money that employers have resulting in lower wages. As an employer in a small business, I can promise you this is the case for mine and many others. I don't think that is limited to my circle of influence.

There are a lot of things that can be fixed without going after employers. Start with the broken education models, the cost of that education, and government regulation gone crazy.

Re:Do more with less

[WorBlux]

FAA, is still usually better than some guy in his backyard. So far as I know UL doesn't do planes.

Re:Do more with less

[Z00L00K]

And the reality is that innovation is done even with limited funding.
The big problem is that today when you have innovation in the US there's always a risk of encountering one or more patent trolls which costs a lot of energy to fight.
Sometimes one might wonder if the cheapest alternative is to hire Hells Angels or a similar organization to take care of any patent trolls on the way.

Re:Do more with less

[mikael]

The universities justify the hefty fees because of the hefty salaries people like doctors earn. The doctors justify the hefty salaries because of the responsibility for other peoples lives and the many years of expensive education they had to go through.

Re:Do more with less

[hey!]

The private sector will strive to find new ways to make money.

That's not the point. The notion that private industry is going to stop making money is a straw man. Nobody thinks that. Money *will* be made, but money doesn't care *where*. As an investor, the next quarter matters far more to you than the state of a company five years in the future. You're almost certain to have adjusted your stock positions by then. You certainly don't care *where* a company you own stock in will be making its widgets, or whether America makes widgets at all.

But most people aren't planning on changing their national residency every couple of years, if ever. It makes a difference to a citizen whether his country still makes computers or cars, or still has jobs for engineers in ten years' time.

A rational, self-interested investor just isn't concerned with the future of American competitiveness. He doesn't even care if American society goes to hell in ten or twenty years, so long as he's made enough money to insulate himself from that. Most of the country can become an impoverished, polluted dystopia so far as he's concerned, but if he can afford to move to a clean, orderly, wealthy enclave it's not a problem for him.

Money not only doesn't care where it's made, it doesn't care *how* it is made. No business innovates if it can make more money by doing the same old thing. It is competition that forces a business to innovate -- albeit only over the short term -- but no company *likes* having competition. So do you think businesses hire lobbyists to *promote* competition? Of course not. Innovation is risky and expensive. Buying politicians to protect you from competition is cheap and predictable. A society organized solely for the good of business interests is one where those interests don't innovate much because they are protected from competition.

Suppose the country had taken a "private enterprise first and only" course at the end of WW2. There's no question that businesses would have made money, maybe even more money in the short term. They'd certainly keep a lot more of their earnings because tax rates during the economic boom of the 1950s and 60s were high, much higher than today. But without the public investment in research and technology funded by those high taxes we'd still be living in a world of largely 1950 technology. Entire industries would not exist. There would be no computers, no satellite communications or GPS, no Internet, and much less biotechnology. The payback times of these investments are far longer than the planning horizons of any rational private investor. Only someone who is interested in the good of society, and the good of the nation would make those investments.

A society organized solely for the good of private enterprises would be no different from any other society organized for the benefit of a few. It would be aversive to innovation, focusing most of its energy and resources on the maintenance of the status quo. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to be able to envision any kind of world but one organized solely for the benefit of business, or one that is irrationally and implacably hostile to private enterprise. It's like they've thrown out history, even the living memory of the success of moderate, pragmatic economic policy, because the story that tells isn't tidy and simple. People seem to prefer a simpler, more radical world view, and there are plenty on both ends of the political spectrum who are happy to peddle it to them.

Re:Do more with less

[jd]

The more that has already been done, the more expensive the next step is going to be. That's unavoidable*. Cheap innovation exists, but it's in less and less important areas of life and the avenues for it can only decrease with time as the gaps get filled in.

*Net cost includes the cost of educating people better, ensuring better access to materials, etc. The better trained you are, the more you can do with what you have. The better access to materials is really a part of education. Kids should learn how to work with highly dangerous materials safely and should learn how to operate highly dangerous equipment safely. But both the materials and the equipment should then be unrestricted to those with the education. We don't restrict the use of electricity, because we learn how to be safe with it. The same should be true of anything else.

(The "doing more with less" is also a stupid maxim as it ignores the fact that you've an absolute limit on what you can do given a certain level of education, plus diminishing returns as you approach that limit, plus diminishing returns on what education can buy you. The proof of this is that you can't do anything with nothing, no matter how highly educated you were. It is also very selective in what it counts, so you aren't comparing apples with apples when it supposedly works. When you are comparing apples with apples, it almost never works.)

Patent trolls are a big threat, yes, but by no means the only threat. The current patent system is understaffed and undermotivated, which means fraud is likely. Again, that means spending more, not less. Excessive individualism is another threat - the most important achievements in society are collaborative achievements. America is becoming a nation that hates collaboration and that certainly threatens innovation. To be fair, most nations now have that blinkered, greedy, self-centered hatred of working with others. Solving things together is seen as "evil". Most here, I suspect, have been brainwashed into believing that their achievements are the result of the sweat from their own brow. The 80/20 Rule says that's not gonna happen. The only way to circumvent the 80/20 rule is to have the base unit be something other than individuals.

Invention - which is not the same thing as innovation - has all but ground to a halt. This is in part because invention requires extremely bright people, but it is also because inventors are seen as inferior beings. They are looked down on. And anyone bright enough to truly invent is bright enough to realize that it's social suicide to do so. The consequence of this is that those who DO actually invent are unlikely to ever see any money from their invention. As isolated individuals, they will almost certainly have neither the funding needed to go to mass production nor the contacts to do so on reasonable terms. There are exceptions, but inventing is a much higher-risk proposition than innovating and that means the exceptions are extremely far and few between.

Re:Do more with less

[KhazadDum]

Summed up as, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Re:Do more with less

[KhazadDum]

The only reason why universities are so damn expensive is because shitwits like you shriek about "How overpaid the professors are" and "how much money goes to universities" when federal and state funding is at an all time minimum.

Because of that, universities seek corporate and alternative funding sources. But idiots like you are far too wrapped up in your masturbatory crusade of "It's too expensive!" to notice things ARE expensive because they're FORCED to find OUTSIDE funding. The kind of funding that comes wrapped with heavy baggage, corruption and cronyism -- hey! It's the best system that money can buy...

And now, because out of state students are a financial gold mine, the UC system is focusing on admitting more. Why? Because the entire university system is strapped for cash, raised fees and still found itself strapped for cash. So it did the next reasonable thing -- beg for more cash, give up when the begging failed, and instead change the ENTIRE point (California universities are no longer for Californians) of the system. All to survive.

Re:Do more with less

[spiffmastercow]

As someone who has developed in a DO-178B shop, I got the impression that the certification and process may not necessarily make for a safer product, but it *does* ensure that, were an unsafe product made, you would be able to pin down the exact point at which the unsafe decision was made. It's a paper trail, plain and simple.. But knowing there's a paper trail does tend to make you think a bit more about what you're doing.

Re:Do more with less

[Electricity Likes Me]

Invention - which is not the same thing as innovation - has all but ground to a halt. This is in part because invention requires extremely bright people, but it is also because inventors are seen as inferior beings. They are looked down on. And anyone bright enough to truly invent is bright enough to realize that it's social suicide to do so. The consequence of this is that those who DO actually invent are unlikely to ever see any money from their invention. As isolated individuals, they will almost certainly have neither the funding needed to go to mass production nor the contacts to do so on reasonable terms. There are exceptions, but inventing is a much higher-risk proposition than innovating and that means the exceptions are extremely far and few between.

I feel like this needs elaboration, namely the "social suicide" part. Whatever are you talking about?

Re:Do more with less

[AK Marc]

How about a private enterprise that certifies planes and has some liability in the matter?

None exist, anywhere for any certifications. As far as I know, nobody has every sued Snell or ANSI or such for a helmet that failed. Can you find a single case of a certification organization that certified something that failed and getting sued for it? If not, then your response is unrelated to reality.

How about manufacturers facing losing their market and their business if their planes crash?

Again, reality and your irrational rant don't match. Orders are affected by the safety record of a particular airframe and the maker of it.

Re:Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem is that today when you have innovation in the US there's always a risk of encountering one or more patent trolls

Say what you want about Microsoft, but you can't deny that they've always been at the forefront of efforts to stifle innovation and competition in the USA. The way they've re-invented themselves as a parasite on the Android ecosystem speaks volumes for their lack of desire to produce good products. Patent trolling is clearly the way forward for this American icon.

Re:Do more with less

[zman58]

"Personally, I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that hadn't been certified by the FAA."
How about flying in a plane that has been certified by an private organization that can provide proof that their certification program is at least an order of magnitude better than the FAA certification--but they don't bother with the FAA certification? Would you fly in the aircraft then?

Re:Do more with less

[Runaway1956]

Agreed. Ingenuity - American, or any other variety, does NOT depend on huge amounts of cash from the government.

Fact is, the federal government doesn't belong in education. The more money shoveled into education, the stupider people get. First - all that money is used to make textbooks and curriculum uniform around the nation. So, you get millions of lemmings who have all been taught the same lessons almost verbatim. They get together, and instead of actually churning different - even opposing - views and opinions around, all they can do is recite the same old formula to each other. Innovation? Bullshit.

Second - the people most worried about the lack of funding for education are almost certainly dullards who have never had an original thought of their own. Those individuals know nothing more than what their schools have taught them. And, they can't understand that really bright people have learned a hundred things outside of school, for every thing they ever learned IN school.

A student never stops learning. At age 55, I'm still learning. I give credit to my elementary and high school teachers who instilled a desire to learn into me. But, the actual lessons? More often than not, the lessons were inane, and boring, and sometimes even wrong.

If and when Washington and all the various school boards around the nation figure out that schools shouldn't be used for teaching facts and figures, our schools will improve dramatically. Schools SHOULD be used to teach children to enjoy learning. Schools SHOULD be teaching people where, and how, to find facts and figures, and they SHOULD be teaching people to think about those facts and figures.

NCLB has proven that you can actually teach morons to recite multiplication tables - but you cannot force a moron to manage his finances.

Re:Do more with less

[sonicmerlin]

So far Google hasn't had to pay much despite ripping off the iPhone. They also "borrowed" Java from Oracle.

Re:Do more with less

[Dripdry]

Let me give you an example:

I have a client who has, with the help of some students, discovered an AMAZING way to coat ferrous materials with a thin diamond coating. It doesn't delaminate like other methods, and would be incredible for gaskets, car parts, missiles, anything with liquid flowing past at high speed.

It has been 7 years. He has lost venture capital twice (even though he has a major chemical company and an array of farms lined up to buy the first batch), and is working his ass into the ground. The expensive gaskets used for oil, milk, and other heavy fluids wear down really quickly, and they're expensive as hell to replace. His last 10x as long, and you can just take the current part and laminate it, no changes needed. Cheap as hell, huge net benefit to profit and productivity. It's just that it kind of goes against the grain of the industry right now, parts people sort of don't like him as I'm sure you can understand.

He has been assaulted on EVERY side, from the University where he used to teach to fellow employees in the field to venture capitalists all trying to screw him over for their fast buck on his work. This guy is one of the hardest working men I've ever met. Very bright, upbeat, a joy to talk to, he is a net benefit to mankind IMO. For these qualities, for trying to innovate, I have only seen him ground into the dust.

For years I figured it would all work out for him, but it isn't looking very good. It should have been a slam dunk ticket, but it feels like the climate needed to actually innovate and increase efficiency just isn't there, the protections or legal climate or something just isn't there. It's bizarre at first, then think about it:

You can try investing in new technology that may or may not work out. OR you could spend the same amount of money and get laws passed that will *guarantee* your revenue. Which would you choose? Venture capital is the same way the last 10 years. It's no longer Ventures, only capital. They want reward with no risk. They guarantee it with legislation instead of chancing it with innovation.

Re:Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

"...given the potential loss of human lift"

I think you mean potential loss of aircraft lift.

Re:Do more with less

[syousef]

That is the only way to truly innovate and be competitive.

Sometimes that can't be done - it costs what it costs. You can't build the Large Hadron Colider or the Voyager space probe in your basement with duct tape and Skittles, no matter how many episodes of MacGyver you've watched.

I'm replacing balconies right now. I can't do it for under about $20k....and that's with us doing the painting! I'd love to do it for $100, but I don't see anyone able to accommodate me at that price

Re:Do more with less

[jd]

Not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, you have to pay for the menu.

Re:Do more with less

[Anthony Mouse]

No, regulation is definitely required, what I'm for is cutting away at ridiculous fees the patent office charges.

The patent office fees aren't the problem. The fees are in the three figure range; nobody is really deterred by the fees. The problem is the lawyers. Drafting and prosecuting a patent application can cost thousands of lawyer-hours, and lawyers ain't exactly cheap. And you can easily get a patent issued without a lawyer, you'll just have a worthless patent because unless you know what you're doing the claims won't actually cover anything useful or will be trivially invalidated by some infringing corporation that does have a lawyer.

It also isn't particularly germane to the topic of innovation as deregulation has always led to less competition in the US, I'm not aware of any cases where that didn't happen.

You are a victim of corporate sleight of hand. Past instances of deregulation have involved removing regulations that protect customers, employees and third parties while leaving in place the ones that create a morass of bureaucracy for small competitors. What we need is the opposite of that: Retaining the regulations that curb negative externalities but removing the mountains of red tape.

Re:Do more with less

[Grishnakh]

Maybe he needs to go to a different country, such as Japan or even China, and try to get them to use his idea there. It's much like what happened to W. Edwards Deming; he had great ideas for improving industrial efficiency using statistical process control (and even successfully used them in WWII for manufacturing ammunition), but after the war the American industries didn't want to pay any attention to him, so he traveled to Japan, where they loved his ideas. After several decades, Japanese manufacturing kicked America's ass, going from a cheap, low-quality manufacturing location to one of the highest-quality manufacturing centers in the world , and Deming is now regarded as a hero there.

Your friend needs to go somewhere else. This country will never appreciate contributions like his. He should look at Germany and Japan first, then resort to China if that doesn't work out. While the Chinese obviously aren't very good about intellectual property protection, he doesn't really need that, he just needs to sell the idea (and process and all the critical ideas about it) to them for a giant lump-sum. They can certainly afford it.

Re:Do more with less

[rally2xs]

Its NOT the expense of the workers, its our outrageous 40% corporate taxes that are driving our decline. About 22% of the price of everything American made is because of the influence of income taxes, both corporate and other such as personal taxes of the workers, making their services more expensive as well. 22% of a $40K SUV is $8,800. Contrast that with the fact that it takes 33 hours of labor to build the average car, and the car company quoted figure of $78 / hr / worker to cover wages, benefits, and retirement expenses means that only about $2500 of the car's expense is from labor. Not much compared to the tax bite.

If we zero our income taxes, and tax other things beside income, we can be back at the forefront of manufacturing, and therefore prosperity again.

Re:Do more with less

[Richard Dick Head]

Sad part is, someone has probably lifted the idea and is developing it elsewhere.

There are hordes of professional idea thieves out there. Typically they'll waive a funding carrot in order to get the white paper and patent what they can out of it.

Or they give you just enough so it looks like its worth it, but they know you can't go to market with your idea.

Predatory lending 101: The investment contract specifies that the investor owns all IP if the company folds. Step 1:Calculate out how much they need to develop the product, but not a cent for marketing. Step 2: Lend. Step 3: Without marketing capital, the company fails to generate enough sales and folds. Step 4: It's all yours! Profit!

No, the angel investor concept is now wholly owned by Mr. Mobster and Dr. IP Thief, all respectable and highly credentialed.You'll never have enough knowledge to filter these people out, and you'll never keep control of the product under these people.


The only way to succeed without having a deep pocket on your team is to move dev underground and go full cycle in your basement. Then, with the rock lobster in your hand, go looking for money. Then, and only then, will you catch the interest of legitimate investors.

The basement model is tried and true. Don't quit your day job, hang on to your cash for dear life, and don't spend a cent on crap you don't need until your company is turning a healthy profit. Once you have the cash, you can help your self to the pile for product dev and expand and profit more. This is how Microsoft, Apple, and many other big players got started.

Re:Do more with less

[freedom_india]

Well, you see, cutting funds to the military-industrial complex gets JFK and RFK killed. Can anyone of you in education, R&D or NASA claim such a proud thing?

Re:Do more with less

[SlippyToad]

Fact is, the federal government doesn't belong in education. The more money shoveled into education, the stupider people get

You say this as if it is gospel, despite the fact that LESS money is going into public education than ever before.

It's almost as if you have an ideological axe to grind, and don't give a ripe shit about the facts.

Re:Do more with less

[mangu]

It's just that it kind of goes against the grain of the industry right now, parts people sort of don't like him as I'm sure you can understand

I understand the horse wagon industry didn't like the people who started manufacturing automobiles at the end of the 19th century.

the protections or legal climate or something just isn't there

Yes, they tried this against automobiles.

Every time an inventor complains that the existing industry is holding him back it means his invention isn't really that good.

Re:Do more with less

[Tsingi]

The proof of this is that you can't do anything with nothing.

Lousy proof. You can create a universe out of nothing, but I suspect some education will be required.

Quantum physics does not like your nothings.

Re:Do more with less

[Tsingi]

The proof of this is that you can't do anything with nothing.

Lousy proof, You will have Schrodinger's cat rolling over in his box. You can create a universe out of nothing.

Re:Do more with less

[TaggartAleslayer]

That intones that profit is the only worthwhile motivator. That's the current problem. If it doesn't make money, it isn't worth investing in.

There's a reason that Government subsidies for infrastructure are in place. Advancing society as a whole may not generate short-term profit. Corporations have a very limited view in if it isn't reflected on the Quarterly Report as a net gain, it's cast as being not worthwhile.

Government has traditionally served the purpose in funding otherwise unprofitable, but "good for the whole" endeavors. That's why Governments aren't "for profit" entities. There has to be a revenue stream for the betterment of the citizenry. You won't get that if there's a profit stipulation attached to every single decision.

Re:Do more with less

[DarenN]

As an investor, the next quarter matters far more to you than the state of a company five years in the future.

Then you're not an "investor", you're a gambler. Investment implies at least medium term thinking, and that seems to be absent. It's at least partially because of the rise of small time investors, who are much more likely to panic over short term trends, rather than the big institutional investors who generally aren't because they can absorb a certain level of loss and have anyway factored the risk in. The word "investor" has been diluted badly over the last few years, much like the word "engineer" (everyone's job description is engineer, yay!)

I think that taxing "investments" of lower than 5 years at a higher rate than investments of greater than 5 years would help alleviate the problem.

Unfortunately, most people don't seem to be able to envision any kind of world but one organized solely for the benefit of business, or one that is irrationally and implacably hostile to private enterprise.

I agree with most of your post, by the way. In this case, it has a lot to do with the quality of ALL discourse. The middle ground doesn't seem adequate even though it contains the majority because the fringes are way louder. The examples are everywhere - Republican/Democrat, the Global Warming discussion, environmentalism, animal rights, religion and far, far more. In all of these, one side demonises the other and point blank refuses to engage in a constructive manner. It's hardly surprising that this case applies in business as well.

Re:Do more with less

[Anonymous Coward]

Idological axe to grind? TFA is nothing but an ideological axe!

40 years ago, education cost a small fraction of what it costs today. Can you point me to any statistics that would indicate that the money has been well spent? Perhaps there are armies of engineers of which I am unaware? More armies of hard core research scientists? Even one small army of theoretical scientists?

Put your own ideology aside, and find me some empirical evidence that pissing money into the wind makes kids smart.

At age 55, my own education isn't as fresh in my mind as it once was. There are a LOT of things that I just don't remember any more. But, in those fields in which I've worked, I hold my own with the best of today's crop of graduates. The crying shame is - those best are so fucking far and few between. The AVERAGE graduate today has an exceedingly narrow view of the world. Worse, his view is definitely warped.

Ideology my aching ass. When the facts are staring you in the face, it takes no ideology to see them. I suppose an ideology that demands more and more money from the federal government, and accepts government interference in local matters might blind a person to the facts.

In my generation, I estimate that roughly 30% of my peers were ultimately morons. They wouldn't learn, or they couldn't learn. Today, it's up to at least 40%. You have the same morons who won't learn, or can't learn, PLUS those who are simply failed by the "education" system. Prepping kids to pass specific tests can't be called "education" by any stretch of the imagination.

I never prepped for a test in my life. Never. I went into every national test thrown at me "cold turkey". Because I had a very broad education, and because I read voraciously, I was in the top 10% of EVERY test I've ever taken. Most of the time, the top 5%. A couple of times, I ranked in the 98th percentile. Never a 99 or a 100 - 98 was as high as I could get. I simply can't hang with the real smart people.

My education cost a pittance, compared to today's costs. The first priority for a student, is a desire to learn. Lacking that desire, he will learn noting more than can be drummed into his ass with a paddle. Given that desire, few things can hold him back. Beyond a basic level of financial support, including food, shelter, books, and some recreation, money has little relevance to the matter.

Re:Do more with less

[Travoltus]

"FAA certification is a farce. A government agency says the plane is ok? Ya, that makes me feel better. How about a private enterprise that"

Smart move. The private enterprise needs money to function, too. So they'll have their fees that they charge.

Tell ya what. You go move to a country with a private version of the FAA. And every time you hear the roar of a plane engine overhead you can pray.

Re:Do more with less

[euroq]

I don't have a citation, but it's been widely reported that the cost of regulation in the US has exceeded all revenue taken in from income taxes. That's just insane.

2008 US Revenues:
1,146 billion - individual income taxes
275 billion - corporate income taxes

So um, regulation costing almost 1.5 trillion dollars? Yes, that is insane. As in, your citation is insane.

And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that if you come up with a new idea, you'll almost certainly be sued.

If you really want to make money, you're better off getting into financial arbitrage (like high-frequency trading) then you are innovating or making something of value.

Re:And patents, of course

[Beelzebud]

A fictional character.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents have very little to do with America losing its edge. It has partly to do with outsourcing of tech jobs overseas. In essence, American companies have trained foreigners how to build a tech industry in their own country. Now we must compete against them.

It also has to do with US government policies that end up incentivizing the best and brightest going into finance and law, jobs that advance society very little. It is no coincidence that most politicians are lawyers and financiers.

The American people can fix it by voting in politicians who have the guts to make the necessary changes. But instead, people are more concerned about sex scandals, abortion, and gay marriage than making the changes needed to make the country great again.

Re:And patents, of course

[Sarten-X]

As opposed to a system without patents, where your idea is quickly copied by anyone who already has the production facilities to do so and you have no legal recourse.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You only get sued if you try to do something that Apple or Google *think* they invented...

Re:And patents, of course

[vadim_t]

I think that's an acceptable tradeoff. I do not think that rewarding the very few people that indeed deserve it outweighs the problems patents currently cause.

Also, it seems we have reached the point where lone inventors are unlikely to make much advancement, without running into a patent issue themselves. Once the modern era of patent wars and "defensive patents" started, every company started acquiring more and more of them and trying to make them as broad as possible.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

He's like the Libertarian equivalent of Jesus.

Re:And patents, of course

[0123456]

If your idea can quickly be copied then it's clearly not innovative enough to deserve a patent.

Re:And patents, of course

[JonySuede]

Ask yourself what is more productive for the economy:
Case1: The inventor is sued out of existence and the invention never see the light of the day since it is disruptive to the current economic actors revenue steams.
Case2: The invention gets copied, however, if the inventor and his investors use reasonable marketing, they still have the first mover advantage.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great example. Certainly, without our robust patent system, nobody would have had the idea to make windshield wipers that go slower.

Remember, the patent system isn't there to make sure that people make a profit. It's there to encourage people to invent things.

Re:And patents, of course

[CodeBuster]

But instead, people are more concerned about sex scandals, abortion, and gay marriage than making the changes needed to make the country great again

Indeed. The Chinese and Indians laugh at us for spending so much time on such frivolous things and for even discussing these things in politics. Your abortion and gay marriage "rights" won't mean jack squat if in the meantime we stand by and watch as this once great nation circles the toilet bowl on its way down the tubes. In fact, I wish that people would just STFU about such things when discussing what sort of policies are best for the long term survival of our nation. People who make these things into voting issues are pissing away their futures while Rome burns.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

hey hey we never said patents were a bad thing we said the ability for corporations who do nothing but hold patents suing was bad and companies suing individuals who are not their competitors is wrong.

Re:And patents, of course

[del_diablo]

>Ask yourself what is more productive for the economy:
>Case1: The inventor is sued out of existence and the invention never see the light of the day since it is disruptive to the current economic actors revenue steams.
>Case2: The invention gets copied, however, if the inventor and his investors use reasonable marketing, they still have the first mover advantage.
You forget case 3:
The investors keep their work a tradesecret, and takes it with them to the grave
Case 3 is the entire reason the patent system exists. Suddenly your "work" could be exteneded by others instead of everybody having to reinvent the exact same thing. For example how to make proper steel.

Re:And patents, of course

[JonySuede]

Case 3 is no longer possible....
We can tear anything apart to the atomic level if needed nowadays...
see Flylogic blog for a good example.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

If you shamelessly copy someone else's idea and then say it is your own - you should not only be sued - you should be caned.

Most slashdotters who talk of innovation could not come up with an innovative idea even if you paid them $$$$$.

Then the losers hate the patent system - why ? Cos they wanna copy - and do it free of cost.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The really sad thing is, when this glaringly obvious problem is pointed out to our elected officials, they forever spew dribble in response. Things like, 'free market', 'innovation', 'American competitive edge', while completely ignoring any intellectual response on the issue.

Re:And patents, of course

[Thing 1]

If your idea can quickly be copied then it's clearly not innovative enough to deserve a patent.

Oh, I don't know; nanotechnology assemblers can copy themselves, and they are likely innovative enough for their eventual creators to be awarded a patent.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the product, it's about the marketing behind it. People do not choose the best. Witness Apples success. Angry Birds. Etc, etc

Re:And patents, of course

[Alan Shutko]

Right now, we've got the worst of both worlds.

If you come up with a good idea, it will be immediately copied by a number of large companies that figure they've got deeper pockets than you. They will complain you are trying to use patents instead of competition to win in the marketplace. And odds are, anything you make will infringe on one or more of THEIR patents, which they will use as a defense to stop you from using your patent against them.

At the same time, you will be sued by a non-practicing entity with no assets except the patent they're suing you with, and you can't even try to use other patents against them since they're not making anything.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also assuming you have the money to defend the patent. Court cases don't come cheap, and they can take a long time to decide. Corporations have cash reserves and a legal team working 9-5 Monday-Friday trying to poke holes in your patent.

Did you have a lawyer review your patent before you it was granted? You probably couldn't afford one. So... yeah, we can safely assume your patent has legal loopholes big enough to fly an aeroplane through.

I've heard of a case where some post-grads invented a new mining technique, patented it, then demonstrated it to some mining companies. The mining companies said "thanks but no thanks" and copied it, telling the would-be inventors to "sue us". See above for why they got away with it.

Re:And patents, of course

[Sarten-X]

Only if there's enough money in it.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, Everybody knows first to market is a losing strategy.

"Gee Jimmy, that's a really great gizmo, it will revolutionize the world, I just hope our marketing team can sell it better then (name your big company) otherwise your out of a job."

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents is one reason innovations can not anymore happen because someone has control over others ideas to improve patented idea or even to own rights to same idea what they came up by.

 

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, America will do what it's allways done - Let somone else invent it and claim the first person to patent in the USA invented it!

Re:And patents, of course

[Rich0]

Not all industries are as broken as the software industry.

However, suppose for the sake of argument somebody really did come up with a TRULY innovative software concept - one that everybody could actually agree should receive patent protection for a year or two (I think that patent terms should be industry-specific reflecting the pace of development). No matter how clever or innovative or complex the idea is, copying something implemented in software is just a matter of copying bytes. Doing the same in hardware is a little more complicated, but only a little.

Take an industry like Pharmaceuticals. You start with a molecule, and to market it as a drug you need to answer two questions - how safe is it, and how effective is it? Doing this takes about 5-7 years if you're pushing it, and costs about a billion dollars per successful drug (counting costs wasted on drugs that turn out not to be safe or effective). Making the molecule was easy from day one (sure, some money gets spent on making the process cheaper, but it is a pittance compared to what it takes to bribe doctors to do the jobs their patients are already paying them to do). So, patents are used to give companies an incentive to test their drugs, by letting them recoup those costs. Now, I'm not saying the model is completely balanced in this industry, but without making 100% of all development (and not just coming up with the concept) government funded you simply won't get new drugs without it.

I don't see banning patents as a good idea, but I do see reigning them in across the board as being good. I'd set a term per-industry such that the public is happy that progress is getting made, and profits and non-R&D costs within the industry seem reasonable.

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

But instead, people are more concerned about sex scandals, abortion, and gay marriage than making the changes needed to make the country great again

Indeed. The Chinese and Indians laugh at us for spending so much time on such frivolous things and for even discussing these things in politics. Your abortion and gay marriage "rights" won't mean jack squat if in the meantime we stand by and watch as this once great nation circles the toilet bowl on its way down the tubes. In fact, I wish that people would just STFU about such things when discussing what sort of policies are best for the long term survival of our nation. People who make these things into voting issues are pissing away their futures while Rome burns.

Did you know one of the single biggest development indicators is women's rights?

For whatever reason, if you enforce gender equality and women's education, your country will be dramatically better then it's neighbors in the long term. Standards of living go up, crime goes, productivity booms.

Now, this doesn't really make immediate sense: without women's rights you've got an entire labor force who you don't have to pay. Surely, with all that free labor or low-cost labor, you'd expect an easy win over people who actually have to pay fair wages.

The reasons are complex, but the big one is this: cultural discrimination doesn't just effect the discriminated against group. It narrows the mindset and "acceptable" standard of behavior of the favored group as well. It leaks into science, business and the arts and closes up avenues of exploration because it effectively bans "types" of thinking. If you're a man, you're only favored provided you stay away from "feminine" things - which are implicitly not worthy of consideration. Your behavior must conform to whatever the expected norm is, lest you become a de facto member of the oppressed group.

Abortion is very much a women's rights issue in most respects, but it also has follow on consequences: if access to abortion services is easy for the poor (it's never a problem for the rich) then crime rates drop about 18 years after that happens. Gay marriage means you're not only removing yet another disenfranchised class (and thus promoting tolerance and general consideration and empathy within your population - you know, attacking a whole bunch of harmful social issues at once) but you're also ultimately addressing wider issues such as the social acceptance of people in unusual living situations (i.e. those with divorced parents, unmarried parents, single-parents etc.).

I assume you don't actually oppose either of these measures, but it's straight up non-sensical to think social policy has nothing to do with economic policy. There's a reason socioeconomic status is how we judge an area and not just "economic" status.

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

That must be why NASA has no problems recreating the Saturn V rockets, or why "bad documentation" is not one of the major complaints programmers will have about an API which doesn't have it.

Just because it's technically feasible doesn't make it productive. We'd never get anywhere if we have to constantly re-invent the wheel.

Re:And patents, of course

[msauve]

"Case 3 is no longer possible.... We can tear anything apart to the atomic level if needed nowadays..."

Now, go find a food recipe, and make it by just mixing all the ingredients together, ignoring all the process information. Let us know how it tastes.

Re:And patents, of course

[jcoy42]

Bullshit. Let's place blame where blame is due. What screwed America is the unions. It quickly became cheaper to order from Canada than buy local, and that just opened the gateways. It became obvious it was non-profitable to work with Americans, because we're greedy and vindictive.

And don't even get me started on the BS they pulled w.r.t. time spent on the job vs. actual contribution. They advanced people for time served, and punished up and comers.

Not this isn't to say there aren't other issues involved, but the core problem is we let a mafia-like set of players step in and control our strongest companies, and the folks with the money got sick of it. The unions trained businesses to avoid local production by pricing our workforce right out of the market.

You can sit and bitch all you want, but that is what killed it for American jobs. Everyone wanted the best health care, they wanted automatic advancement, and just made themselves unappealing to the businessmen. There is a breaking point. And one look over the history of Detroit (which is just a more obvious example than most) shows exactly what happens when you let the unions take over. If that doesn't explain it, look at GE.

Once you stop building the stuff, you stifle engineering and improvement, and at this point, I don't see America pulling it out of their ass for anything. We were on top, and we blew it. Case closed.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that article itself already proves how broken the system is. For a very obvious patent infringement case the inventor had to spend almost $10 million in legal fees.

Re:And patents, of course

[sonicmerlin]

What countries? As far as I know the majority of patents come out of America. Companies like Samsung copy Apple left and right, Japan hasn't been relevant since Sony's Walkman in the 80s, and China sole purpose of life is to steal other people's IP.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get sued for coming up with and idea. You only get sued if you try to make money on it. I've had several ideas over the years that I thought about patenting...but then I realized I'd have to sue everyone to "protect" my patents, and didn't want my life's work to be about lawsuits. So I resorted to the next best thing, I thought. I told people about the ideas, and eventually, years later, corporations made money on the ideas and sued everyone else.

What if we made it illegal for lawyers to become politicians? Politicians could pay lawyers for legal advice, but they couldn't be politicians themselves.

Re:And patents, of course

[Dripdry]

. I think you're twisting his logic, taking it too far. Some patents probably don't need to be. Others should be there, and get proper treatment.
But let's no go down this "if you're not for patents you must want them all gone" notion, it doesn't feel productive.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously citing the case of a man who invented "slow windscreen wipers", and then spent most of his life and millions of dollars fighting through the courts, only to be paid a relative pittance, as an example of why the system should be retained?

Re:And patents, of course

[syousef]

Now, this doesn't really make immediate sense: without women's rights you've got an entire labor force who you don't have to pay. Surely, with all that free labor or low-cost labor, you'd expect an easy win over people who actually have to pay fair wages.

The reasons are complex, but the big one is this: cultural discrimination doesn't just effect the discriminated against group.

You're wrong. The Women's got equal rights completely wrong. We still don't value good parents. If you're a good parent you're seen as doing something for yourself and your family rather than giving anything to society. When's the last time you heard of a housewife being paid for properly raising her children or looking after a home? They still do the majority of the unpaid work. As for a man being paid for these things, if you bring it up you'll be laughed out of the room. Mr Mom is still a TV sitcom or film romcom joke. So instead of women being compensated for these things and that work then being shared to allow them a career, what you have is typically a situation where both parents work full time then struggle to do household chores and raise children in their "spare" time. And if they get any kind of break - financial or otherwise - people still whinge and whine that it is their choice to have kids and they should pay for it. We have an entire generation of kids that are raising themselves with some assistance from parents and live in houses that aren't as well kept as they should be, not to mention the increase in divorce etc. brought on by financial stress and the stress of running a household while exhausted. Women should have fought to get paid for what they already do as well as fighting to enter the workforce and be equally compensated. It benefits the whole of society when the children are raised properly and in a good environment.

Re:And patents, of course

[bzipitidoo]

What's broken is the business model, not the software or drug industries. You can't own ideas. You can't control what others make of an idea. You can't peddle individual copies as if they were scarce. You can't even draw clear boundaries. Our whole treatment has been twisted towards the presumption that these things can be done, that we can treat an idea like a piece of land.

Do you think Einstein should have patented e=mc^2? If you think yes, you think wrong. That is a mathematical formula, and is therefore not patentable. Software is also entirely independent of a medium. To be eligible for a patent, you are supposed to fix your grand idea to a medium, embody it in hardware. Software should not be patentable. We should never have let the special interests slip that change past us back in the 1970s.

Re:And patents, of course

[Sleepy]

Yes and no. Patents are a problem -- you can NOT launch a small technology firm and make anything useful without violating patents. This is a barrier to US businesses and Europe, but not China as they will simply ignore patents (for their domestic market).

I'd say America lost because Wall Street *wanted* America to lose. Maybe not explicitly, but as a result of all those outsourcing tax credits Wall Street wanted.
Talk to a US based electronics manufacturer... all of them had NO CHOICE but to move their R&D to China, because that's where all the manufacturing is.
Often times, the latest and greatest micro chip thingy will be documented by a Data Sheet which is written in Chinese. Eventually it will be translated to English, but the part might be depricated by then if it is a short lived market item.

Linksys, D-Link, Buffalo etc. all of these router manufacturers have almost NO knowledge what is in "their" products. They simply say "I'll take one of those" from the ODM and slap their web GUI on the firmware.

Apple is the last remaining US manufacturer who -designs- in the US. They pay a high price in terms of cost of operating. And even then, all their manufacturing is outsourced, and they don't really R&D any of the low level stuff.

Back to my original point... even if you reformed patents, and even un-did the Bush era outsourcing credit, NONE of those R&D jobs would come back. You'd have to convince China and Japan to subsidize their businesses to move operations back to the USA. No other country is dumb enough to kill their manufacturing, deliberately.

  But hey, Wall Street knows what it's doing... killing US manufacturing kills unions, and higher unemployment means workers will accept forced overtime and less safe working conditions. It's all pretty basic stuff, really.

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

Well I didn't say we were done with that area, and we aren't by a long shot.

That's what the issue with paid-parental leave is - and the very important aspect that men should be similarly entitled to take time off to look after their children (and that it should be recognized as acceptable, even unusual not to).

But recognizing women as fully equal persons is a very important step to recognizing parenting as (1) something both sexes should be sharing in equally in a relationship and (2) as an important and worthy task.

We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

Clearly why China is a far more desirable country to live in the the United States.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of hard to imagine, but maybe a system without patents all together would be better. Coming from an engineering standpoint, patents are a waste of resources. And do more to destroy innovation than they to to protect it. So what if you have an idea that other have, an idea is an intangible object that is easily copied. And tracking down the origins of an idea can be difficult. Patents also can ruin company's that are run legitimately, for several reasons. First you can be sued for infringing on part of a patent. So it becomes very easy to get sued out of existence for something insignificant just because another patent just happens to mention it even if infringing part is not needed in the mentioned patent. Second, if another company can make your product better than you can is it really fair to deprive customers of a superior product just because you have a patent on the idea? Third, the fear of patents are preventing some truly great advancements to society from ever seeing the light of day. Fourth, patents feed monopolies and prevent smaller company's from ever rising. And the Fifth point is the existence of patents is allowing company with a lot of overhead to simply open a lawsuit even if it's for something that doesn't infringe but looks close enough to argue over, to sue smaller company and keep them locked up in court and legal costs so that the company can never rise.

If you really want to keep patents then make them cost something, make them require a yearly renewal that has an exponentially increasing cost. If that were to happen within a few years all useless patents would fall into public domain. and useful patents would fall to public domain as soon as the patent cost exceed the profits the patent would generate. this could be careful regulated so that the average patent would only last a couple of decades and prevent. And allow good products to eventually reach consumers. even if they were delayed by a few years because one company wanted a monopoly for a few years to maximize their profits. This would also cause good patents to be kept a little longer and useless patents to fall into public domain faster so that someone who could make use of them would.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know the majority of patents come out of America. Companies like Samsung copy Apple left and right, Japan hasn't been relevant since Sony's Walkman in the 80s, and China sole purpose of life is to steal other people's IP.

And if these companies decide to stop respecting America's 'intellectual property rights' what happens then? Abandon those countries and revert back to 'made in USA'? I don't think so. America needs countries like China, but with countries like China really starting to innovate it seems only natural that in the not-to-distant future China will no longer need America.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

So what, he came up with an idea that has more then one way to solve it.

That is business. Had he been smart he would have skipped the Big 3 and installed the mod himself. He got the patent TO sell it to the Big 3. They saw the idea, thought it was a good idea and made their own version. No reason to pay for something you can make your self.

Re:And patents, of course

[quenda]

It also has to do with US government policies that end up incentivizing

How much US creativity is squandered on making up new jargon words like that, when perfectly cromulent words (e.g. motivate) exist already?

Re:And patents, of course

[Grishnakh]

Bullshit. Let's place blame where blame is due. What screwed America is the unions.

Oh please. If you want to build stuff in America without paying union wages, it's easy: you build your factory in Alabama or Mississippi or Tennessee. That's exactly what a bunch of foreign automakers have done, while American automakers have been building factories in Mexico. There's nothing forcing you to use union labor; this has only been a major factor in northeast states. There's a LOT more to the country than just the northeast.

Re:And patents, of course

[Ol Olsoc]

Bullshit yourself. I don't belong to or even like unions, but to blame them for every ill as you do is nice and simple. And wrong. Might as well say that the problem is getting rid of child labor or even slavery

What does a union even have to do with innovation? They are involved in production.

So where would an innovation problem come from? Why don't we look at what has changed. Once upon a time, there were companies that kept an R&D staff pretty busy. But now, the stockholders need serviced, and they need serviced now. A company needs to focus on the short term, and adiscovery that takes twenty years to realize production is worthless. Not to mention that some nifty short term profits can be had by simply getting rid of those "eggheads". Now that's what makes a stockholder as happy as those women in the shampoo ads!

But back to the evil unions - in 2010, the labor force in unions was 11.9 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Explain how this 11.9 percent is destroying the country for the other 89 percent. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

Re:And patents, of course

[lexsird]

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit.

Greedy people who don't want to pay a fair wage and exploit politicians to open up foreign trade venues that circumvent the order of the stable economy wrecked us. Thank Sam Walton of Wal-Mart for going behind our State Department's back and making deals with China that have wrecked our economy by flooding our markets with cheap junk until our business and manufactures caved in and moved to China.

Free Trade equates into fucking America's economy to further your own bottom line. We need Fair Trade. Unions were the chance of the lower classes to have a decent life and in exchange produce a world class product. It was a good marriage until greed happened into the equation. Yes, both sides were guilty, but to destroy our economy just to fill your pockets with more money at the cost of American livelihoods to me is a form of treason that should have them all dangling from a noose, businessman, corrupt politician and also greedy crooked union leaders as well.

When we are all mostly unemployed and starving, we will shed our civility in this matter and there will be hell to pay. Eat the rich I say. Literally. If we took a Wall Street fat cat, put him on a roasting spit, cooked him with some seasoning, bast him with some BBQ, then yank out his heart and take a big bite, these fuckers would shit themselves. Welcome to Hell, fuckers, you made it this way. Please don't try running, it will only make you taste gamey. You have always prided yourselves in "great taste", don't ruin it now. Don't get me wrong, we will still eat you. Cavender's Greek Seasoning makes everything taste great. We have plenty of it, lots of charcoal, sharp knives, forks, the good kind of paper plates, and of course our kitchen carving knife set that you sold us, it was made in China. Wal-Mart had it on sale, cheap. We couldn't produce it that cheap, our labor costs were too high for you, hence we are out of jobs and now eating you. But thanks for that one last great buy.

How's that? Over the top? Too soon? Relax, it's just dark humor.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to say that law doesn't necessarily advance society very little - each landmark case that changed the face of human rights, industry, or any other sphere of human endeavor covered by law had lawyers on both sides and a judge on the bench. That being said, there is a problem when law and finance are the only professions that politicians are drawn from; and law is especially problematic because of the close relationship between legislature and the courts.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

it actually does make immediate sense. if women have power, they dont want to do the shit jobs anymore
no running water ? there better damn well be running water. etc, etc ratchet up to civilization.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And would you vote solely on the basis of Abortion or Gay marriage?

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

> Did you know one of the single biggest development indicators is women's rights?

Yes. That's because societies with more resources to throw around often choose to give rights to their women. It's a status symbol, and a wonderful propaganda point. Any time there is a difference between societies in the treatment of women, that difference is used by both sides in their war propaganda.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy much? Try this on for size:

Case3: The invention doesn't get brought to fruition because no one is willing to invest in something in which they will most likely get no return.

First mover advantage doesn't mean all that much in this day and age.

Re:And patents, of course

[joeboomer628]

Bullshit. Let's place blame where blame is due. What screwed America is the unions.

Oh please. If you want to build stuff in America without paying union wages, it's easy: you build your factory in Alabama or Mississippi or Tennessee. That's exactly what a bunch of foreign automakers have done, while American automakers have been building factories in Mexico. There's nothing forcing you to use union labor; this has only been a major factor in northeast states. There's a LOT more to the country than just the northeast.

Have you not heard about the aircraft plant Boeing built in South Carolina and promptly got hit with union and NLRB litigation. BS indeed

Re:And patents, of course

[syousef]

Well I didn't say we were done with that area, and we aren't by a long shot.

That's what the issue with paid-parental leave is

Have you ever looked after very young children? I love my kids, but I would not call looking after them leave. We've got the language all wrong. It's work, and a small mistake can have deadly consequences. It's worthwhile and important work that must be done. As they get older and more self sufficient that aspect fades but you still have to supplement their education if you want to be a good parent. You still have to cook and clean for them at least until they are teenagers (though they can progressively help with that).

But recognizing women as fully equal persons is a very important step to recognizing parenting as (1) something both sexes should be sharing in equally in a relationship and (2) as an important and worthy task.

This pretence that we have to be the same to be equal is a big part of the problem.

Have you ever spent 5 hours with a child under 2 years of age screaming for their mummy? Mum and dad can't always be equal. Not possible. You can change all the nappies you like. You can be the one who stays home and feeds and sings and plays with them. Society will for the most part shun you for it, but it can be done if the male really does want to be the stay at home parent. What can't be done is that you can never give birth or breast feed your child (yes you can feed breast milk but that's not exactly the same). You can't bond with a child as it's mother. Part of recognising women as equals has to include recognising their differences. Trying to force fathers into "equal" parenting when it's not supported by society or nature is ridiculous. It leads to severely depressed fathers that are more likely to disengage.

Nor is it always possible to be raising an infant while working a full time job. I don't want any airline pilot flying an aircraft I'm on half asleep at the controls because he was up all night tending to his infant so his wife could get sleep. Nor do I want a woman doing that job for equal pay. I want someone staying at home with the child who recognises their partner is doing a dangerous job that requires full concentration at work, who then gets up during the night and feeds the child instead of worrying about equality.

We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.

In other words we have not addressed the problem at all. All the work traditionally done by a woman is expected to be done in your "spare" time now. It is still unpaid and still devalued. No amount of pressing for equality while this is the case is going to work because all it does is work both parents into the grave early as they try to keep a paid full time job and a 24/7 childrearing one too.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to make money, you're better off getting into financial arbitrage (like high-frequency trading) then you are innovating or making something of value.

Yes. Then you're innovating - finding new ways to make money from arbitrage. And you're making something of value - namely, money.

/grammar nazi

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

Have you ever looked after very young children? I love my kids, but I would not call looking after them leave. We've got the language all wrong. It's work, and a small mistake can have deadly consequences. It's worthwhile and important work that must be done. As they get older and more self sufficient that aspect fades but you still have to supplement their education if you want to be a good parent. You still have to cook and clean for them at least until they are teenagers (though they can progressively help with that).

It's leave from work for parenting responsibilities. Not "leave from work for a holiday". You know, somewhat like "sick leave" or personal leave for say, a funeral.

Nor is it always possible to be raising an infant while working a full time job. I don't want any airline pilot flying an aircraft I'm on half asleep at the controls because he was up all night tending to his infant so his wife could get sleep. Nor do I want a woman doing that job for equal pay. I want someone staying at home with the child who recognises their partner is doing a dangerous job that requires full concentration at work, who then gets up during the night and feeds the child instead of worrying about equality.

Children are not infants for most of their time as children and the portion of the population who are airline pilots is very small.

I fail to see your point, other then a pleading that "we must recognize women as different". Sure, and no one is proposing that we don't. That's why parental leave is usually structured towards longer paid maternity leave for mothers, and shorter periods for fathers. But once you give birth to a child, parenting responsibilities can be handled by either gender after 6-12 months, and definitely past the 3-4.

We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.

In other words we have not addressed the problem at all. All the work traditionally done by a woman is expected to be done in your "spare" time now. It is still unpaid and still devalued. No amount of pressing for equality while this is the case is going to work because all it does is work both parents into the grave early as they try to keep a paid full time job and a 24/7 childrearing one too.

And this is feminism's failure how? The problem you have is with everyone, and very much a voting public who don't see child-rearing as an important duty. But it's hardly the responsibility of those in the oppressed class to fix the worldview of everyone else when they're just looking for equal pay for equal work and the right to vote.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

than perhaps your idea wasnt that bright in the first place?
examples of software of patents are classical in this case. you came up with some protocol, with some new type of software, just because u were first to come oup with it - doesnt mean that someone else one week later will not do it. so essentially restricting obvious ideas - hurts everyone but person who came up or patented it first.

Re:And patents, of course

[Third Position]

Did you know one of the single biggest development indicators is women's rights?

For whatever reason, if you enforce gender equality and women's education, your country will be dramatically better then it's neighbors in the long term. Standards of living go up, crime goes, productivity booms.

"Development indicators" indicating development of what? How are you defining "your country will be dramatically better"? We've had all of those policies you've mentioned in place for decades, and the result is drastically declining birthrates and basically the demographic destruction of the West. I fail to see how extinction equates to "dramatically better". Let's see how dramatically better off we are when this trend continues for several generations.

As for crime rates dropping, that's a rather predictable consequence of having an aging and declining population. And the only place I see productivity and standards of living increasing are in China and other Asian countries. How many young people are living better than their parents did at their age these days? Given the trend of more and more adult children still living at home, I doubt that many of them would say their prospects are improving.

Re:And patents, of course

[Kjella]

I don't feel those are completely equivalent. Incentivize basically means stick and/or carrot, while you can motivate people in many ways. It excludes all internal motivation like taking pride in your work and feeling it is meaningful, it excludes social motivation like team spirit and recognition for excelling, it excludes motivation from improved working conditions like ergonomics, noise or other employee services. Incentivize is just trying to box you into doing what they want through rewards and punishments. Of course that's a big part of it, my pay check is definitively motivating. But my incentives are far from my only motivation.

Re:And patents, of course

[AmiMoJo]

Bullshit. Let's place blame where blame is due. What screwed America is the unions.

Low wages and fewer benefits are not the only way to make manufacturing work. Look at Germany and Japan - much stronger labour laws, more welfare and higher pensions, yet they are still able to manufacture and compete with the likes of China and India. In fact Germany exports more than China does.

All you have to do is stop participating in the race to the bottom. It turns out people will pay for quality and innovation, so even if your production costs are higher your good still sell. Germany in particular has performed an economic miracle - they just gave everyone a tax break worth â5 million because they are on target to take â14m more in tax revenue this year, and unemployment is at the lowest level for 20 years. In other words since the West and East merged they have brought half their country up to the level of the other and become the world's biggest exporters, and the global downturn that has decimated manufacturing in some countries hasn't affected them nearly as badly.

Making everyone suffer low pay and poor conditions is not necessary for an economy to prosper, and if you have good employment laws unions don't need to force the issues so much. Everybody wins, except perhaps for the executives who lose a million or two off their bonus to cover the higher costs.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, we've got the worst of both worlds.

If you come up with a good idea, it will be immediately copied by a number of large companies that figure they've got deeper pockets than you. They will complain you are trying to use patents instead of competition to win in the marketplace. And odds are, anything you make will infringe on one or more of THEIR patents, which they will use as a defense to stop you from using your patent against them.

If no one make the iphone, who will make the

iphone keyboard

?

Re:And patents, of course

[Muad'Dave]

Don't forget that if they "file first" on YOUR idea, you're violating their patent!

Re:And patents, of course

[Grishnakh]

And what happened? Anyone can sue anyone over anything they want. I can sue you for annoying me if I want; it won't go far, but you'll still have to respond to the lawsuit.

Apparently, all the Japanese and European automakers didn't have so much trouble setting up shop in the Southern states, because they're successfully building tons of cars there.

Re:And patents, of course

[grep_rocks]

I guess unions are why Germany is such a failure in manufacturing...

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And that differs from what we have now... how? If I create the super-widget and Great-Big co., with its unlimited access to lawyers and capital wants to make it, I can be dealt with and no one will even know I invented the thing, patent or not.

It happens all of the time and you never hear about it.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree....

But I don't think it will be changed.... the business majors and lawyers like keeping the money in their pockets (even when they don't deserve it). They would rather make laws and pass litigation to keep there money than actually working to be the best in their field or at what they do.

Engineers don't focus enough energy on coming together and making changes in the government, so they aren't going to happen (I just hope its realized before its too late, the internet is obviously the driving force of business and we are way way way behind!!!)

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a guy once say that if women were running things we would have great child care and health care but we would never build the pyramids or go to the moon. And to think 'gay marriage' is some sort of innovation booster is beyond absurd.

Re:And patents, of course

[Missing.Matter]

If the best and brightest are going into finance and law, and most politicians are financiers and lawyers, doesn't it follow that the best and brightest are politicians?

Re:And patents, of course

[Piata]

I hate to burst your bubble but Canada has unions too. It was cheaper to manufacture things in Canada because we had a lower dollar up until the last 4 - 5 years when American banks and investors ran your country off a cliff.

Re:And patents, of course

[Malc]

Bullshit. You do know that Canada loses more days to strikes than France? In 2009, Canada lost 2.2 million working days to strikes, compared to just over 0.1 million in the US, a country 10x the size. It seems to me that Canada is paying more for unions than the US.

Re:And patents, of course

[Shotgun]

In other words we have not addressed the problem at all. All the work traditionally done by a woman is expected to be done in your "spare" time now. It is still unpaid and still devalued. No amount of pressing for equality while this is the case is going to work because all it does is work both parents into the grave early as they try to keep a paid full time job and a 24/7 childrearing one too.

It's actually even worse than you state. Not only are both parents working themselves into a grave, but since you've doubled the work force, wages have dipped. EVERY parent is now working themselves into a grave. How many families out there have worked themselves into being dependent on two paychecks just to get by?

Re:And patents, of course

[Shotgun]

Union's stifling nature isn't limited to just pay and benefits. The entire cooperative work environment is obliterated by unions in my personal experience. The pay and benefits issue can be dealt with. The adversarial relationships constructed by unions is a death knell for productivity and innovation.

Re:And patents, of course

[Shotgun]

I saw an add for a reality TV show where they're doing exactly that.

Re:And patents, of course

[Fallingcow]

A bunch of people getting together to collectively bargain to sell their labor is an unnatural evil perpetrated by greedy parasites who just want to steal from the middle class. Its leaders much surely be criminals. The very idea is anti-Capitalism and anti-freedom.

A bunch of people getting together to collectively bargain to sell widgets is natural, desirable, and can only help the nation and the middle class. The people leading such an organization are, categorically, HEROES. It is the foundation of Capitalism and everything good.

(this is what the U.S. right wing actually believes)

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

So rather then grandiose but ultimately useless symbols, you mean we'd actually have fixed a bunch of massive social problems? You might want to rethink your examples.

Re:And patents, of course

[Electricity Likes Me]

Development indicators. You know, GDP per capita, education levels, employment, happiness, health, crime rates, access to sanitation and food.

No sane person says "holy shit we're not increasing our population exponentially - disaster!" - because you know, doing that actually is a disaster, as China found out the hard way (and is having to take steps to alleviate - the hard way, and in the process creating a real demographic crisis with their huge imbalance of men to women).

Your so-called "demographic destruction" is a result of the opinions of the modern population who have decided planning for the future (and the highly predictable baby-boomer retirement) is a suckers game - tax breaks and deregulation for finance instead!

Re:And patents, of course

[khallow]

Look at Germany and Japan - much stronger labour laws, more welfare and higher pensions, yet they are still able to manufacture and compete with the likes of China and India

It's worth noting that these countries have substantial trade barriers in the form of regulation. For example, ISO compliance regulations in the EU keeps uncompetitive businesses from being directly exposed to developing world manufacture.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of people getting together to collectively bargain to sell their labor is an unnatural evil perpetrated by greedy parasites who just want to steal from the middle class.

Except you're either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse because the key part is they are not collectively bargaining to sell their labor, that would imply that the employer had a choice, however they don't. If I'm an employer and the employee union demands higher wages but i can get a workforce willing to work for the current wages then i should be able to choose to abandon the current workforce in favor of those that will accept the current wages.
The unnatural part of it is that an employer can't choose to simply fire the workers who aren't happy with their pay/conditions if there are other workers willing to accept that pay/conditions. If those workers turn out to be underperforming then that is the natural indicator that wages need to be higher to attract better workers, it's very simple.

NB: i am not an employer nor am I in an industry that has a union.

Re:And patents, of course

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Case 2's however is impossible for a small business person to compete with larger producers. Since small business can only ever start out in a limited market where large company that sees the profit potential of the idea can take it globally and can produce enough advertising to drown out the small business.

Not in the least saying our patent system isn't broken. But I think completely getting rid of it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:And patents, of course

[cramoft]

I completely disagree, Things are so fucked-up because of the current MBA attitude of keeping the profits and stock prices on a 3 month schedule. Engineers and designers are forced to design products that will have an effect on the bottom line, in essence keeping the investors happy whether the product works or not. I fought this for 35 years in SV. It was OK for engineering to release a product to manufacturing that was not 100%. Engineering would not get it back if it didn't full function, but manufacturing engineering would. I refused to release what I was designing until I was happy with it. I have been told by my manager that he was willing to shoot me to get the product away from me. But, I had very few products come back because the didn't work. Steve Jobs knew the value of designing a product until it was viable, even if it took a year. We'll miss him.

Re:And patents, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I really can't believe that a post whose premise is "The Chinese are laughing at us for caring about individual rights" has been modded insightful.

Yes, I want to live in a country with a strong economy. No, I won't trade my rights away to do so. Maybe Abortion and Gay Marriage aren't important to you, but eventually a social policy that is applicable will come up.

Re:And patents, of course

[syousef]

It's leave from work for parenting responsibilities. Not "leave from work for a holiday". You know, somewhat like "sick leave" or personal leave for say, a funeral.

It is treated with envy by others as if you're asking for a free holiday because you dared to have children.

Children are not infants for most of their time as children and the portion of the population who are airline pilots is very small.

I fail to see your point,

Airline pilot was one example of a job that is dangerous if you don't give it 100% concentration. There are a wide variety of such jobs - Police and Fire, Truck driver, train driver, taxi driver, nurse, doctor, lab technician, electrician, plumber, carpenter, mechanic....lots of jobs. So you're clearly not seeing my point because you choose not to see my point, since your assertion that since airline pilot is a rare job my argument is invalid is clearly not reasonable.

other then a pleading that "we must recognize women as different". Sure, and no one is proposing that we don't. That's why parental leave is usually structured towards longer paid maternity leave for mothers, and shorter periods for fathers. But once you give birth to a child, parenting responsibilities can be handled by either gender after 6-12 months, and definitely past the 3-4.

Clearly you do not look after children. A very young child does not respond well to the parent who's out of the house 12 hours a day most days.

And this is feminism's failure how? The problem you have is with everyone, and very much a voting public who don't see child-rearing as an important duty. But it's hardly the responsibility of those in the oppressed class to fix the worldview of everyone else when they're just looking for equal pay for equal work and the right to vote.

Again, my point was clear and you're missing it on purpsoe. It's a failure because we're now all working full time jobs and it is no longer anyone's full time job to tend to a house and raise children. That work - which benefits all of society - is still uncompensated and still largely done by women.

Re:And patents, of course

[Rich0]

So, how can a drug industry (to use that example) work without patents? Copying a drug costs relatively little money, but developing one takes years and tens of millions of dollars and usually doesn't work.

The only way I can see that working without patents is if government funds it (completely - not just the original concept). I'm actually a fan of this, but I'd like to get the replacement model working before we scrap the existing system, since drugs are fairly important. Easiest way to do this is have the 1st-world government start funding end-to-end drug development, and holding the patents to themselves (licensing them for free to anybody who wants to make them). Privately-developed drugs would still be patented but would have to compete with cheaper publicly-developed drugs. Then we can see how the new model is working and the old model would pretty-much go away on its own if the public model works (nobody will buy a $5 pill if the government makes a 50 cent one, but if the government botches things up we still at least have the $5 pills we have today). Plus a gradual transition could allow for better use of the expertise we already have - government could outsource development to the existing industry (fee for service with the government holding patent rights). So, as the old model fades away scientists would just end up moving to new departments in the same companies.

You can't change the fact that drugs are expensive to develop, so taxpayers will take a hit. However, taxes are generally more progressive than medical bills so you can at least send the bills to people who can afford them.

Re:And patents, of course

[bzipitidoo]

How? In a word, patronage. It doesn't necessarily have to be government patronage. Only other way that might work is to do nothing, and leave it to artists and scientists to get what they can from the first mover advantage and from keeping secrets. That's why we might prefer some kind of patronage, to pay out money in exchange for going public, and because it is very difficult to keep recipes secret.

As for the details of how a patronage system might work, it may be best to have many different public and private organizations. They could all work differently. Raise funds in different ways, and use different criteria for giving out awards. We actually do have a good bit of that now. Most major cities support orchestras. There are all kinds of prizes, such as the X prize. Even now, most of the funding for science comes from the public, through government. We need to expand on what we already have. Set up free digital notaries to head off any problems with plagiarism, and free digital libraries to make everything available to the public.

Keep in mind that these drug companies are more parasitic than original. Those pictures of thousands of test tubes with samples are real enough, but it's as much propaganda to convince you that they did all the work as anything real. They often do not create drugs themselves. They lean more on university research, and the knowledge of native peoples. Then they patent all these drugs that they did not invent, while those who actually originated the drug get nothing. They also externalize much testing, leaving it to the FDA to figure out if a drug is safe. Or they experiment on the public!

Re:And patents, of course

[Rich0]

How? In a word, patronage. It doesn't necessarily have to be government patronage.

Uh, you do realize that developing a drug (successful or not) costs about $10-$100M, and developing a successful drug requires developing about 10 unsuccessful ones first (on average)? You're talking about the better part of a billion dollars. Do you recommend setting up a paypal page for that?

Only other way that might work is to do nothing, and leave it to artists and scientists to get what they can from the first mover advantage and from keeping secrets. That's why we might prefer some kind of patronage, to pay out money in exchange for going public, and because it is very difficult to keep recipes secret.

Considering that just about every civilized country on the planet requires companies to disclose just about every detail of the process in order to even test a drug keeping it secret would be virtually impossible. Or, are you suggesting that we no longer regulate clinical trials to ensure patient safety? Oh, and are you suggesting that doctors should prescribe pills without knowing what is actually in them?

And figuring out what is in a pill isn't all that expensive - once it hits the market everybody will know what is in it. Sure, it will be harder without actually knowing the molecular entity, assuming that we manage to keep that secret, but a few weeks with an LC and an MS is all it will take most of the time. We already know that from there reverse engineering it is pretty cheap - just look at generics in India or whatever.

There are all kinds of prizes, such as the X prize.

Sure, but they tend to be hundreds of thousands of dollars to tens of millions of dollars. You need to expand that by 1-2 orders of magnitude just to come up with a single drug. Also, modern drug development turns out several new drugs per year typically, and the x-prize model is designed to encourage people to come up with some groundbreaking idea once a decade or whatever. If you need a billion dollars for ONE drug, do we really want to limit ourselves to the rate of development we would come up with donations?

They often do not create drugs themselves. They lean more on university research, and the knowledge of native peoples. Then they patent all these drugs that they did not invent, while those who actually originated the drug get nothing. They also externalize much testing, leaving it to the FDA to figure out if a drug is safe. Or they experiment on the public!

Drugs originating from native remedies aren't all that common, though they do happen (I suspect that most of those have already made it to market - at some point you start running out of newly-discovered civilizations). Ones based on university research are very common. However, typically a university tends to come up with a concept, and maybe a compound that inhibits some enzyme in a test tube. Often the original compound either has safety issues or doesn't reach the target tissue in a living person. Sometimes the original compound actually works out, but only after that billion dollars gets spent ($100M for that drug, and then $900M on the other 9 university compounds that didn't work out).

I don't dispute that much of the "creative" work happens outside of drug companies. However, the reality is that no matter how great the original ideas were, nothing is getting into the doctor's office until the clinical trials are done, and those cost the better part of a billion dollars for every drug that makes it.

As far as credit for discovery goes - it is pretty typical that if a university or whatever comes up with a compound that they'll patent it and sell the rights to a drug company. Whether the university bothers to pay their scientists well is a different matter. I suspect that compounds discovered internally in drug companies trigger some kind of employee bonuses, but if the company makes $10B over 15

Re:And patents, of course

[infoseek]

Who do you want to cut a check for raising your kids? Should the government increase its massive debt so we can do it? Should we introduce huge new taxes? I know what you are doing is important (darting glance at book on Malthus) but should we really take actions that will drive the country into the ground and leave no future for your children? And do you want to be a parent or a government contractor?

Robots will replace blue collar labor

[meow27]

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/11/mobile-farm-robots/

this is not even the first step

blue collar labor in america by and large has no future. The government needs to change the economic model to start developing our children's mind from a young age. and i mean, like making educational material -- like chemistry sets, cheap enough so that it's almost free

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ColdWetDog]

So, buy giving every little kid a chemistry set (and thereby sending them to Harvard) we will think ourselves out of this mess?

No. Realize that very, very few people are ever going to be 'innovators' no matter how much government money we toss at the problem. It's not in their DNA, not in the upbringing, not in their heads. We have to come up with society that lets middle of the road people live a reasonable life, not expect everyone on the block to go off to work in a lab.

Not sure how to do that, but giving more money to the Education Industrial Complex in this country so far has yielded little fruit.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Pete Venkman]

I would agree with you, but American government probably wouldn't want chemistry sets to wind up into more people's hands. Think of how many potential terrorists we would have! Joking aside, I am an industrial chemist and I truly support more science education. But as we have all seen in the aftermath of Fukushima, politicos do not understand science. They think it is something that is democratically worked on, but science isn't democratic...nature is nature. Now vetting of scientific theories is somewhat scientific in terms of peer review and replication, but understanding that would require actual work and research on the part of our representatives. I wouldn't count on public school teachers to understand science enough to be able to teach it well to future generations. I think we, as nerds/scientists, should do more to educate young'uns to become our replacements.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ATMAvatar]

A mass of educated voters would be a huge threat to the existing power base. Good luck with that.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[flaming error]

The government needs to change the economic model

You've got it backwards, friend. The People need to change their government.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is that government educated people perpetuate the government class we have today. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to disband public education as we know it, and replace it with something that produces competition to the government class.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

/. needs to come up with self-serving icon. This is the president of a large university that also does research. Here she is with an opinion piece about how the federal Gov needs to spend more on... wait for it.... education and research. (oh and she tossed manufacturing in there to not look like a total shill).

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[flaming error]

what you're saying is that government educated people perpetuate the government class we have today

Maybe you're perpetuation idea is right, but that's not what he said.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Sarten-X]

To what?

A direct democracy, swayed easily by the latest celebrity gossip and completely ignoring the general consensus of the relevant scientific communities?

An oligarchy, where only well-respected scholars are granted the privilege of participating in government?

A dictatorship, where one person's guidance would lead the nation to either greatness or despair?

Or how about a representative democracy, where the decisions are made by people who can judge whether their constituents' recommendations are being made from reason or reaction, and can choose to follow or reject those recommendations appropriately?

Every form of government is broken by the simple fact that there are humans involved. Humans are easily-corrupted creatures, and the system can only work around our failures.

Maybe a theocracy would work, where the guidance comes from a particular chosen deity, through the interpretation of its priests...

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Mashiki]

I've always thought of innovation as thinking outside the box. Sure it's not in your genes, it's not in your upbringing and it's not in your head. But the second you have that epiphany, realizing that something you thought up can make a change. It's your first step, it might be a failure, it might be several failures, it might be thousands. But it only takes one good idea to launch you on the path.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ChatHuant]

blue collar labor in america by and large has no future. The government needs to change the economic model to start developing our children's mind from a young age

The problem goes deeper than that: it's not only blue collar workers that have no future (and not only in America). White collar workers are also being replaced by machines; the process has just started, but I believe will accelerate. Assuming scientific progress continues at more or less the current pace, I can't think of any existing job humans do now that couldn't in the future be done cheaper by a machine (at least theoretically).

There are two typical answers: one is that new technologies will replace some jobs, but create enough other jobs to compensate. However, that is not proven, and may not be the case; when a factory is automated, thousands of workers are replaced with a few dozen highly qualified engineers that command and maintain the machines. And when the machine maintenance is itself automated, the few dozen may be replaced by just a few people that can manage the whole thing. What happens to the thousands of workers that got replaced?

The second usual answer is that people can study and qualify for more technical jobs, which can not be automated. This is the solution governments usually try to push, by creating job training programs, providing student loans, and so on. While this works on the short term, I don't think it will forever: first, some people simply don't have the time/resources/innate capability to qualify for too complex jobs; as technology and science advances, more and more people will not be able to keep pace. The other issue is that even highly technical jobs will probably be automated sooner or later, as technology advances. Where then will everybody work? I think this process will sooner or later clash with the current basic society structure (in particular with the ownership and property rules), and cause radical changes. Should be interesting!

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[IANAAC]

Or how about a representative democracy, where the decisions are made by people who can judge whether their constituents' recommendations are being made from reason or reaction, and can choose to follow or reject those recommendations appropriately?

A representative democracy is something I really believe would work, if that is what we had. But we don't. We have representatives on both sides of the isle that take their orders from lobbying groups and turn deaf and dumb to their constituents. Corporate puppets, all of them.

Get rid of special interests and maybe we can get to what this country was supposed to be. Notice I didn't say "get back to...". I have no idea what the beginnings of this country were like, but in my50 years, it's always been about the special interests.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[seven of five]

Do they have a word for "government by lobbyists?"
We have a representative democracy on paper, but when the rubber hits the road, how does congress vote on the really important matters? Most of the country wants better healthcare but congress won't vote on it. We need better gun laws but congress won't vote on it. Wall Street needs more oversight but... you get the idea.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[AftanGustur]

So, buy giving every little kid a chemistry set (and thereby sending them to Harvard) we will think ourselves out of this mess?

No. Realize that very, very few people are ever going to be 'innovators' no matter how much government money we toss at the problem. It's not in their DNA, not in the upbringing, not in their heads. We have to come up with society that lets middle of the road people live a reasonable life, not expect everyone on the block to go off to work in a lab.

Not sure how to do that, but giving more money to the Education Industrial Complex in this country so far has yielded little fruit.

China, India and the oil-rich Arab countries are spending on schools and education like there is no tomorrow.

I don't know what America's place in the world will be in the future, but I do know that it won't be what it used to be.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[couchslug]

Stupidity, not ignorance, is the problem.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[cdrguru]

If you could educate people in that way it would be really nice. This is similar to the idea of sitting down and saying "I will think brilliant thoughts today". It doesn't work.

There are some people with the brain construction to manipulate abstract symbols and the rest can't. Somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of the population can do it. This means they can do higher math, things like computer programming and pretty much anything where you are manipulating symbols instead of real objects.

The remainder of the population, which could be as high as 60%, can't do it and they cannot be trained to do it. No amount of education is going to make them be able to do it. It is like trying to get a colorblind person to recognize the color green. Their brain isn't wired that way.

What does that mean? Well, it means these people can be perfectly successful in doing plenty of things that need doing, such as most of the trades. They can work in a factory doing just about anything on the factory floor. But they cannot push figures around in a spreadsheet when the figures represent something else. As long as what they are manipulating is a concrete object or at least something they can see in front of them they can do it. Abstract symbols? Nope. If it involves moving an icon around which represents something else, they are going to have lots of trouble with it. It doesn't have anything to do with "intelligence" either, so you can't just say these people are stupid and pass them by that way.

Most educators have known this for maybe 60-70 years or so. Some of them have come out and said it but it is a dangerous thing to say in current educational circles.

What we are doing is attempting to remake society in a way that will exclude the portion of the population that can't manipulate abstract symbols. We want to remake the factory floor so it is controlled from a remote station where the user pushes around little icons. We want to have airplanes that are flown by moving little icons around from a remote location. We want everyone to be a "knowledge worker" and uses fancy 3D displays to control things in the real world. Well, we are setting ourselves up for a huge problem where as much as 60% of the population isn't going to be able to interact with things that way. There is no training, no education and no familiarization that will fix this problem. The only way to do it is to really have people interacting with real physical objects. If we do not have jobs like that, we are going to have a huge segment of the population that someone is just going to have to take care of. For their entire lives.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[flaming error]

+1 insightful.

Or how about a representative democracy, where the decisions are made by people who can judge whether their constituents' recommendations are being made from reason or reaction, and can choose to follow or reject those recommendations appropriately?

That sounds pretty good. Has anybody ever tried that one? Besides on paper?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[atriusofbricia]

Do they have a word for "government by lobbyists?"

We have a representative democracy on paper, but when the rubber hits the road, how does congress vote on the really important matters? Most of the country wants better healthcare but congress won't vote on it. We need better gun laws but congress won't vote on it. Wall Street needs more oversight but... you get the idea.

There are two possibilities... one is that we have government by lobbyists.. or two.. what you say the majority of the country wants isn't what it wants. You say most of the country wants better healthcare, but what you seem to really mean is you think most of the country wants government run health care and I'm nearly certain that isn't true. You say we need better gun laws, but who is this we you're speaking of? Anti-rights people, that would be you it seems, have been losing that battle for a long time now with no end in sight. Apparently the majority of people don't want that either.

So, is the Congress merely acting at the behest of corporations, or maybe in some cases they really are voting what their constituents want. Since they vote, and corporations don't, who would you listen to?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree innovation is not in the heads of a lot of students, but i also see a couple solutions.

If DNA gives us our IQ potential and upbringing largely determines how much of that potential we can achieve, a lot more emphasis should be put on children's upbringing and doing it correctly.

"Find a way to make Nerds/Geeks Cool". I agree as well, though i see the solution as being harder to implement. I see the problem stemming from the fact that North american media and north american social values are pushed by extroverts for extroverts.

creating the conditions to be able to "make more innovators" is realistic. In a society on the outskirts of being research/knowledge based - where the distinction between "science" and "technology" is getting blurred, i think its more important to focus on giving every child the resources and ability to be able to become innovators. imagine a future where middle of the road people live reasonable lives by working IN "labs"(Public research laboratories and institutions of higher education, government science ministries and research councils, enterprises, other private bodies, and supporting infrastructure)

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, buy giving every little kid a chemistry set (and thereby sending them to Harvard) we will think ourselves out of this mess?"

Heck, no. But if you're going to be cutting things, it doesn't make sense to cut something like education that is uniformly regarded as a way to invest in the future.

"Not sure how to do that, but giving more money to the Education Industrial Complex in this country so far has yielded little fruit."

That's just bizarre. Are you kidding? That the majority of people are literate and can do basic math doesn't count for anything economically?

If you're comparing to the Military Industrial Complex, the comparison is inappropriate given the vast difference in budgets and the economic payoff, especially in the last few years where the Military Industrial Complex accounts for a large chunk of the trillions of dollars that has sunk finances even deeper into a hole. To put it in perspective, the Dept. of Education in the US spends $60 billion a year, which is something like 10% of the Dept. of Defense budget.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[jbolden]

I doubt that. Ultimately icons on screens are worthless until you get physical stuff done. Airplanes don't fly without fuel, and without working parts. That requires guys with wrenches. The actual airplane needs to be loaded with stuff like luggage and mail and unloaded every single time. The runway needs to be cleaned and that can't be done by a computer. Etc...

We just need to bring back customer service and incentive labor in our tax laws.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[dog77]

I do not think it is as bad as you say. There are lots of jobs, around maintenance, and over watch of the systems that do not require great intelligence. Think Homer Simpson watching over the power plant, 99.99% of the time nothing happens, but when it does you need someone to report it. Look around and there are lots of these automated systems that needs someone who is not ambitious, does not need to understand the internals of their system, but just how to operate and maintain the system. In other words these are jobs that do not require courses in calculus, chemistry, or physics. Think of the Army, they use some of the most sophisticated equipment, yet the soldiers who operate them, often have no more than high school experience and a 3-9 month operator course. I do not see these types of jobs going away anytime soon.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Kenshin]

The people want what they're told to want. That's why the airwaves are full of "paid messages" from all sorts of interests.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[MisterSquid]

There are some people with the brain construction to manipulate abstract symbols and the rest can't. Somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of the population can do it.

Every person capable of speaking or understanding human language has “the brain construction to manipulate abstract symbols”.

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[inhuman_4]

We have to come up with society that lets middle of the road people live a reasonable life, not expect everyone on the block to go off to work in a lab.

I have to disagree. I think we should be trying to create a system where everyone goes off to work in a lab, or at the very least that is the end goal for most people at the start of their eduction.

We have been hearing for years that we live in the information age, the the western world is moving to a post-industrial economy. We can't go back to a middle class factory worker, we cannot compete with the masses of poor in the developing world and maintain our lifestyle. So what can we turn to? White collar, knowledge based jobs like programming, engineering, etc. But eventually the developing world will catch up with that as well, see statics about how many engineers India and China are training.

The end game is research, that is the top of the ladder and that is where we will probably end up. Research is one of those things that we can scale up because there is so much we don't know, or at least, don't know how to do well. I don't see any reason why we cannot have a much, much, larger base of scientists and research labs.

The government absolutely needs to spend more money on these things, much more. The government needs to spend much more on research because right now being a scientist doesn't pay well because there are not many jobs. So many people in the sciences end up in finance for the money. If the government would spend more on things like DARPA, NASA, etc. this would increase the number of jobs and draw more people to the sciences. Remember we used to do those things. When was the last time a national laboratory was founded? When was the last time the government created a research university? How about a well funded DARPA-esque thing for the FDA, EPA, FCC?

Sure it is expensive, and yes the payoffs are hard to gauge, but look at the track record. How much return on investment have we gotten out of DARPA, NASA, MIT&Standford (got lots of grants for WWII research), and the national laboratories? I believe that if the governments of the western world would make a fundamental shift to a information/knowledge/research based economy we would be much better off.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absurd. Look up naturalistic fallacy.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ultranova]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to disband public education as we know it, and replace it with something that produces competition to the government class.

"Something" is a bit vague. Care to provide a bit more details about what you had in mind before we do any dismantling?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

politicos do not understand science.

Perhaps we need more technocrats in politics in positions to make decisions. Just having them as advisers doesn't mean much if they're summarily ignored.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ColdWetDog]

Your are missing my point. Research, real research, is done by intelligent, motivated people with appropriate background and training. While we could be doing a better job of figuring out who that small percentage of the population is and supporting them correctly it cannot be done by everyone.

Remember, 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. I'm sorry you swallowed the nonsense about the 'information economy' but that is complete and utter bullshit. Information is part of an economy. In no way shape or form is it the majority. Again, we have to wed ourselves of this bizarre concept that everyone is above average, everyone can (and wants) to do white collar work. We need a society where you CAN be a tradesman and support a family. Or even a farm worker.

Like I said, I'm not exactly sure how to do that, but you need to frame the question appropriately before you can answer it. We all can't be bloggers and art directors.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Rich0]

Your argument assumes that most kids are capable of working in a lab, if only they were properly educated. That seems as likely to me as suggesting that if only I had spent more time working on my foul shots in school I'd be in the NBA.

Consider as an example somebody who is mentally retarded and can't tie their own shoelaces, and who has a physical disability and cannot lift ten pounds. Such a person clearly will never be a productive member of society (productive in the sense of being able to produce goods/services that can be sold and used to pay for their basic needs). Now, consider that the only difference between that guy and you is a matter of degree. If I asked you to design a working Mars lander in 15 minutes or to lift a 400 ton concrete block, you would fail, and somewhere in-between we'd find a level where one of any arbitrary pair of persons could perform and the other could not.

Now, I'm sure that if I practiced my foul shots I could probably improve a fair bit. However, I believe that most people are going to operate within a general range of ability. When I was in school I rarely spent time studying either science or math and yet I was easily a top performer in both, compared to many who worked very hard. Now, when I do spend effort I do better still, but the bottom line is that abilities are largely what you are born with, and only to a small degree what you've worked to achieve.

As society progresses and automates, the bar gets set higher and higher. That means that a larger and larger percentage of society will serve no productive purpose. Now, either we adopt fascism and just eliminate the people we don't depend on economically, or we need to change the way society works so that there is incentive to be productive, without the penalty for being non-productive being too great.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[cyber-vandal]

Prickocracy?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[kikito]

Robots, man.

We replace politicians with robots.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[sonicmerlin]

That is an unfortunate reality that Bill Gates realized.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[atriusofbricia]

The people want what they're told to want. That's why the airwaves are full of "paid messages" from all sorts of interests.

Yeah, no one can think for themselves at all, right?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[dkf]

Yeah, no one can think for themselves at all, right?

Some people surely can, but that doesn't mean that you are one of them. Dismissing other people's thoughts and desires as the bleating of sheeple is not a good thing at all, as it is a very short step from there to not treating them like people at all. Instead, the right thing to do is to consider whether what you think they should want is actually a good thing for them to want after all. (Unless you're going to high-handedly get rid of all Reality TV, in which case I'm all for it!)

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[AK Marc]

Not sure how to do that, but giving more money to the Education Industrial Complex in this country so far has yielded little fruit.

The money dedicated to educating children in a classroom isn't large. It isn't growing. What we have is liberals like Bush pushing NCLB and other socialist programs that require billions of dollars in administration and overhead. And, since NCLB is an unfunded mandate, the only place to get the compliance costs paid for was to increase local tax or decrease classroom expenditures. So the socialist NCLB passed by the activist Bush stole funds from children and our taxes for more administration. What we need is to eliminate admin. When you compare the cost of private care to the cost of public care, public comes in much cheaper (for classroom costs). But public education is required by law to spend billions on non-educational expenses. I like the reference to the military industrial complex, but the difference is that the private industries built that and sold it to the politicians (who gladly bought in for local jobs or bribes or whatever). But the educational version was created by socialist activist politicians like Bush and forced down our throats to the detriment of the children, not built up by private industry.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could educate people in that way...

the problem isn't that people can't be educated that way, it's that the public schools 'throw away' kids that already do...by treating 'public-school-disabilities' as
'learning disabilities' or as behavioral problems.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[AK Marc]

This is similar to the idea of sitting down and saying "I will think brilliant thoughts today". It doesn't work.

It works for me. The problem is that no one will hire me to "think brilliant thoughts" for them. So how do I get paid for thinking brilliant thoughts?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Archangel Michael]

When 95% of the population is educated in public institutions from K through 12, and the result is as he suggested, then the problem might be with Public Education. There is no "mass of educated voters" now, which seems to be his premise.

Or if that wasn't his premise, then please explain to me why he said what he said??

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Pete Venkman]

The main point of my previous comment was that our current mode of government is not ideal for teaching or understanding science. Perhaps having more experts in charge would help, but I think that maybe government isn't the answer for every problem. In the case of having more scientifically literate representation, I see the major downside of that being that the majority of the electorate are not scientifically literate themselves and would not appreciate a stance on issues that is actually based on facts. Government is emotional territory. As a scientist, I believe that I should do what I can to help future generations of scientists---not necessarily my own children either. Science works and has given us some amazing insight into our world. Even if the jobs we do in the future are not the ones we do now, I'd be willing to bet that science will play a big part in the majority of industry. I'd also be willing to bet that it won't be government that determines what jobs are taken over by "robots"( or maybe more realistically called automation.)

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused by your post (though I think I understand your main points). To pick nits, "vetting of scientific theories is somewhat scientific in terms of peer review and replication," that's science with a capital S. Suppose I come up with SOMETHING that doesn't pass muster for publication in scientific journals -- because it doesn't pass the peer review test -- but works in practice. Is it science? As you say, "nature is nature," and I totally agree. Unf, there's a *big* hole in vetting scientific theories. Which is, replication. First, you don't get published by replicating other's theories or results. Second, "peer review" (in my experience) has NOTHING to do with replication. It has to do with, usually two or three reviewers, reading your submission and deciding, based on what you wrote and the references you cited, if your work is "publishable science." Bottom line, my point is that peer review does not require replication.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Pete Venkman]

Yes, that part contains an error, the second scientific in that quote should be "democratic". One part of peer review should be and usually is answering the question of whether your methods are explained such that your experiment can be reproduced.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[atriusofbricia]

Yeah, no one can think for themselves at all, right?

Some people surely can, but that doesn't mean that you are one of them. Dismissing other people's thoughts and desires as the bleating of sheeple is not a good thing at all, as it is a very short step from there to not treating them like people at all. Instead, the right thing to do is to consider whether what you think they should want is actually a good thing for them to want after all. (Unless you're going to high-handedly get rid of all Reality TV, in which case I'm all for it!)

Wow, where did you get all of that? People can want whatever they like and that's fine. The person that prompted the line was implying that the Congress was voting a particular way on particular issues ignoring what the people at large wanted. The absence of large scale protests, or in some cases large scale protests against those ideals, when those ideals go down in flames is a fair indication I'm correct, no?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an except out of an Asimov novel. How did they fix it there? Money mostly became worthless, and everyone had all they needed.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[drsmithy]

I doubt that. Ultimately icons on screens are worthless until you get physical stuff done. Airplanes don't fly without fuel, and without working parts. That requires guys with wrenches.

Aircraft are assembled on robotic production lines, why can't they be maintained on them ?

The actual airplane needs to be loaded with stuff like luggage and mail and unloaded every single time.

It's a struggle to see why a few robotic arms and some conveyor belts can't do this.

The runway needs to be cleaned and that can't be done by a computer. Etc...

If a robot can navigate my living room and vacuum my floor, it can certainly clean a runway.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[batouzo]

How about Agorism? You have 50-100% more money [buying power] then now, and you must yourself (with friends, family, neighbours etc) organise all things that government do, like - looking for teenagers sharing mp3 online and arrest the criminals (or not do it - your choice) - grope little children while wearing a blue outfit (unless you decide to let go of the TSA bullshit) - firefighters (hire any of many companies / buy insurance) - security (hire any of many companies / buy insurance) - water supply (buy from a company) btw. discussing on slashdot is quite hard for me with this innovative D2 forum... if anyone would like to talk more then my JID is batouzo@jabber.org

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[batouzo]

But can anyone be a developer? Writing good, organized, structured code? Doubt it.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[blahplusplus]

"What the hell are you talking about?"

See here, you suffer from the enlightenment's false view of reason.

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming that you can get ride of any lobbyist, who may not vote in the election, but knows how to bribe and who will accept it and write the laws to help them richer. As long as every one of us do not go to the voting booth and elect whom we want, forget about simple minded citizens doing that for the country. How are you going to get ride of special interests if you and your friends do not vote at all but shout slogans to remove the special interests. Do something now.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

"If we do not have jobs like that, we are going to have a huge segment of the population that someone is just going to have to take care of. For their entire lives."

Or we can create armies, tell them someone is attacking their god and let them kill each other.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[tftp]

or to lift a 400 ton concrete block, you would fail

That's trivial. Dig a trench around the concrete block all the way to the bottom of it and fill it with mercury. The concrete block will float, just as you requested.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[tftp]

Where then will everybody work?

The traditional answer to that is also simple. If there is a fully automated factory that produces food out of thin air then why would you charge money for the food?

This of course bypasses the question of the initial investment, but that can be sorted out with minimal cost of products that zeroes out once the investment is recouped.

But this, in turn, presupposes that the investors are willing to walk away from their factory that is now making them money. On the other hand, if the society doesn't have money to pay for the product then the price can't be very high either.

All in all, most scenarios for the future Utopia need a new man who is not selfish, mean, power-grabbing, wanting to own the world and like that. Because the today's man is all that, especially about taking over the world.

In my personal view we are already getting there. Massive unemployment and permanent lack of employability of a good part of population (felons, ghetto dwellers, older people, younger people, lower IQ people) leads to formation of a large class of permanently unemployed who are doomed to live on government handouts in ever-expanding slums. The scale of this will only increase because no mechanisms are in place to combat it. Nobody even talks about it, except on Slashdot and in SciFi. However this is the path of lowest energy, so it will be unavoidably taken. More and more people will be cast aside as useless. The current system physically doesn't have any use for them, and the minimum salary laws are making it even worse. These laws say that if you can't make your employer more than $20 (or something) per hour he must not hire you. So a one-legged man who is only capable of mowing one lawn per day can't be legally employed.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[tftp]

The problem is that no one will hire me to "think brilliant thoughts" for them. So how do I get paid for thinking brilliant thoughts?

You open your own company, of course.

You could have arrived at this brilliant thought yourself. Why haven't you? Perhaps your luminance meter requires calibration?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[jbolden]

Aircraft are assembled on robotic production lines, why can't they be maintained on them ?

1) There is a much larger variety of aircraft in an airport than in an assembly line.
2) Assembly is a much easier problem than repair and maintenance. Computers suck at detection of irregularity so far.
3) There is a time factor. Maintenance crews hit the plane as soon as it lands. You would have to have everyone disembark and then move the plane to an assembly then move it back into position and then have it load. The goal is basically to keep expensive aircraft in the air as much as possible.

If a robot can navigate my living room and vacuum my floor, it can certainly clean a runway.

That robot isn't having to deal with complexity. Where there is a problem it just fails.

It's a struggle to see why a few robotic arms and some conveyor belts can't do this.

Because we don't know how to make an arm that can handle irregular sized items effectively. Plus there needs to be a truck you don't want to be driving large conveyor belts all over an airport or you have even more stuff to maintain.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

The remainder of the population, which could be as high as 60%, can't do it and they cannot be trained to do it. No amount of education is going to make them be able to do it. It is like trying to get a colorblind person to recognize the color green. Their brain isn't wired that way.

Citation needed

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[SnowZero]

The money dedicated to educating children in a classroom isn't large. It isn't growing.

The data doesn't support your statement:
    http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html
(1) We spend more than most other developed nations, and way more than some countries getting better results.
(2) Since the 1960s the amount spent per student has tripled.

There are indeed many problems to solve in the US Education system. Insufficient total money spent on education is not one of them.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[azgard]

A direct democracy, swayed easily by the latest celebrity gossip and completely ignoring the general consensus of the relevant scientific communities?

Is it? Empirically, if anything, direct democracies are actually more conservative than representative democracies. You know, politicians tend to give money to their friends in business, but from time to time this actually produces useful results. I am a big fan of direct democracy, and the conservativism of general population is the biggest problem.

But maybe you were just swayed by the gossip, ignoring the evidence (i.e. Switzerland).

Anyway, your argument is also morally wrong. Would you argue that if I invite an expert to my home (for example an architect), I have to obey his suggestions? Or can I decide that myself? If the latter, why shouldn't the general public have this freedom? (But again, don't worry. People in democracy actually listen to the experts too much, that's part of the reason why we have economic crisis...)

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[f()rK()_Bomb]

An example would be the drop out rates in computer science and Engineering courses. Which actually match the 40% -60% figure. I have just started college as a mature student and I'm amazed at how many people struggle to grasp concepts like passing around arguments or functions, And maths symbols scare the shit out of half the class. I have witnessed people get up and leave the room when a complex slide of symbols appeared. Things that have made sense to me for aslong as I can remember are totally incomprehensible abstractions to a lot of them. An abstract concept like a function in maths is very hard for most people to learn, I've spent ages teaching classmates yet it's the most natural thing in the world to me.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[randyleepublic]

Um, my sig has a suggestion...

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way do those two statements stand in contradiction?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[DarenN]

We can only hope that's how it goes. Our societies have not caught up with *CURRENT* technologies, never mind the technologies of the future, and believe it or not cheap computing is only going to accelerate techonological progress. There are various ways this could go in the long run - some good, some extinction level - but the long and the short of it is that we are going to hit some serious social upheaval. Think of what happened during the industrial revolution, but magnified. This will be difficult and messy. Are we going to end up with a Federation style society, or a Judge Dredd style?!

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[rocker_wannabe]

I would agree with you except for one thing. Automated production, at the moment, is only viable for mass production and if jobs disappear because of automation then automation becomes less and less viable because the consumer market for its product gets smaller and smaller. If the trend continues where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people then the whole manufacturing paradigm gets turned on its head. We'll be back to building pyramids for the pharaohs where millions of people will be employed building custom projects for the rich. With virtually no middle-class anywhere there will be few options for many people except to take whatever "slave wage" job comes around. All sorts of possibilities open up when you have a large pool of cheap labor and no one who can stop you.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[icebrain]

Aircraft are assembled on robotic production lines, why can't they be maintained on them ?

Actually, they mostly aren't. Aircraft construction is still a highly-manual business. Part of that is because aircraft don't lend themselves well to automated methods, and part of it is because the low production figures don't justify the expense of an automated line. There's also the issue of quality control and certification standards; every single part has to be manually inspected.

If you're making tens of thousands of a given model car every year, you can justify an automated line. It doesn't work for aviation where your total lifetime production run might only be one or two thousand units over thirty years. There's also more variation in aircraft and design changes are much more frequent. It's just cheaper to pay people to build them than to try and make huge investments in automating the entire process.

It's a struggle to see why a few robotic arms and some conveyor belts can't do this.

Too many different airplane types, too many varying circumstances, and not enough economy of scale. It's not done because, once again, it's simply cheaper to pay people to do it.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[rwv]

Every form of government is broken by the simple fact that there are humans involved.

Clearly, then, a robot government of number crunching automatons with laser eyes and pincher hands will be the most worthy leaders.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize you just said that most of the US population is made up of really smart monkeys, right? You can't seriously believe that 60% of the population can't grasp abstractions, can you? Two year olds can grasp abstractions, friend. Chimps, and crows, and honey bees can grasp abstractions.

You, friend, are a moron.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha this is the dumbest thing I've ever read. What will we do with these Untouchables that can't be taught to program because their brains aren't cool as hell like our superior programmer brains?

Let me guess: home schooled?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[AK Marc]

"expenses per student" isn't "classroom funding."

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[AK Marc]

No, it's an issue of risk. I'm not sufficiently risk tolerant for that plan. It not an issue of brilliance

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Shotgun]

Being willing to take that first step and accept that failure might be an outcome...That is something that is in your genes, your upbringing and your head.

I've met exceedingly intelligent people that do not have the balls to step out on an idea. They don't trust their intelligence or analysis of the situation. They'll never invent anything. Well, they might, but they will never make anything of it.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Sarten-X]

Ah, Switzerland... The population of New York City, spread across the area of Maryland, where social stratification is hidden by a stigma against looking too rich or looking too poor.

You're missing the other observed evidence of a direct democracy: ancient Athens, where playwrights swayed politics more easily than politicians did.

You're also assuming a requirement of absolute morality, where whatever you want is morally right. In your example, it depends entirely upon what expert visited your home and what your actions are in response to their suggestions are. If an interior decorator came and suggested you change the color scheme of your kitchen, you are certainly free to do so or not, as you like. If the expert is a serial killer suggesting good ways to torture victims, I don't believe you should be allowed to follow his suggestions.

At the level of the United States government, every decision affects millions of people. The simple choice to reject an expert's opinion in favor of a celebrity's (for instance) has consequences far more serious than the color of your dishes. Yes, the expert opinions are wrong on occasion, but I believe that happens less often than the naive and easily-swayed opinions of the ruling mob.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Shotgun]

The open secret, though, is that EVERY interest is special...except our own, of course.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but YOU are a special interest. Everyone want's to "eliminate the special interests," but everyone is blind to the fact that their interests should be as quickly eliminated.

Frankly, I think I would like to see an end to how we do elections. Remove "First Past The Post" for the representatives, elect them state-wide using STV instead. Also assign electoral collage votes the same way.

I would probably keep Senators the same, I'm not sure STV makes sense for them.

Of course this will never happen, but I can dream, right?

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Missing.Matter]

The same thing that happened to people who made horse whips and carriages after the automobile was invented. That is, while yes old jobs were destroyed, more new jobs were created because of technological advances.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ChatHuant]

In my personal view we are already getting there. Massive unemployment and permanent lack of employability of a good part of population (felons, ghetto dwellers, older people, younger people, lower IQ people) leads to formation of a large class of permanently unemployed who are doomed to live on government handouts in ever-expanding slums. The scale of this will only increase because no mechanisms are in place to combat it.

Yup, I think you're absolutely right there. The problem should be recognised and handled somehow. Maybe everybody who is a citizen should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living (however we define this); if he has the will and capability, he can get money by working, and he can improve on his guaranteed minimum. This will keep competition alive, allow extraordinary people to succeed and also take care of the unemployables. As productivity grows, the number of people working will shrink, and the minimum standard of living will improve - for readers familiar with Banks's Culture books, that may be a path leading our society in this direction.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, some genius will probably build an App to manipulate those 60% using little icons! /humor

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[tftp]

I don't really know what the solution might be, but I'm sure it is not easy.

Maybe everybody who is a citizen should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living (however we define this)

Guaranteed out of what pot of money? Right now the government has to heavily tax those who work to pay those who don't work, for one reason or another. Handouts can't stop (there is a talk about that right now in Congress) because that would result in massive riots.

But if handouts can't stop then why would any worker be concerned about working? He could just relax, let it go, and live on public assistance.

But then the government can step in and force all able-bodied people to work - and it would have to find work for them. That would be the Soviet model, where make-work was freely available to anyone who asked. In most cases the worker would be paid for simply showing up. In the end this society devolves, and the last days of USSR demonstrated how exactly that happens.

Your plan depends on several miracles that haven't been observed in human psyche so far (or at least in reasonable quantities and over a reasonable period of time.) The worst of those required miracles is the requirement that 7 billion of idle pairs of hands will focus on culture or science. Just think of that. All scenarios of the future demand rise of the new man; he doesn't need to be super smart, but he has to be super honest.

If we don't have that "new man" - and Soviet Union tried hard to breed one, and failed - then all that we get is a world-wide ghetto. Perhaps that wouldn't be a physical ghetto, with burned out houses and gunfire in the streets, but it will be pretty close to that. Robots won't be able to repair houses fast enough because bored yoots will be forming gangs and terrorizing everyone just for fun, just because they wouldn't be able to find any other purpose in their lives. Don't forget that violence and tribal instincts are indeed instincts - something that is coded in our genes. Ghettos of today are just poorer; but gangs are formed not because their members want to eat; quite the opposite - gang members are well fed and bored. They are also powered by another instinct - the instinct to dominate over others. Can you imagine a gang leader among Star Trek characters, outside of games inside the Holodeck? But there has to be one or one million; if not among the elite crew then among the population of planets. Taking that out of man will require genetic engineering that would far exceed the effort that led to Eugenics Wars and probably would break the spirit of humans.

I don't claim any discoveries here, of course. This is one of several scenarios that are shown in SciFi literature. The problem is not only that humans need to work in order to eat, they also need to work to remain sane. Today very few people on the planet don't need to work, and even they invent things for themselves to do. But in the future it would be harder to find something to do outside of culture - and even the culture will degrade because too much of it is based in labor. If you look into The City and the Stars you will see that in order to keep the inhabitants of Diaspar docile they were all altered, including the protagonist and the Jester. No normal human (as we know them today) can survive in a society where he has absolutely nothing productive to do.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ChatHuant]

Maybe everybody who is a citizen should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living (however we define this)

Guaranteed out of what pot of money? Right now the government has to heavily tax those who work to pay those who don't work, for one reason or another.

There are a number of processes that interact here: on one hand, productivity increases, so the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of living decreases. On the other hand, the number of people who can work decreases - as we already established - so the tax burden per working stiff increases. On the gripping hand, given the current society structure, the results of the increased productivity mostly lead to increasing the income inequality; indeed, despite an amazing growth in productivity, the real average income of American households has stagnated over the last few decennia (another factor there being globalization, who pushes towards the equalization of incomes over the participating markets).

The challenge facing us is to find a way to harmonize those processes, and do so without extreme social upheavals. Of course, following their good tradition, no politician has the courage or vision to mention any of those things.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[tftp]

It could be indeed a very good discussion on how to get there. Unfortunately it can't be done on a 5-minute time scale that Slashdot comments afford. Besides, I have to go back to my WPF chores in a moment.

I hope that indeed governments at some point realize that The Ostrich Solution doesn't work. But, as you say, all the history of humankind argues against that. It's hard to repair a multi-billion civilization; it's much easier to carve out small "safe" enclaves, gated communities on steroids, on islands, with their own armies, and just keep living like that. This preserves the power over others, and every ruler just loves that. Everyone else will have to fend for themselves.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ChatHuant]

That is, while yes old jobs were destroyed, more new jobs were created because of technological advances.

Yes, that's one of the standard answers; I don't think this will be the case this time (or at least in the longer run). Automation is becoming good enough to fill any jobs normally handled by humans, so the newly created jobs will just go to other machines.

Consider physical work: centuries ago, somebody could earn a living using his physical strength - he could be a porter or a runner. With the invention and development of more powerful machines those jobs have mostly disappeared. You could argue that the industrial revolution has created lots more jobs, where humans could use their mental capabilities - they designed, maintained and operated those machines, and that's true. The computer revolution is challenging the human's mental strengths: already, computers have taken over lots of areas previously not accessible to machines, and the process continues. The sad reality is that we're running out of things humans can do and machines can't. Soon the human base model will simply not be good enough anymore.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ChatHuant]

1) There is a much larger variety of aircraft in an airport than in an assembly line.

Which is where a robot rules: just download the appropriate manual from the cloud and it's a highly trained mechanic for your particular model (download the log, and it also has all the repair history for that particular plane at it's fingertips, as it were)
 
 

Assembly is a much easier problem than repair and maintenance. Computers suck at detection of irregularity so far.

True so far, but they will surely get better. Not to mention that they can use a wide variety of sensors and interface directly with the plane's systems to track changes in real time, or almost.
 
 

There is a time factor. Maintenance crews hit the plane as soon as it lands. You would have to have everyone disembark and then move the plane to an assembly then move it back into position and then have it load.

True, so I'll note that robots can be moved close to the tarmac, and made small enough to fit through existing spaces, which avoids the need for disassembly, or for human accessible areas. Heck, they can do some maintenance operations while flying, why not? I can see for example robots crawling the outside of the plane and scraping ice off (of course, some mechanism needs to be designed to keep them on the plane at those speeds).

That robot isn't having to deal with complexity. Where there is a problem it just fails.

The robot doesn't have to be fully autonomous, you know: when a robot fails, it can transfer control to a highly trained operator that takes the robot over the bump and then lets it go back to standard operation. This way, a single engineer can oversee manintenance over lots of planes, replacing lots of human mechanics.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[RocketRabbit]

I hate to say it, but the placement of the Fukushima reactor, and its lack of ongoing maintenance, the overloading of spent fuel rods, etc, were all done by or approved by scientists.

Science is not some magic religion that will same us all, and it can and has been subverted many times in the past, to present a political fiction.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Missing.Matter]

or at least in the longer run

The long looong loooooooonger run. A society where machines do 100% of the work is more of a philosophical exercise than practical matter; such a future is so far out its utterly silly to worry about such things seriously. Until then, robots will create jobs for people like me (robotics engineer) who will make the machines simple enough and push jobs down to less skilled individuals (robotics technician) and eventually you'll be able to take your robot to your friendly neighborhood corner robotics mechanic for repair.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[ARF2F2E]

No. Most people don't actively protest. Look how long it took for the protests in the Mid-East. No, too many people think the system isn't bad enough for them to skip work, not take care of their families, etc in order to take to the streets. To assume that it is working when they vote the way you want, but not when they don't, is the wrong assumption. Why couldn't it just be that sometimes you agree with the lobbyists and Congress always follows their lead? That could mean that your assumptions may make you part of the problem, if there is one.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[azgard]

Ah, Switzerland... The population of New York City, spread across the area of Maryland, where social stratification is hidden by a stigma against looking too rich or looking too poor.

Doesn't sound much different from U.S. Anyway, I think there is evidence that small countries are more business friendly, because their only chance to be successful is to attract trade (or finance). Larger countries can't rely entirely on that, because they have too large population to be supported only by trade. So successful smaller countries generally do have lower taxes than successful large countries.

You're missing the other observed evidence of a direct democracy: ancient Athens, where playwrights swayed politics more easily than politicians did.

Comparing anything ancient to today is not meaningful. Even though this is commonly said, it should also be said the system that ancient Athens had was way superior to anything else of that era. Also, if someone needs to resort to manipulation, that's already a victory. To manipulate masses is always more expensive than having direct control (by force) over them. Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's because you never lived in totalitarian regime. I also take offense when someone talks about "ruling mob", completely ignoring the real problem, i.e. those who actually do the manipulation. They are the problem, not the people! You can manipulate almost anyone, high IQ or not, any magician can attest to that.

You're also assuming a requirement of absolute morality, where whatever you want is morally right. In your example, it depends entirely upon what expert visited your home and what your actions are in response to their suggestions are. If an interior decorator came and suggested you change the color scheme of your kitchen, you are certainly free to do so or not, as you like. If the expert is a serial killer suggesting good ways to torture victims, I don't believe you should be allowed to follow his suggestions.

No, that's wrong. I only assume there are subjective morals and the democracy is a good way to agree on common morality. It's you who imposes absolute morality onto others in saying that other people should not be allowed to listen to serial killers.

At the level of the United States government, every decision affects millions of people. The simple choice to reject an expert's opinion in favor of a celebrity's (for instance) has consequences far more serious than the color of your dishes. Yes, the expert opinions are wrong on occasion, but I believe that happens less often than the naive and easily-swayed opinions of the ruling mob.

Well, what evidence do you have, apart from "I believe"? There is for example a study from CATO institute that statistically shows that people are more able to limit politicians' spending that politicians do themselves. Similar studies have been done in Switzerland on cantonal level and confirm this finding. It's not a coincidence that the most successful countries in the world are usually also the most democratic (i.e. USA on local level and Switzerland).

I think you miss the point of (semi)direct democracy. The point is more power to the people who can keep politicians in democratic countries in check. In Switzerland, you can observe this directly - because people can decide things, politics is much less controversial. And as I said, if anything, there is evidence that the masses are actually more conservative than politicians.

And at last, there exist interesting proposals to solve the "expert" problem. My favorite is that you select a handful of people from population randomly (k

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Rich0]

Using a winch would probably be a lot more practical and less likely to upset the EPA. However, either approach completely misses the point. People are all finite in their capabilities, both physical and mental, and some are more limited than others. As you raise the bar people start getting excluded, and you need to figure out what to do with them.

The average slashdotter is probably still well above the bar, but the average person is probably close to the edge if not below it.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Pete Venkman]

Perhaps, but it is politicians and a misinformed public that believe that we should get rid of nuclear power altogether because of a couple of fuckups. A more scientific way to react would be to figure out what went wrong and institute steps to prevent the same failures. Science is not a religion, because there is actually proof in science as opposed to faith.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[jbolden]

Which is where a robot rules: just download the appropriate manual from the cloud and it's a highly trained mechanic for your particular model (download the log, and it also has all the repair history for that particular plane at it's fingertips, as it were)

Humans are still much more general purpose than robots even with infinite knowledge. That may change but so far we are better constructed for things like different size repairs.

True so far, but they will surely get better. Not to mention that they can use a wide variety of sensors and interface directly with the plane's systems to track changes in real time, or almost.

I worked on that system for satellites (where you aren't going to be fixing it manually ever). Trust me, the best possible automated systems suck. You still want a mechanic if you get one. 20-30 years...

Heck, they can do some maintenance operations while flying, why not? I can see for example robots crawling the outside of the plane and scraping ice off (of course, some mechanism needs to be designed to keep them on the plane at those speeds).

That's a good idea. I'm not sure we know how to make airfoils to offer that sort of support but I'd imagine a high friction paint....

The robot doesn't have to be fully autonomous, you know: when a robot fails, it can transfer control to a highly trained operator that takes the robot over the bump and then lets it go back to standard operation. This way, a single engineer can oversee manintenance over lots of planes, replacing lots of human mechanics.

Now that's scary. I can see that setup working.

Re:Robots will replace blue collar labor

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. There's nonsense, and then there's this. I would LOVE to see some actual cites for this one - up there with we only use 10% of our brains.

I think it's infinitely more likely that the ability to deal with complex levels of abstraction is normally distributed. It is CERTAINLY not a binary trait. Even the dumbest people are capable of some form of symbol manipulation. If you lacked this ability completely, you couldn't understand caricatures or cartoons or read or do simple math or even play monopoly (the car is an abstract representation of you in the game). The notion that 40-60% of people naturally and completely lack the ability to do this is without any basis in psychology or neuroscience. Abstracting the physical world is pretty much what the cortex does, and just about all humans have one.

And the topper is that this supposed binary capability to manipulate symbolics representations has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence without abstraction = meaningless.

Where do people get this stuff from? Not from reading the relevant science, that's for sure.

Has Slashdot ...

[BlindRobin]

started asking rhetorical questions just to start a discussion ?

Re:Has Slashdot ...

[ColdWetDog]

Perhaps.

Discuss.

Re:Has Slashdot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Slashdot shouldn't be posting this nontechnical fear mongering crap.

Re:Has Slashdot ...

[obarel]

Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?

Joking, joking...

Re:Has Slashdot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think rhetorical questions are important?

Re:Has Slashdot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and I find it quite annoying. I prefer someone taking a certain viewpoint and discussing the merits versus open-ended questions.

Re:Has Slashdot ...

[rapidreload]

Slashdot is just following the media's lead (particularly FOX News), where for a headline it poses a question rather of a fact or accusation. That way, controversy can be manufactured by stating something controversial in question form (regardless of whether it's actually true or not), and if it's complete rubbish the media is let off the hook because they never actually stated it to be a fact.

To be honest I agree with the assessment that the US is losing its innovative edge; I just don't like the phrasing.

American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenuity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is very ingenious about US itself - other than that the brightest come here. Most Americans are basically the 99.9% - the non-innovators. The 1% comes from all over the world.

For the past 50 yrs, US had the money - and the know how to cultivate innovation. Now both of these are well known to a lot of countries - and the US now has less money to spend on Defence & Space (the primary source of innovation).

Time we got used to making $30K for web development jobs, and time the anthropology, english & history majors.. end up flipping burgers.

She's got it backwards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ingenuity and innovation thrive in adverse times as people are forced to adapt to changing circumstances. They're stifled when there's scads of money floating around and people aren't forced to make due.

Higher Ed costs have soared due to government subsidies on both sides - grants to schools and grants to students. Why not? It's essentially free money. The net result is costs have gotten out of whack.

Given the large number of unemployed graduates with useless degrees, it's clear higher ed offerings need some pruning.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Jawnn]

Yeah, right. There's lots of "money floating around" in the U.S. right now. In other words, your argument is bullshit. Oh, to be sure, there's money out there, but the people (corporations) who have it are NOT spending it on anything, certainly not on innovation. And this despite government welfare programs aimed at the wealthy to "stimulate jobs and innovation". Try again.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[the eric conspiracy]

The stupidity of tax breaks to corps and the wealthy as job stimulus is that corps don't hire unless there is demand for their products. In a recession what you have as the prevailing economic environment is low demand and excess capacity.

In a low demand environment corps are just going to sit on the money, or use it to pay off debts or buy out other companies. No reason to hire because they already make as much as they can sell. And that is exactly what is happening now. Corporations are sitting on more cash than any other time in US history, mostly because they don't have anything productive to invest it in.

Real innovation doesn't happen at corporations for some simple reasons. It takes too long to bring a truly innovative product to market. A manager isn't likely to be in a job more than 5 years, and it takes 7+ years to bring a truly innovative product to market. Innovation is also very unpredictable. You may make a wonderful breakthrough but will your company be able to take advantage ? The research will benefit somebody but you can't predict who.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[znerk]

Don't forget the real dealbreaker for innovation: CEOs are legally required to turn a profit for stockholders. Throwing money away on unsure bets is not the best strategy for staying out of jail, should a "bet" go sour.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[DarkOx]

The stupidity of tax breaks to corps and the wealthy as job stimulus is that corps don't hire unless there is demand for their products. In a recession what you have as the prevailing economic environment is low demand and excess capacity.

BINGO!

What we should have done rather than the Economic Recovery Act would have been simple refund 100% of everyone's individual income tax on the earned portion of the their income and allow them to keep the earned income tax credit. That would have put heaps of money in the hands of the middle class and provided a nice pay day to the working poor as well.

That would have spread the money around and forced the corporations and banks to *DO* some economic activity to get hold of it. That would have created JOBS, and secured American house holds by reducing debts, might have lifted real estate prices a little, and replaced all kinds of durable goods.

By injecting the money at the top instead the bottom it just let the usual rent-seeking a-holes abuse their cozy relationships to snatch those government contracts, over charge, under deliver, pace the work slowly enough that they need not increase the size of their pay roles, and basically pocket the money.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Kohath]

"... So let's steal it from them. Then we can get the benefits of spending it without all the effort it would take to earn it."

This is clearly what you're suggesting. Why don't you just say it? Who are you trying to deceive?

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Teun]

But it's nowhere written that profit should arrive at the end of this quarter.

As a matter of fact, solid investors know 'investment' precedes any future profits.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Electricity Likes Me]

While this would be more effective then tax cuts for the rich, it really wouldn't have had all that much stimulus effect. Most of poor and middle America is presently either paying off debt or saving money in fear of losing their jobs.

A sudden minor windfall would either have just gone to paying off those debts (putting the money back in the hands of those unlikely to relend it) or into bank accounts, resulting in the same thing again.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Jawnn]

BINGO!

What we should have done rather than the Economic Recovery Act would have been simple refund 100% of everyone's individual income tax on the earned portion of the their income and allow them to keep the earned income tax credit. That would have put heaps of money in the hands of the middle class and provided a nice pay day to the working poor as well.

You mean..., giving tax breaks... to the middle class? And to the poor?! That's class warfare, you socialist.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[AK Marc]

Steal it from who? Sadly, our grossly regressive tax basis is getting worse. The rich don't earn salary, they receive gains. Tax unearned income at twice the earned rate and you'll see a massive change. "But that's punishing the rich" Nope, that's placing the burden on those who burden society. What does a destitute homeless person care who invades tomorrow. No change like that will get them a house or a job, so the prick in charge of the country won't affect them. But someone invading and nationalizing Microsoft would affect Bill Gates much more than anyone else. So *only* the rich and landowners benefit from military actions, yet don't pay for it. The real "job" of the rich is to concentrate wealth at the expense of the poor. That isn't about spending their money without having earned it, but to take according to need and give according to need. The rich need more government services, and the poor need more basic services.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Kohath]

Steal it from who?

The only ones you can steal it from: the ones that have it. Was this a rhetorical question?

Tax unearned income at twice the earned rate

To accomplish what? Some sort of hateful fantasy wish fulfillment?

...military...

The military is 20% of the Federal Budget and falling. The military is approximately 0% of state and local government budgets. The military is a tiny fraction of government overall.

[ranting deleted]

Re:She's got it backwards.

[AK Marc]

The only ones you can steal it from: the ones that have it. Was this a rhetorical question?

Ah, I thought you were conservative, in which case you steal from those who don't have it to give it to those who do have it.

To accomplish what? Some sort of hateful fantasy wish fulfillment?

To take from those who don't need it and wouldn't have made it if not for favorable treatment from the government, to pay for the government that disproportionately benefits them.

The military is 20% of the Federal Budget and falling. The military is approximately 0% of state and local government budgets. The military is a tiny fraction of government overall.

Ah, 20% is a "tiny fraction" not worth cutting. That's more what I'd expect from the "conservative" loon.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Kohath]

Ah, I thought you were conservative, in which case you steal from those who don't have it to give it to those who do have it.

See, this is more of that crazy talk. It's impossible to take a dollar from a person who doesn't have a dollar. This is clear to sane people over the age of about 5 years old. Hopefully you understand now that I've explained that.

To take from those who don't need it and wouldn't have made it if not for favorable treatment from the government, to pay for the government that disproportionately benefits them.

It would be a lot easier and more just to simply cut the "government that disproportionally benefits them". Let's do that instead. Because stealing is generally considered wrong. Even if you also hate the people you want to steal from.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[DarkOx]

You could argue that but I would shoot back that it's really a tax break for every individual with a job. The very wealthy would be getting a refund as wellhid they have any salary, but the Buffets of the world get most of there income classified as unearned so it would be a smaller financial event in their context.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[Politburo]

Note that $240 billion of ARRA was individual tax benefits (across 2 years). In the budget showdown, part of the agreement was a cut in the employee's portion of the payroll tax, totaling $112 billion (iirc that's across 2 years). Unemployment has been extended several times, and it's something like $80 billion a year now, just on the federal level.

You can argue that more money should be put in at the bottom vs the top, and I'd probably agree.. but you can't say that it hasn't happened.

Re:She's got it backwards.

[AK Marc]

It's impossible to take a dollar from a person who doesn't have a dollar.

So "poor" to you means a person with zero cash, zero income, and zero assets. Hate to break it to you, but there are no "poor" people in the US.

Because stealing is generally considered wrong. Even if you also hate the people you want to steal from.

You talk about loony talk, yet run around talking about taxes being theft. You might as well yell that my breathing is depriving you of oxygen. The rational discussion is to talk about expenses and income and work on evening the two. Instead, you indicate that all taxes are theft, and eliminating government income will balance the budget. "Trickle down" or something? The reason you try to loony-ize everyone is that you realize you have long since gone insane and you want to make everyone else look as idiotic as you do you are "normal" by comparison. Oops, didn't work. Try again.

Ingenuity != Jobs

[msobkow]

"Don't just create ideas, also make products here," she [Hockfield] said. "Buying back technologies that we invented changed our surplus into deficit. We need to have a substantial fraction of technologies that are made in America."

Right now the US and Canadian economies are not focused on producing anything with the new ideas that come out. The startups get bought out by the existing big companies if they have any hope of success, who immediately commoditize technology and ship it overseas for manufacturing.

If you want to create jobs, do something about the whole concept of outsourcing. The richest nations on the planet will always find it cheaper to outsource and offshore, because they're also the most expensive labour markets. Until the inevitable collapse happens when there isn't the money being earned to pay for the shiny new gadgets.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[countvlad]

If you want to create jobs, do something about the whole concept of outsourcing.

Or lower the cost of labor. Not everyone in this country is going to have a high paying job and high education is not for everyone. Maybe if we spent more time on lowering the cost of living in this country then lower paying jobs wouldn't be so intolerable.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Chris Mattern]

The richest nations on the planet will always find it cheaper to outsource and offshore, because they're also the most expensive labour markets.

False. The richest nations on the planet will *sometimes* find it cheaper to outsource and offshore, because they're also the most expensive labour markets. Lack of capital, lack of accessibility, lack of training, combined with the fact that often the labor costs are not a big chunk of the unit cost, can still make the rich nation the cheapest place.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you want to create jobs, do something about the whole concept of outsourcing. "

Like what? If you stop outsourcing, then you have to pay expensive Americans to make stuff, and you go out of business because that's not competitive with the other countries that had China make the same widget for 1/5th of the price.

The ONLY way forward is to compete. Right now, China is out-competing the US and Europe. Ergo, they win, we lose. There's no way to avoid it other than to also become competitive, and that takes hard work, education, and other things westerners think are too difficult.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect.

Companies are buying up anything they see as an idea (not a new one) that has the highest profit potential. I have built and designed a Android based car stereo and shopped it around to several car stereo makers, NONE of them think that someone would want a car stereo where you can add apps to it. or runs on a standard platform that has a GUI that is not a giant steaming pile of crap (for example all double din car stereos out there now, they all have a crap UI)

I have a working prototype based on existing hardware so it will be EASY to manufacture. Problem is the world of car audio is full of the "if it was not made here we dont care", one wigged out about it not having a CD player in it as an excuse to dismiss it out of hand.

Here is the other problem, I just wish someone would STEAL my idea and run with it, even a china maker. but they wont. China car stereo makers are in love with pirated Windows CE on their products. My idea is not revolutionary, someone else should have already though of it.

I have a product that every single person I have demoed it to has said without hesitation, " I want that, can I buy one?" and even with my response of it will cost $3500.00 in my single hand made quantity, they still whip out checkbooks. I just don't have the time to manufacture them. This stereo could EASILY be made for less than $800.00 in quantity and would easily sell for $1600.00. A cheap china version could be made for $400.00 if you used a crap LCD and touchscreen and underpowered the processor to only 600mhz.

So I sit here with a product that I know would sell like crazy that I cant generate any interest in outside of consumers. And I dont want to be in manufacturing.

This also mirrors experiences posted online from other inventors. If it's not a high profit (400% or more) item companies could care less. Look at the lack of innovation out there in consumer electronics. WE have nothing new compared to 4 years ago for this holiday season, just rehashes of other ideas.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[pablodiazgutierrez]

I would love to see you pitch on Shark Tank. Seriously, consider it.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[larry bagina]

kickstarter

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[vadim_t]

You first.

Also, just what kind of low cost labor are you thinking of, anyway? There's a constant push to eliminate as much of the lowest cost labor as possible. Where does your hypothetical uneducated worker go?

Well, they could go work at a warehouse. Except not for long. Now there is warehouse automation. Yes, people are still needed there, but they need much fewer people, and the people needed are completely disposable. There's zero chances for advancement. If you don't go nuts from years of picking up a package from one robot, passing it through a scanner, and placing it in another, you'll probably be out of a job in 10 years anyway, as they'll figure out how to eliminate the remaining human labor eventually.

Or they could go work at a supermarket. Which also keep reducing worker count through tech like RFID and attempts at automatic checkout systems. They'll get there eventually.

Maybe they could go work in construction. Except the tech will get there as well. You can bet that the construction companies are salivating at the prospect of having machines that print walls, and they'll get made at some point.

My point is, what you're advocating is increasing the amount of people in a segment of the population that's quickly becoming obsolete. A lot of those people will find out that they can't get a job because nobody needs a brainless drone anymore. That's not good for the economy (because unemployed people don't buy much), and not good for political stability either.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Dr_Barnowl]

If that's like "Dragon's Den" in the UK, I've seen them turn away perfectly viable products because they didn't like the attitude of the owner ; mostly because he had a environmental product and preferred it to be made by workers in his own town rather than mass-produced in China.

The next guy had a plastic block puzzle that he'd costed out for Chinese production at £2 a piece and was intending to sell retail at £15 - over 700% markup. They nearly had a fist-fight over who got to invest in his product.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Gorobei]

"Don't just create ideas, also make products here," she [Hockfield] said. "Buying back technologies that we invented changed our surplus into deficit. We need to have a substantial fraction of technologies that are made in America."

Right now the US and Canadian economies are not focused on producing anything with the new ideas that come out. The startups get bought out by the existing big companies if they have any hope of success, who immediately commoditize technology and ship it overseas for manufacturing.

The US & Canadian economies are intensely focused on producing based on new ideas: 1980 onwards was all about tech innovation. Sleepy companies got killed, we got a new tech startup culture, big companies bought little innovators (and made the little guys rich in a way only dreamed off in 1970.) AT&T would never have produced Google or Facebook.

In some ways, the massive tax changes of the 1980s were responsible for this (as well as general improvements in tech & manufacturing, of course.) Cutting top tax rates from 70%+ to 40% or so made the startup bet much more attractive. Of course, the downside of giving people a chance to be a billionaire by age 30 is that it makes the career engineer/scientist role (IBM research, AT&T labs, Xerox Parc) rather obsolete and a waste of money. So lots of innovation, but goodbye middle class.

What's sad is that by 1980 white collar folk realized blue collar jobs could be outsourced. Most of them didn't realize they were next on the chopping block. The early 1990s saw the big research career dead along with the useless middle manager role and the standard secretary role.

Goodbye middle class, at least you have an iPhone.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[caseih]

If we really are so focused on producing things with the new ideas (tech innovation and such) then where are the things we produce? the iPhone? That's designed here but made in China. Everything I've got on my desk right now is made in Malaysia, China, or Japan. What we are producing here leads to real goods but it sure isn't us making the real goods. Maybe you would argue this doesn't matter, but I think it does. What good are new ideas and innovations if we eventually lose the skills and technologies to put them into practice?

On the other hand, there still are industries (agriculture comes to mind) where we are not only innovating but actually producing real products too. Most of the large machines I see on farms in North America are made right here in North America, and exported around the world. It's one of the few areas left where North America actually exports and parts of the world depend on their products.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[symbolset]

Kickstarter looked like a good idea. But then there was this project that seemed grand, "Musopen": record classical music for the public domain. There was an article here on Slashdot about it. They raised $68,359 - way over the original $11,000 goal, over a year ago.

And nothing has been recorded yet.

Kickstarter projects lack accountability.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Gorobei]

If we really are so focused on producing things with the new ideas (tech innovation and such) then where are the things we produce? the iPhone? That's designed here but made in China. Everything I've got on my desk right now is made in Malaysia, China, or Japan. What we are producing here leads to real goods but it sure isn't us making the real goods. Maybe you would argue this doesn't matter, but I think it does.

I would argue that it matters a lot. We are driving innovation (and that leads to a lot of millionaires in the USA,) but killing the US middle class (the line-workers.) I worry this is not a good outcome for our society.

What good are new ideas and innovations if we eventually lose the skills and technologies to put them into practice?

On the other hand, there still are industries (agriculture comes to mind) where we are not only innovating but actually producing real products too. Most of the large machines I see on farms in North America are made right here in North America, and exported around the world. It's one of the few areas left where North America actually exports and parts of the world depend on their products.

As the USA transitioned from a largely agricultural economy to an industrial one, these same issues were raised: we lost the "farming class." We never really "lost" the skills and tech though: we just commoditized them.

We could rebuild a manufacturing empire (with $20K/year jobs,) but a $30K/year dog-walker is just a better job given that almost anyone in the world can solder while my dog-walker needs to live nearby.

The economy is only going to get weirder, and I fear we will not like what it becomes.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[0123456]

As the USA transitioned from a largely agricultural economy to an industrial one, these same issues were raised: we lost the "farming class." We never really "lost" the skills and tech though: we just commoditized them.

We could rebuild a manufacturing empire (with $20K/year jobs,) but a $30K/year dog-walker is just a better job given that almost anyone in the world can solder while my dog-walker needs to live nearby.

In ten years your dog-walker will be a robot driven by someone earning $2 an hour in Butfukistan.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[cdrguru]

There are two problems with consumer electronics. First of all, it is an extremely competitive market where if you aren't directly competing with the others in your market you are left behind. There isn't room for most consumer electronics companies to bring a brand-new, untested, product to market on their own. If it flops it could kill off the company. Yes, the margins in that business are that thin.

The second problem is that no matter how cheaply you think you could make something, the folks really building this stuff will be forced to make it cheaper. If you think it could be made for $800 and sold for $1600 then likely as not it would actually be made for $100 and sold for $2000. Of course, the manufacturer would only get maybe $200 for the unit, if that. Of course we are talking about it being dumbed down in hardware and having huge requirements in the software to make up for whatever the hardware lacks. But that is how mass market consumer electronics works. Today we have DVD players selling for $40 which cost $5 to manufacture. All through the sales channel everyone is taking their cut and the retailer is lucky to get 10% of the selling price. But if you aren't feeding the channel, you simply have no sales - nobody is going to work for free.

Look at other examples in the consumer electronics world. This does not include fancy phones and computers today because they aren't really mass-market items. Look at stuff that Walmart sells. Check out the TV they are sellilng for $600 - it is probably not costing the manufacturer more than about $60 to make it. Maybe not even $30.

So the problem is if it can't be made for $100 it is simply going to drive the price to the end user up and up. Will consumers pay that for a radio? Not most of them, so now you are in Apple territory - high cost products that are of a very specialized nature that only a few consumers will buy. Apple was able to pull it off because of their branding and a huge amount of marketing money behind the products. It paid off for them. So far, it really hasn't paid off for anyone else. And most companies are very, very risk adverse these days.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[vadim_t]

How would this accountability work, anyway?

A lot of the people on kickstarter are asking for money they will use up on manufacturing, or for living expenses while they say, write a book. Most also ask for the bare minimum because if it's not reached they don't get anything.

By the time people start complaining, there's unlikely to be anything left.

I treat Kickstarter like a high risk investment. Don't pay into it more than you can afford to lose.

Projects I contributed to in general seem to be going well.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[modmans2ndcoming]

I think you have seen the path the leads the end of western politics as we know it.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[improfane]

Accidentally modded you incorrectly. I meant to mod you insightful.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[jopsen]

Cutting top tax rates from 70%+ to 40% or so made the startup bet much more attractive

I disagree... I don't think anybody worries about top taxes when they're building a startup... Top tax rates might affect ordinary workers, who without top tax would work 60 hours a week instead of 37... But that's a matter of moving the bar for top tax up...

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

The *only* way to create jobs is to cut taxes on the job creating class. Yes, you statist fuckers, this means corporations and the rich. Government doesn't "create" anything, all it does is STEAL from those who can in order to give welfare to those who CANT.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Western nations may be the most expensive labour markets on paper, but, are they really? Adjusted for productivity I've seen numbers suggesting that your average Chinese factory worker costs about 70 cents on the US dollar for labor with an increase of 12% per year. Add in phase shift for shipping stuff around the world and back and the actual energy cost of shipment and I'm not sure it does make sense to produce overseas.

Sure, at one point the majority of East-Asia was poor enough that it did make sense to produce the cheapest of goods there. However, now those countries are trying to get into mid-range production of modestly complex goods. Over time their wages rise as a natural reflection of the immense gap between product production costs and retail value. That gap has closed enough that now what we have is not an economic model, but, entrenched business paradigms.

Let's also not forgot that China fueled most of this economic labor shifting with market manipulations. Initially, they only had to buy a little bit of US treasuries as a monetary incentive to move factories there. Nowadays they cannot sustain the levels of US treasury purchases required to maintain the status quo.

It's just a Ponzi scheme. You cannot have trade where one country hands another currency and the other hand over goods. At some point the full meaning of the word "trade" must come into effect and goods must be exchanged. Currency is just a temporary medium to aid in the planning of trade. If you time average economic activity the perceived value of the goods must equate.

The richest nations of the planet will not always find it cheaper to offshore because their model is not sustainable. America does not have infinite wealth and it must, by definition, exchange goods and services for goods and services. This hasn't been the case for more than twenty years. Worse, we've built up entire nations' production bases on the lie that we can indefinitely export cash at the rates we've been doing for all these years. We can't sustain the loss of cash any longer and the whole system is poised to implode.

Let's look at the lies pushed on the American people:
1. Education is a right (aka affordable).
We cannot afford to just push people who cannot get a factory job into college. Sorry, there's not the need for so many degreed individuals nor are many of them cut out for the work.
2. Our standard of living is sustainable and we just need to fix the problem.
The problem is that our standard of living is not sustainable. The economy since WWII was a bubble setup by the developed world being flattened, except for the US.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[jo42]

They raised $68,359 - way over the original $11,000 goal, over a year ago.

And nothing has been recorded yet.

Kickstarter projects lack accountability.

They are simply following the example that Wall Street has set -- take the money and run.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[Gorobei]

Remember that back in the late 1970s a startup was hard to do (no internet, etc.) Good engineering jobs had defined benefit pension plans, a good medical plan, maybe an expense account, etc. You had to have the shot at a lot of money in a startup to compete with that.

Some did it (Intel, Data General, etc,) but most engineers settled for a good corporate job in those days.

Re:Ingenuity != Jobs

[pablodiazgutierrez]

Sounds like the same thing. I agree with you, but that's quite representative of the VC investing environment, as far as I know from working in Silicon Valley. People invest based on personal reasons, and being rejected by anyone doesn't necessarily mean your product is not viable. On the flip side, I can see how the exposure on TV could lead to someone else picking up the idea and running with it.

You're blaming government spending cuts?

[Bacon Bits]

Look, we've spent the last 30 years sending all as many science, technical and engineering jobs overseas that we can and shutting down commercial research labs. Now you're going to argue we're going to lose our science and technology advantage because government is cutting spending? If science and technology suffer in America's future it's because bean counters gave our edge to the rest of the world in exchange for 2% profits and million dollar bonuses.

This is just MIT selfishly bitching about losing funding. If you really care about barriers to education, how about you lower your goddamn tuition, assholes?

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[znerk]

Just wanted to say, love your sig.

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.

Oops, here come the off-topic mods.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[Anonymous Coward]

MIT is need-blind. My MIT education cost less than my own state's in-state tuition would've cost.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you don't have it completely right. My perspective is: Companies want cheap labor and products delivered.

Many companies have found they need little money invested, as they use the same mechanism the government uses: put lots of money into Grad students (cheap labor) to get your advances using NDA (same way military projects limit access to foreigners and particular research).

They get a group of PhD candidates to work on projects, at the end, perhaps one of those gets to be hired.

Once in production, you don't need excessively qualified people to support the product, so you ship support to a place where basic technical jobs are way lower.

Now, is there a problem with government cutting funding? I guess so, that means that companies perhaps don't want to invest if they cannot use/link to some of those projects, so they will have to put more money, and we know these days, companies don't want to spend money where there is no instant money back.

I think you can blame anyone you want.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[timeOday]

You assert all that with no source at all?

Check the facts. Private R&D investment has been stagnant since the '60's, but government R&D investment is down by about 66%!

Yeah, top research schools charge bloated undergraduate tuition to support research. Do you think gutting non-tuition sources of support for R&D is likely to improve that situation?

Yes, MIT is selfishly arguing in its own best interests. Why should we listen? Because the institution exemplifies the qualities we need to forge a brighter future.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the conversation. I think, education, research, science, military and all the primary pillars are things the government should spend money. It's a question of HOW. If we did everything smartly we could probably have everything on the cheap.

Have you ever tried to renew your passport? the instructions are so ungainly and in text. There really needs to be a chief technological officer with an actual department for funding.

1)Rebuild all the government websites to be more html5 and user friendly.
2)Create Webapps for all government functions.
3)Take over the library system and label libraries as Federal Offices to help smooth over to the digital transition.
4)Create Logins and identities for ALL citizens.

This will be a platform api. All states will need to use the USA's API for its services. Think FACEBOOK but federal.
This way everything a citizen needs can be accessed with ONE website.

If Vouchers(giving money to citizens to decide what to do with it) is the best answer, then you have to provide the tools for citizens or else they'll choose the easiest and fastest answer. And capitalism/choice/vouchers only works when PEOPLE behave rationally.

You can then have medical vouchers, school vouchers, whatever, without all the middlemen cost.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[kharchenko]

actually, MIT forgoes tuition for students who can't afford it.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, top research schools charge bloated undergraduate tuition to support research.

You got that one totally backwards. Tuition doesn't begin to cover the cost of education at most schools, research funding closes the budget gaps at the top research schools.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[AK Marc]

If you really care about barriers to education, how about you lower your goddamn tuition [fundmasteryblog.com], assholes?

Wait, you are bitching about an organization that knows how to balance a budget and does it? I think you found the problem with the US. Fiscal responsibility is something people hate and actively lash out against.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[CtownNighrider]

That might be the worst graph I have ever seen in my life.

Re:You're blaming government spending cuts?

[rwv]

If you really care about barriers to education, how about you lower your goddamn tuition

I'm going to make a counter-argument. I'm not sure it's true, but it may be plausible.

Maybe MIT educations were undervalued in 1980 and the jump from $12,000 to $50,000 means prices are currently reflecting reality. Or maybe educational materials (i.e. the equipment that outfits each classroom and lab) got more expensive -- it shouldn't be surprising that classrooms need new equipment more often than in previous decades because of the current rate of technological innovation.

Or maybe professors are currently better paid then they used to be and/or teaching fewer students. Or maybe the actual buildings used in the 1980s were smaller and cheaper. There weren't as many students thirty years ago so expenses would have generally been lower. Or maybe there were no buildings in the 1980s because the borrowing rate of money was horrendous at around 20% (compared to the 4 or 5% it is today). If you've visited recently, MIT has added 4 or 5 fairly world-class (i.e. expensive) new buildings in the last decade.

I think in general MIT gives rather high grants to many of their students because they have a rather large endowment that's generating lots and lots of money every year. A student with a $50,000 education and $30,000 in grants every year will end up with $90,000 in debt after 4 years - this is ignoring influence from parents who generally tend to give their children thousands per year for elite educations. A lot of money, but I don't think MIT graduates are having any problems in the job market. I'd prefer to have $90k of MIT debt than $30k of UMass debt.

Though pushing the thought-experiment a little bit further, I'd rather have $10k of UMass debt than $90k of MIT debt. I'd also rather skip college altogether than be saddled with $200,000 of MIT debt. It all comes down to value proposition and every student is different. It's the job of the student to pick the value proposition that works best for him or her when deciding where to attend college.

After all - students are created equally, but some students mold themselves to be more successful than others.

Answer

[the_humeister]

No.

Next question?

Re:Answer

[Haedrian]

I disagree. I'm ticking the "Yes" box.

Re:Answer

[reboot246]

I'm undecided.

I'm ticking the . . . wait . . . where's the CowboyNeal option?

Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[Manip]

Want to know why small business is impossible in the US, three simple reasons: Patents, lawsuits, healthcare.

Patents are granted too easily, cover too much, and cover it for far too long. What's worse is that the damages are absolutely insane and companies can literally have your product banned from the entire country simply because you for example used a "menu" to "navigate a complex system" or some nonsense.

Lawsuits are too easy to bring in the US, too costly to defend, and there is no punishments for bringing frivolous suits. For small businesses one or two of these suits no matter how much merit they have can sink the company. So big businesses just sue for nothing and bankrupt small businesses.

Healthcare, too expensive, significantly more expensive for small businesses than big, and it discourages the best employees from working at smaller firms because they literally will have to pay 100% more per year for basic healthcare.

And while I have the soup box let's talk about political corruption allowing monopolies or duopolies to control the market and make it literally impossible via regulation or market manipulation for competitors to form (e.g. Cable, Internet, 3G, Cellular Services, Health Insurance, Health Providers, Drugs Producers, Children Toy Manufacturing, etc).

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[Kupfernigk]

Actually, I think that "IP" is now the number one problem. What's more, as the USA tries to expand its IP empire abroad, a backlash is inevitable.

The present system means that corporations can attempt to prevent innovation in others while not having to do anything about it themselves. It is, in effect, like the medieval guild system that is hitting the economy of Italy, or indeed like the theocratic regimes in Iran or Sa'udi Arabia. It all went wrong when the USPTO ceased to be a cost center and become a profit center, and a whole new class of "IP lawyer" saw the opportunity. Not to mention the entire economy of parts of Texas.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[DogDude]

"and it discourages the best employees from working at smaller firms because they literally will have to pay 100% more per year for basic healthcare. "

This is either hyperbole, or wrong. Health insurance is expensive, but the cost is rarely more than a few hundreds bucks a month per person, significantly less than minimum wage.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare are risks. Government regulation is a full time detriment!

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[danbeck]

Don't you mean "Soap Box"?

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[cptdondo]

This is either hyperbole, or wrong. Health insurance is expensive, but the cost is rarely more than a few hundreds bucks a month per person, significantly less than minimum wage.

Maybe your contribution.... Or maybe you're living in the past, or maybe you're 22. The employer pays well over $1K/mo per employee for insurance. I shut my business down in large part because we could no longer afford health insurance, and thus could not compete with the big outfits for talent.

We were paying roughly $14k/year for catastrophic care - no doctor visits, no well-baby care, no prescription coverage, and a deductible of well over $3K/year. When the insurance company told me that would go up 30%, and the nearest "competitive bid" was well over 50% higher, we closed our doors.

The small firms simply cannot compete with the big firms because they don't have the purchasing power. So there went 8 well paid professional jobs.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[jbolden]

This is one of the reasons the US has to run a large trade deficit. If we were running a surplus fewer producing countries would be as scared by sanction threats.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I pay ~$4k/yr for a catastrophic policy ($5K deductible in-network, $10K deductible out of network). That's one person roughly twice 22 years old using an "umbrella corp" with a couple of hundred similar people who all buy their benefits through the same company. They have other plans with much lower deductibles and higher premiums too. As far as I know those prices are the same regardless of what state the "employee" lives in.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[DogDude]

"The employer pays well over $1K/mo per employee for insurance. I shut my business down in large part because we could no longer afford health insurance, and thus could not compete with the big outfits for talent."

Either that's an outright lie, or you were getting scammed. I pay the health insurance for 20 people. The most expensive person is about $350/month on a top notch insurance plan (great coverage, low deductibles).

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[dbIII]

Healthcare, too expensive, significantly more expensive for small businesses than big

Isn't it interesting that the "socialist" approach to healthcare of providing it via taxes is far better for capitalism than the current US approach of getting businesses to pay for it directly?
Hollywood make movies in places like Australia because they don't have to pay all of those extra employee costs for healthcare etc.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[tftp]

Technically, any sturdy box will do.

Re:Patents, lawsuits, and healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a towel for the mess made by your soup box.

No, it's losing its money.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Innovation needs to be rewarded. How many of you have signed contracts that give *any* invention you create to your employer as a condition of having a job? How may of you have the means to quit to pursue making a business out of your invention? (Hint: You ALL signed one, and you can't if you have a family). And if you did manage to start a business, would you have a legal fund to defend yourself from getting "wallet-whipped" form the inevitable lawsuits?

Patent law, labor law and contract law have all skewed the results of innovation so that corporations profit, while individuals make a few thousand dollars bonus and get a pat on the head from management. This soft corruption is ever so slowly strangling the geese that lay the golden eggs. There are a few Apples and Microsofts and a Facebook. And what would have become of these ideas had Jobs, Gates or Zuckerman been working for IBM at the time they had them?

If I had a million dollar idea tomorrow (and they're not that tough), I can't think of a reason in the world to bother with it while working for a company in the USA. You'd have to be in college, having never worked for a corporation, or offshore in a country that protects you from patent disputes or confiscatory contract provisions.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[msobkow]

Not quite true, at least in the software industry. Most companies have a non-compete clause and will seize ownership of anything you create if they can, but in reality the "all your inventions are belong to us" clauses have not held up well in court. The only people who get taken by that abusive phrasing are the ones who don't know their legal rights.

I've often crossed out and initialed that clause on an employment contract just to be safe, and never had it questioned.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

I signed no such contract at my current job. We just focus on getting things done, keeping our clients happy, and keeping ourselves happy (those last two really do go together if management is worth anything at all). Based upon prior workplaces, however, you are right vastly more than now, and that is a big problem in this country. I don't think any large employer is capable of being the sort of place I work currently, because it isn't easy (possible?) to do it efficiently. I think we need a return to a lot of small companies working together rather than a few huge companies doing a bunch of unrelated things. "Too big to fail" is just the latest symptom of the problem. I think before you hit that point you've already passed the "too big to succeed" point as well, and are doomed.

We either shouldn't have bailed those companies out and let better run companies gobble them up, or should have only under the condition that they be restructured into "small enough to fail" companies.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[countvlad]

So don't work for that employer. Work for yourself or work for someone else. Start a company which reverses this trend: allow innovators to keep the right to their ideas in exchange for being reimbursed the cost of developing the technology. I hope you don't consider yourself an inventor, because quite frankly you don't seem to have the balls to handle the competition (hint: if you want the government to rewrite the rules in your favor, you're doing it wrong). If you think corporations or the government has all the power, they only do because you let them have it.

There are real benefits to having a corporation fund your work. For example, there's almost zero risk for the inventor. The company will pay for the development and marketing of your idea and absorb (or default) on the loss if it fails. Sure, you might lose your job, but you're not going to go bankrupt or lose millions (and potentially more) on an idea with no guarantee of return. Your family isn't going to starve if your idea flops, or the market dries up.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[alexgieg]

I'm in principle against the very notion of copyright and patents, but between both extremes of my ideal and what currently exists, there's a middle ground that would make things much more sane, if it ever had any hope of being implemented in law, which it doesn't: the abolition of the concept of transferring (and of licensing with exclusivity) one's intellectual production, what would mean making moral rights and copy rights one and the same. Being employed by a corporation in this scenario might still mean ceding a non-exclusive right for them to use your intellectual production, maybe with a clause of non competition for as long as you worked for them. And such a law would need a clause establishing a hard upper limit on for how long a ceding contract could be valid before requiring a renegotiation. But the net result would be that you'd still fully own your intellectual production, and would be able to re-license it to whomever you wished, again and again and again, once the initial term was up. Big pharma, big software, big labels, big anything, would be "big" only so long as lots and lots of intellectual producers were willing to keep within them. If they left, for whatever reason, the corporation itself would break apart, thus giving HUGE incentives for these corporations to do things in a sensible manner. Much more so, at least, than what we have today.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[sgtrock]

Innovation needs to be rewarded. How many of you have signed contracts that give *any* invention you create to your employer as a condition of having a job? How may of you have the means to quit to pursue making a business out of your invention? (Hint: You ALL signed one, and you can't if you have a family). And if you did manage to start a business, would you have a legal fund to defend yourself from getting "wallet-whipped" form the inevitable lawsuits?

I never have signed a contract containing such terms. I don't plan to, either. Given by the other responses to your post, I don't think that clause is as common as you think it is.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[ironjaw33]

Innovation needs to be rewarded. How many of you have signed contracts that give *any* invention you create to your employer as a condition of having a job? How may of you have the means to quit to pursue making a business out of your invention? (Hint: You ALL signed one, and you can't if you have a family). And if you did manage to start a business, would you have a legal fund to defend yourself from getting "wallet-whipped" form the inevitable lawsuits?

I never have signed a contract containing such terms. I don't plan to, either. Given by the other responses to your post, I don't think that clause is as common as you think it is.

I've worked for several different employers, with my current one being a public university. Every contract I've signed allows my employer to assert ownership of anything I create using company time or resources. There are some universities that allow their paid employees/faculty/researchers ownership of their work, but this is unheard of in the corporate world. However, I do think it is unusual if an employer would demand ownership of everything I create, whether I create it on company time or on my own at home -- I definitely wouldn't sign that contract.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had a million dollar idea tomorrow (and they're not that tough), I can't think of a reason in the world to bother with it while working for a company in the USA. You'd have to be in college, having never worked for a corporation, or offshore in a country that protects you from patent disputes or confiscatory contract provisions.

Yup, that describes me. Having an idea isn't tough, it's combining multiple ideas, adapting to set backs, and creating a good final implementation that's hard.

I'm working a day job in the customer service industry, while doing research and development on my own time. I'm looking forward to finishing any project I can, so I can quit my horrible soul-sucking day job. I really hate customer service, but at least it's one that allows ridiculous part time hours (such as two days a week) and it's just enough to cover my bills.

It's frustrating, but there's no other way available to me that has a chance of succeeding. I've had a lot of different jobs, but what I learned from them all is that I'm better at managing my own time.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've often crossed out and initialed that clause on an employment contract just to be safe, and never had it questioned."

I second this immensely!!!

Stand up for yourselves people, if you're good at what you do then negotiate like hell.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And what would have become of these ideas had Jobs, Gates or Zuckerman been working for IBM at the time they had them?"

Wozniak WAS working for HP at the time and would have had real problems selling the first Apple computer, if Jobs hadn't couched him in how to convince HP management that the product wasn't worth their while.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had a million dollar idea tomorrow (and they're not that tough), I can't think of a reason in the world to bother with it while working for a company in the USA.

You're right - the idea is not the tough part. It's actually making the idea a money making business that is very difficult, even without all the barriers to entry that small businesses have in the USA.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

My employment contract was 1 1/2 pages long and that clause was not a part of it.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[AK Marc]

I've just happily signed, knowing that they are essentially never used in practice. They are threats, handcuffs to keep you from leaving, not an actual punishment for doing so. I'm in violation of my most recent non-compete right now. And, of course, nobody cares.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[Anonymous Coward]

You will have to renounce US citizenship (if you have) in the process of getting to keep what is yours. You will have to choose between economic liberty and political liberty. Human nature is such that these will always be mutually exclusive.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[TemporalBeing]

Innovation needs to be rewarded. How many of you have signed contracts that give *any* invention you create to your employer as a condition of having a job? How may of you have the means to quit to pursue making a business out of your invention? (Hint: You ALL signed one, and you can't if you have a family). And if you did manage to start a business, would you have a legal fund to defend yourself from getting "wallet-whipped" form the inevitable lawsuits?

Well, quite spewing nonsense...

Yes, many sign non-compete contracts, and you can very well end up giving up rights to ideas, inventions, copyrights, etc. to you employer. However, many employers do not enforce them with few exceptions, and even those that do try have had issues. For example, look at the Mattel vs. Bratz lawsuit - the creator of Bratz use to work at Mattel creating Barbie dolls, so Mattel sued to try to shutdown Bratz - they lost.

I also know of a few people who despite having a family started a company, and I'm sure there are many many more. It's all a matter of having the will power and mindset to do so - to overcome the issues and achieve your goals whatever they may be.

Oh, and don't forget that even when a company does completely own what you work on, they may not be interested in it at all. The company I current work for was founded a result of such work. The founder developed the technology while working for another company; they were not interested in it, so he left and started a company around it - we're now top of the industry. Many have done similar with Microsoft and other big corporations, sometimes to get bought back later; though most go on their own separate path from the original company they "spawned" off of.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

You cite the exceptions. Have you considered discovering the rule?

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[TemporalBeing]

You cite the exceptions. Have you considered discovering the rule?

From what I can tell, I am exciting the rule as opposed to the exceptions - the exceptions being enforcement of the company holding onto the ideas. The basic issue is - if the company has no interest in it, then they typically will not pursue it regardless of what it is - it's just not worth it to them so long as you are not disrupting their market which tends not to be the case.

Even with Non-Compete Clauses, companies tend to only try to enforce them when its with a direct competitor and a position that would have a very big impact on the company the employee left from - otherwise again, it's not worth it to pursue it. So for example, Microsoft has complained to high heaven about Google poaching some of their employees - but they're direct competitors in those areas.

So really when it comes down to it, it doesn't normally make sense for a company to try to enforce either a non-compete or an ownership clause with their former employees. So it is more the norm that such things would not be enforced than that that are.

Of course, it'll be hard to really prove either way - such things probably settle long before getting to court in 99% of the cases where they are enforced - so you'd never hear about it, and you won't likely be able to find much in the way of surveys on actual enforcement - you probably will on whether people think either is a good idea or useful or not - as they probably settle with terms that neither can talk about in the future, or its simply satisfy the non-compete through holder positions (e.g. someone who specializes in waveform analysis may have to spend a few years looking at bacteria to satisfy the non-compete before being able to get back to their specialty; or someone who has a management position in hard drives might have to manage keyboards until the non-compete is up; or similar scenarios).

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[sgtrock]

Oh, I'll admit to seeing such a clause on two occasions out of a dozen or so contract negotiations over the course of a 30+ year career. The first time I saw it, I crossed it out and initialed the change. The employer wouldn't accept it so I walked away rather than accept the job offer. There were other indicators that the company was poorly run so I didn't regard it as much of a loss.

The second time I saw it, I did the same thing. That time, the employer accepted the change without comment. I ended up working there for about seven years. Clearly, both parties figured that they were getting what they wanted out of the arrangement.

On both occasions, I was applying for an operational position in an IT division so I was nowhere near a position that would have me creating anything for sale for the company anyhow.

Re:No, it's losing its money.

[climb_no_fear]

German Employees’ Inventions Act regulates the minimal compensation that workers receive for their inventions.

Here's a paper on it (sorry pdf):
http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/german_inventor_compensation_230106_dp_lmu.pdf

It certainly encourages innovation, IMHO here (and no, I am not German but I do live and invent here).

Legislated innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the innovation that came out of Silicon Valley was spurred by Government - internet, RDMS, electronics, etc ...

But the thing is, all of those Government sponsored innovations had a very specific goal and were to solve a specific problem; nothing as vague as promoting innovation or what have you.

Or to put it bluntly, unless Government has a very specific problem to solve, any money spent will be flushed down a pork filled toilet.

So if they say, "this money is for "innovation"" you can bet your ass that Joe politician will find a way to steer the money to something useless that rewards a buddy of his.

No

[xstonedogx]

A few points in no particular order:

1. Those automatic cuts are hardly automatic. They'll be repealed if legislators can't come up with a plan. These guys would rather preside over the disintegration of the union than cut their constituents' favorite federal programs.

2. Government does not create innovation. Examples like NASA are always trotted out, but I think if you total those successes with the failures, pork, and corruption, you'll find we could have gotten much more for less. Maybe not NASA and it's indirect benefits specifically, but something else.

3. What has the federal government ever done for education other than turn principals into truancy officers? Don't get me started on tuition cost increases due to the ease of getting federally backed student loans.

4. If you want to increase manufacturing: drop the minimum wage.

Re:No

[nickmalthus]

Last week on HDNet Dan Rather Reports did a special on Singapore schools, some of the best in the world. One thing that stuck out in my mind is that culturally the teaching profession is held in the highest esteem there. Here in America teaching has become a job of last resort where only the desperate or truely dedicated put up with the abuse and meager wages. There was a time in America where learning was cherished as a virtuous means of self improvement for both private and public good as the ancient greek philosophers promoted. Now with avarice instead of virtue motivating our country teachers are restricted to simply programming automatons for a standardized test and are held in contempt for being in any way associated with the government. Respect and upraise our teachers; they are directly involved in defining our country's future.

Re:No

[Beelzebud]

Yes, don't insist on minimum wage laws in our trading partners, just lower the price of labor here, while the CEO's keep raking in huge obscene bonuses. Your solution is just cuts, cuts, cuts, and kiss the middle class goodbye.

Re:No

[Xenkar]

On number 4, I don't see how someone earning $7.25 a hour is too much to be paying factory workers, especially when automation is lowering the amount of workers required to keep a factory running.

Assuming our current minimum wage and maximum part-time hours to avoid paying benefits, each worker will cost about $10000 a year. This worker probably won't have to pay any federal income taxes after deductions. This worker will be eligible for Medicaid. He won't be able to pay off the loans for his house and the car he'll need to drive out to the middle of nowhere where your factory is located because of cheap land prices and interstate access.

Now republicans and libertarians not only want to lower the amount this worker gets paid, they want to remove the government provided healthcare option that they themselves don't want to offer to workers.

I just can't see how the average American worker would be better off. I do understand how the top 1% will be better off from these ideas. At least until the bottom 99% decide to eliminate those who do so little yet take so much.

Re:No

[MacTO]

On point 2: government contributes a hell of a lot to innovation, as well as pure research (which is necessary for some innovation). Claiming otherwise it to ignore all of the work done in publicly funded university labs from around the world.

Maybe I should give you two ripe examples that you can understand: the computer and the internet. The former simply would not have been developed without government intervention. Without the latter, we would be living in an expensive and tightly controlled network environment (like AOL or Compuserve of days gone by).

Then there is medical research ...

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries like Singapore (along with many other Asian countries) tend to hold all authority figures in esteem. That's not what makes their education system better any more than it makes their cops better or their politicians better.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Yep, that's the Republican plan to prevent cuts to military contractor pork.

2. We have the best university system in the world and are the greatest creator of scientific knowledge ever. To make a gross understatement, the vast majority of technological advances owe their existence to government funding of that research.

3. Tuition increases are entirely due to states cutting off university funding. State university budgets have been chopping block favorites for 30 years and every cut is followed by a tution hike to make up the difference.

4. You've never been poor, never done manufacturing or labor of any kind, and probably don't know anyone who has. As an experiment I suggest you try and live on $7.25 an hour for the next three months. To add to the realism, a daily exercise regime: pick up a 40 pound box off the floor, carry it to the other side of your home, and put it down. Repeat for four hours. With every trip say "I'm getting paid $7.25 an hour to do this, and that's way too much."

Re:No

[xstonedogx]

Most of our biggest importers all have minimum wages or an equivalent function. They're not going to drive jobs out of their economies by cranking up the wages to our level.

My solution is jobs, jobs, jobs. We can either pay people little to sit on their asses collecting unemployment or pay people little to work and get added benefits like lower prices on goods and services.

We don't have to get rid of it entirely, but as long as it's higher than a certain point, jobs are going to leave, manufacturing is going to leave.

Re:No

[xstonedogx]

2. Government funding is taxes taken from the economy. What would we have without those funds being taken from the economy? Are you suggesting that private interests have no interest in funding research? The question is whether government does a better job of using those funds than the private sector would, and I think it's pretty clear given the current state of government spending how people do when spending other peoples' money.

3. Nonsense. That is a factor, certainly, but the demand for a college education has skyrocketed and that's due to 1. employers requiring degrees for jobs that don't require degrees. 2. The ease of student loans (that bury people in debt for years).

4. I worked in factories and restaurants holding three jobs at a time through my teens and early twenties. I started each job at minimum wage (which when accounting for inflation was less than 2011 $7.25/hr.). I enjoyed my work. My mother was on welfare when I was a child, so yeah, I was poor. (That taught me all I need to know about how much welfare really "helps" people.) Did you have a point you want to make about how that's impossible or something?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Examples like NASA are always trotted out, but I think if you total those successes with the failures, pork, and corruption, you'll find we could have gotten much more for less.

You have to question NASA 'success'. They receive 3x the funding of the NSF, but I'm willing to bet the NSF has made more advances than NASA in the past 1/5/10 years. Imagine how much research would be completed if the NSF received $25billion instead of its current $6billion. Instead the money is wasted paying to resupply an orbiting tin can.

Re:No

[couchslug]

"There was a time in America where learning was cherished as a virtuous means of self improvement for both private and public good as the ancient greek philosophers promoted. "

The Good Old Days Fallacy again.

In what magic time was this so and may we have citations?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not reduce the cost of living first either while or before lowering the min wage. I'd hate too see the workers be paid less and then not be able to afford the necessities (water, food, shelter, and clothing)of life.

Re:No

[jbmartin6]

Increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment, so it isn't hard to see how this fails to benefit workers. Why has Joe 10k bought a house? He can't afford all the taxes and maintenance on it.

Re:No

[Arker]

What you dont understand is that the only real affect of the minimum wage is to eliminate low-paying jobs. Well, it also affects the wages of certain union members who have that written into their contracts, of course. But other than that, it does nothing but prevent people (primarily young, unskilled, and minority people) from getting work, period. People whose market wages are higher than the minimum are completely unaffected by it in any direct sense (excepting those few under contracts already mentioned) by it - they make more money regardless. It is only those whose need is greatest that are affected - and NOT in a good way.

I know in liberal-topia this legislation would result in them getting paid more - that's the idea - but in reality it just doesnt work that way. If I can afford to pay $6/hour for your unskilled labour (thus giving you an opportunity not only to make a little money, but to develop skills on the job and improve your bargaining position) but the minimum wage is $7.50, that wont force me to pay you more, it will force me not to hire you at all. It will force me to scrap my plans to expand, and when you repeat that over and over again across the country the end result is a strangled economy and increasing unemployment.

In practice it is also has a disproportionately devastating affect on the economy in rural areas. The cost of living is lower out here, and wages are lower as well, so more people are kept out of work by minimum wage laws.

The breaking affect on the economy even knocks on to the point of reducing the jobs at higher wage levels as well, since there is just less going on economically and higher barriers to business viability which translates to a worse employment situation for everyone.

Re:No

[Rich.Miller.6]

I can't figure out if you're trying to make a point by being silly, or really believe what you've written.

Re 2: we often hear "Government does not create [drive?] innovation" repeated, as if enough repetition will constitute proof that this is correct. It isn't. For a humorous video showing numerous benefits and innovations we receive from our government, I recommend Socialism is BAD! on YouTube.

Re 3: the U.S. Constitution reserves education for the States, so you have a perhaps-unintentional point here. That notwithstanding, there are lots of examples of things the Federal government has done for education, including Pell grants, Brown v. Board of Education, and (to some eyes, at least) "No Child Left Behind".

Re 4: dropping the minimum wage will not increase demand for manufactured items, so is highly unlikely to spur manufacturing in the US - there is widespread agreement among those who have studied it that the US economy is suffering from a shortage of demand, and fixing this problem is part of what must be done to increase in-US manufacturing.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Public school teachers are sacred cows that are actually well paid and have benefits that are bankrupting a number of states.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/03/to-surly-with-love-are-teacher ...and there's plenty more where that came from. As for testing, my heart bleeds for you that you don't want any way to objectively measure how successful you are at doing your job. Granted, it is up to parents and the kids themselves to learn. But governments have been pouring increasing amounts of cash per student into US schools with little to show for it. I've been listening to school teachers use up class time whining about their jobs since I was one of the top kids in my class in elementary school 30 years ago. Teaching is a job like any other where the workers want more pay and better benefits as well but don't expect to get 3 months vacation or tenure. The private sector is almost overwhelmingly is union-free, while public school teachers are represented by well-funded unions care more about clout than students and are deathly afraid of giving parents and their kids a choice of schools.

Re:No

[Rich.Miller.6]

And just after Veteran's Day, how could one forget the G.I. Bill, which helped 7.8 U.S. veterans of World War II with their post-war education? Things like this are worth remembering, most especially when someone asserts that the government never does anything good.

Re:No

[xstonedogx]

2. Money can help innovators, but I'm not convinced the government spending tax money is the best way to go about it. For a recent debacle, see Solyndra. Private investors tend to make better decisions in this regard because it is their money and they are not eager to see it go down a hole for political brownie points or because it is going to their friends' businesses. (See other posts on this page for how government is hurting innovation with red tape.)

3. I'm obviously not talking about Brown v Board of Education. I'm talking about federal education programs which are an abysmal failure, including NCLB. It's been a decade and things are much worse, not better. Pell grants might be great for the relative few who get them, but federal student loan subsidies are terrible. We have a job market that just isn't demanding near the number of graduates that we're putting out, so people get these easy, subsidized student loans, graduate, and can't find a job that will allow them to repay the loan.

4. Manufacturing is happening overseas to meet the levels of demand we have right now. We don't have those jobs because unskilled Americans are too expensive to employ compared to the cost of employing folks overseas and shipping goods here. You're not going to see an increase in demand until people have money to spend, and that's not going to happen without jobs.

Re:No

[Xenkar]

I just have to wonder about the whole "unable to afford minimum wage" part. Will you please post some accounting records to back it up?

As in proof that paying $7.25 a hour without benefits will push net profit into net loss. Make sure to include your hourly wage, yearly salary, and/or yearly capital gains.

Re:No

[xstonedogx]

The proof is in the fact that he hasn't hired the worker. If he could hire the worker and make a profit he would. More money for him, job for worker, everyone wins.

Why is it so hard to see that the more expensive the labor, the less demand there will be for that labor?

Re:No

[ultranova]

If I can afford to pay $6/hour for your unskilled labour (thus giving you an opportunity not only to make a little money, but to develop skills on the job and improve your bargaining position) but the minimum wage is $7.50, that wont force me to pay you more, it will force me not to hire you at all.

Except that the employer is not going to pay as much as he can afford, he is going to be paying the minimum needed to fill the position. Since there are lots of unemployed people around, the law of supply and demand drives wages down, just as it did early in the Industrial Revolution. This is why trade unions were found, and fought for a minimum wage (and 8-hour days, and 5-day weeks, and ban on child labour, and vacation, and the worker actually being free when he's not at work rather than having to stay around as an unpaid fireman-on-call, and other such niceties). If you honestly can't turn a profit when paying $7.50/hour, then I find it highly unlikely that your business is going to be around for long anyway since your profit margin must be pretty much nonexistent. Also, if you are paying your workers too little to actually live on, then they are going to require public support, which means that I am in effect subsidising your company.

And given that both the current conditions in the job market and the law of supply and demand are common knowledge, I find it increasingly difficult to consider statements like yours to have been made in good faith.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the results speak for themselves. Results is what makes their educational system better.

Re:No

[Kohath]

Minimum wages says: "If you can't do $7.25 worth of work in an hour, you are prohibited from having a job."

Sadly, some people can't do $7.25 worth of work. Maybe they could do $6 worth of work in an hour to start, and then learn on the job, and eventually be able to do $8, then $10, then a lot more. But the minimum wage effectively prohibits this.

Re:No

[AK Marc]

But their cops are better. They get the same results at less cost and less innocent violence than the US cops.

Re:No

[AK Marc]

As for testing, my heart bleeds for you that you don't want any way to objectively measure how successful you are at doing your job.

It's not that they don't want it, it's that it doesn't exist such that subjective evaluations are coded in a manner to declare them objective (or based on scores such that the education of the students would suffer by teaching to the test, making the evaluations bad for the children). Teachers, in general, would love to have some objective non-interfering method of measuring success. But no such method has ever been announced.

Re:No

[AK Marc]

Increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment, so it isn't hard to see how this fails to benefit workers.

I just had a quick glance at unemployment figures vs minimum wage hikes and couldn't see any such correlation. Is that your personal opinion/guess presented as fact, or do you have any support for that statement?

Re:No

[jbmartin6]

For an example: http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm There are competing studies of course, studies of society being what they are. But to use an extreme example, why not raise the minimum wage to $25/hr? I don't think anyone seriously proposes that, the effects on employment would seem pretty severe at that level.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

No one who has been through such hell would ever look at the brutally hard life of laborers making minimum wage and demand that life be made even harder like you have. Shame on you. You have no credibility. You've obviously never done hard labor, not even for one hour in your entire life. You've never met anyone who has. On behalf of those of us who have, shame. Shame. Shame. Shame.

Re:No

[Arker]

Unlike the other fellow I think you made some insightful points that deserve an answer. "Except that the employer is not going to pay as much as he can afford, he is going to be paying the minimum needed to fill the position." This is definitely your best shot. It's perfectly true the employer will pay less than he can afford if possible. And it's perfectly true that there has been a lot of manipulation in our economic system to maintain a buyers market for labour. The first isnt too important in isolation, but in combination the two are a huge problem. The solution? Doesnt it make sense that the only way forward is to stop the meddling and let the market correct? Anyone that says that wont be a somewhat turbulent period is a liar, but on the other hand the longer we delay it the worse it gets. It's not avoidable. So why not get it over with? The quicker you do it the quicker the market returns to a natural state, where supply and demand track and involuntary unemployment is practically eliminated, along with a general rise in real wages. "If you honestly can't turn a profit when paying $7.50/hour, then I find it highly unlikely that your business is going to be around for long anyway since your profit margin must be pretty much nonexistent." This, on the other hand, is actually a pretty ignorant thing to say. And I dont mean that offensively - it just makes it starkly clear you dont know much about business. Now keep in mind that by business I mean a real business in something approximating a free market, not some big megacorp that has bought the legislature and can guarantee profits. Should go without saying. But real everyday small businesses across this country struggle in the markets we havent been regulated out of and we cant do that crap. We have to compete. This means your profit margins are razor-thin. This is a good thing for "the consumer" which is really everybody, but especially those with less income because we spend more of our income on necessities. Anyway, the difference of $1.50/hr in wage can very easily make the difference between being able to project a profit on a new hire and not being able to do so. "Also, if you are paying your workers too little to actually live on, then they are going to require public support, which means that I am in effect subsidising your company." Even were that the case, they would at least require less public support if they have some income, however inadequate. But it shouldnt be the case - if the labour market is allowed to correct and go forward freely you will see real wages rise for labour across the board.

Re:No

[initialE]

Singapore here. If Dan Rather has been reporting that the teaching profession is held in high esteem here, then Dan Rather hasn't really been checking his facts. Teaching is a government job, which, like all government jobs, are a good source of steady income in good times and bad. Like all government jobs, there is an incredible amount of red tape to cut through, and half their work is administrative rather than teaching. Also, like all government jobs, in a good economy there will be a lack of fresh blood (since it pays well but not that well, and the workload is heavy), has generally lower bonuses as compared to a banking job, but better than those of, say, a manufacturing job, and is full of colleagues only there to collect their paycheck. The government does make efforts to innovate and spends money and resources in the latest trends and techniques, but there has been criticism that they don't stick with it long enough to produce results before they start chasing the next trend. Some teachers enjoy their job, some hate their job. Personally I don't see how teaching can be that different than in America. You teach because you love to teach, otherwise you're going to be a bad teacher.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus is the intentional collapse of the american economy.

It might sound crazy, but it seems that the industry leaders with help form the govt have been intentionally fucking up the economy for the last two decades, and have put the kibosh on any real plans to fix it, slowly killing off job-producing sectors and outsourcing them overseas, with the end result of building up the overseas economies.

It's a game to keep the cost of production down.

1. Create a "service" economy where the only jobs that pay are service jobs
2. outsource every production job out there
3. prop up and work with small third world nations to enable production and have work for peanuts
4. Watch as the service economy falters as the small 3rd world country becomes an economic monster
5. service economy fails, massive unemployment.
6. Work with politicians to bust unions, take away limits on hours, and minimum wage laws, along with child labor laws, and remove workplace safety, all while giving these globalized powerhouses free reign, not having to pay one cent in taxes for it.
7. former service economy becomes slave wage production economy, which at this point, people happily accept it and live in tenement housing owned by their respective employers, and any injuries sustained means they're good as dead. Workers' rights are gone, tiny middle class as the carrot to dangle in front of the workers with no future.

Remember the outsourced production economy? Well that economy is now the new service economy the original service economy now produces goods for under inhumane conditions.

All this is, is globalized industries playing games with the economies of the world to keep their costs down, while they sit on top like kings.

This is the end of the American dream, end of being able to make a decent wage, prepare to live an utterly shitty existence. Enjoy only living into your 40's before you get so exhausted and sick that you can no longer work, and slowly die an agonizing death as you will not be able to afford food once you get cut, hell I envision suicide booths might be a real thing in the next 20-30 years in america.

Think it's far fetched? This is the exact same shit americans have experienced before, during the industrial revolution in the late 19th century.

Except this time, the workforce may not need to be that big thanks to automation becoming the norm. I would not be shocked if we soon have a one child policy not unlike China, or mandatory drafts to fight battles that are essentially suicide missions, to help cleanse the population of its excesses, or give people jobs that will pay better than the factories, but are essentially certain suicide (getting into dangerous places where robots cannot get to, without the protections one would need for such a situation, with a very high accident rate.)

The lack of American innovation is only a symptom of the real problem.

We're about to get played hard by greedy money mongers. There is a reason greed is considered a sin, it's ruinous.

America will eventually bound back temporarily, but it'll be sometime towards the middle to the end of this century, most of us have to look forward to working in sweatshops for proper jobs soon.

Re:No

[Politburo]

Your assertion then is that receiving welfare actually hurt your mother?

Does she share that belief? And if so, why didn't she choose to not accept the funds?

Re:No

[treeves]

I did not see the show, but I'm going to hazard a guess that teachers there can enforce strict discipline when needed, but probably don't have to do so often because it's the cultural norm to behave well there. I know that pressure to follow the rules is pretty high in Singapore.
Here in the US we have the mentality expressed by the bumper sticker "Well-behaved (women) rarely make history." i.e. bad behavior is not only tolerated but practically encouraged. [I put "women" in parentheses because that is what it says, but I think people apply it regardless of sex or age].
When the students have as many rights as the teachers, teaching is harder, more stressful, less esteemed. We coddle our kids. We treat them like smaller versions of adults. We expect intrinsic motivation to work with them, but it doesn't.

Re:No

[Savantissimo]

Your views on economics seem to come from the plutocrats' pet think tanks. Ricardo's "iron law of wages" is that wages must be sufficient for subsistence. If not, either the supply of workers will diminish due to deaths, or the government will have to take up the slack to prevent those deaths and the taxes required will be more that would be needed to simply pay the workers a living wage to begin with. The current minimum wage is set at around the bare subsistence level (not counting medical care or transportation in most cases, and constantly shrinking due to inflation).

Ricardo would agree with you on the idea of a purely "market-based" wage system, but despite his basic insight, his arguments in that direction are a string of non-sequiturs mixed with falsehoods: he starts with the false assumption that increasing population means increasing prices for necessities and then asserts that this proves that wages should not be regulated, as this would interfere with contracts - despite having stated in the same paragraph that workers have no choice but to take whatever they're offered if they are to have any subsistence, thus making the contract under duress and with no bargaining power or legal protection for the worker at all. History since Ricardo, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, shows that employers will either abuse such power or will be at a competitive disadvantage to those who do.

Really wages often aren't set by the nebulous, all-powerful "market" so much as by specific forces that that term tries to sweep under the rug: geography, custom, personal relationships, perceptions and social power (though rent-seeking, regulation (particularly licensure), and the drive to convert worthless shareholder profits into valuable management compensation certainly also play a role). None of the minimum wage increases has hurt the economy - in fact, they increased the size of the market by providing more people capable of buying, not only the bare necessities but also other goods because the minimum wage provides a floor that gives a social/ customary reference point for setting wages for most hourly workers in the bottom half of the distribution.

(Another good take on Ricardo, this time on his theory of comparative advantage, and how its assumptions have been ignored by free-trade zealots is here. Short form: Ricardo says comparative advantage only holds if there are no externalities; nations trade only goods and services, not debt and assets; the factors of production are only domestically and not internationally mobile; long-term growth is caused by short-term efficiency; there are no economies of scale; and here is no cross-border investment. None of these being even approximately true, free trade will often lead to worse economic outcomes both for specific nations and for the world economy than managed trade and even outright protectionism.)

Re:No

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I've met very few people who work minimum wage jobs who get anything significantly above minimum wage even if they are outstanding get awards for being a good employee and had been working there a significant amount of time. Back when I worked minimum wage jobs when minimum wage was $5.25, there weren't more minimum wage jobs than today and I think the highest wage anyone got at that job who was not salary was the assistant manager at $7.00 an hour. The skill requirements and competition for minimum wage jobs is just too high to make the situation you're describing feasible from my experience. Maybe it would work in areas with larger quantities of salary and above minimum wage positions to be had. But not every place people live is a city.

The question I ask myself when I try to think of ways to improve the US is to say, "OK given a town where the population has to commute one hour or more to get to a major city and there is no industry any more because all the industry has shut down and moved overseas, how would I increase the job market."

I think there's huge markets of potential labor untapped in places that have been abandoned by industry. These are the locations with 3rd world living standards and a sizable chunk of the population. Also creating job markets outside of major metropolitan areas could help with overpopulation, traffic, and outrageous land value in cities.

Re:No

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Also just to throw it out there I'm not entirely certain I buy into the whole minimum wage concept. I don't think people can buy more today working for minimum wage than they could then. I think it just sets a new scale for 1 vs 0. (i.e no work you get zero income, low paid work you get 1 point of income etc). Raising or lowering the minimum wage I do not believe will have much affect on the job market or how well off someone is at all in the long run. Short run it might till the market evens itself back out.

Re:No

[mikechant]

Increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment,

This may be your belief, but the evidence does not really support it.

The evidence in regards to the UK, where the minimum wage was introduced in 1999 at a significantly higher level than the Federal minimum wage in the US is that there was no significant effect on employment, e.g.:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0781.pdf

The Conservatives (UK right wing party) who were in opposition at the time opposed it, as did the main employers' organization, predicting large unemployment increases. Both have since dropped that opposition due to the lack of evidence of negative effects (and also it being popular) and now both support the retention of the minimum wage in its current form.

Re:No

[jbmartin6]

Thanks, Ill take a look at this. I might be misreading, but the abstract seems to clarify all the other factors that negated any impact on unemployment: "The reasons for this include: an impact on hours rather than workers; employer wage setting and labour market frictions; offsets via the tax credit system; incomplete compliance; improvements in productivity; an increase in the relative price of minimum wage-produced consumer services; and a reduction in the relative profits of firms employing low paid workers." "tax credits", "incomplete compliance", and "impact on hours" jump out here. So unless the rest of the text somehow contravenes these factors it doesn't look especially convincing. I know a couple small business owners who either started paying workers under the table or simply got rid of benefits as a direct result of minimum wage increases. That's anecdotal, I know. I haven't seen any studies on workers going off the books in these circumstances, probably pretty difficult to get good information in that situation. Meanwhile, I'll offer up the work of Walter Williams on the effect of minimum wage laws on black unemployment in the United States, see his book "Race and Economics", as well as the following from http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm Card, David and Alan B. Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry In New Jersey and Pennsylvania." American Economic Review. September 1994: pp. 772-793. Brandon, Peter, Jobs Taken by Mothers Moving from Welfare to Work and the Effects of Minimum Wages on this Transition. Employment Policies Institute: Washington, DC, 1995. Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effects of Minimum Wages on Teenage Employment and Enrollment: Evidence from Matched CPS Surveys. National Bureau for Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995.

Re:No

[Arker]

Your views on economics seem to come from the plutocrats' pet think tanks

You couldnt possibly be more wrong. 'Plutocrat's pet think tanks' are uniformly wedded to Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian economics. This is in no way a surprise, since Keynes gives them arguments to justify the policies they want, policies that aggrandize them and their friends and make them wealthier and more powerful at the expense of the common good. Big business and big government have become so inextricably intertwined it's often impossible to separate them even conceptually, neither has any interest in giving up the welfare-warfare state that makes them rich and powerful, and neither of them are interested in funding real economists whose prescriptions threaten their privileged positions.

Frankly, it is you who appears to be suffering from a bit of plutocrat-funded brainwashing.

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[kwark]

"Most Americans are basically the 99.9% - the non-innovators. The 1% comes from all over the world."

Does not compute.

How much more proof is needed ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much more proof is needed for the West to understand that free trade will destroy it in the long term and no amount of "government financing" is going to chnage that. Bring back tariffs or welcome soon in the third world. Keep voting for free traders guys.

J

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[fsckmnky]

Free trade is a pretty stupid idea. Fair trade should be the goal.

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[Beelzebud]

The sad thing is seeing people, even here in this thread, arguing in favor of reducing the middle class down to third world levels. No talk of fair trade, just that everyone should take a pay cut to compete with slave labor.

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[shking]

The sad thing is seeing people, even here in this thread, arguing in favor of reducing the middle class down to third world levels.

Well of course they will argue that! Everyone assumes that they will be personally spared when "necessary" changes are made. It's human nature. It's both sad and funny

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[Arker]

You are making no sense. Decades of unfree 'mixed economy' tinkering have gotten us here. How does that make an indictment against free trade?

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[xstonedogx]

It's hard to take you seriously when you conflate middle class with minimum wage earners. When you suggest our middle class will be 'reduced to third world levels' it is downright offensive. Our poor are rich compared to most of the world. Go visit Mexico, a second world country, and tell me how rough our poor have it. And don't try what the AC did above. I've been poor in America.

I think you should really take some time to study the minimum wage. You might change your mind. Consider that the minimum wage is partially responsible for 9/100 workers earning $0.00/hr while at the same time raising the prices of goods. And the middle classes are subsidizing those unemployed workers, making their lives more difficult as well. Is this okay with you just to keep the minimum wage earners slighty more comfortable?

What's your solution, anyway?

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[xstonedogx]

Sorry, I meant a third world country.

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What decades ? Free trade is an idea that was started being seriously implemented since 1970's. It was Nixon who "opened" China, it was Clinton who signed NAFTA, it was Reagan and Bush father and son years when we opened free trade with anybody including the most disgusting regimes. Up to 1970's we were rich nation that was crediting others, we were landing man on the Moon, we were inventing things, we had scientific research that no one could match, we had engineering, science, industry like no other nation in the world. Now we have free trade. Since you seem to believe, that you make sense, please, explain how is that made USA even stronger in the world that we were in 70's ? And please, don't BS me with "cheaper" goods for the consumer. This is an argument for those who listen to talk radio and have IQ below 70. If you were planning to use this argument, please explain, how it is cheaper to buy $1 product made in China for consumer who is working in "service" fast food industry making $7 an hour, that it was to buy the same product for $2 but made in USA for worker from assembly line that was making $20/hour. And finally could you, please explain what exactly China or India will be buying from us when we finally outsource all manufacturing to the cheaper labor countries. What services are so critical, that China will be buying happily from us ?

For all of you who think we are so special, that we can "discover", "invent" like nobody else, you don't even realize how stupid and racist it is sounding. No we are not so special. We are not those "Aryan" people, that are smarter than Slavs, Chinese, Korean or Indian. What we had was the industry that was build by pure luck when the rest of the civilized world was hell bent on self destruction by two world wars and practically succeeded. Instead of holding the advantage we were stupid and we still are stupid to sell all that like idiots. We voting to the office people, who are selling your future to the rest of the world because it makes them personally rich and they don't care about you. The sell us to the world that does not recognizes our values, world, that does not play by the same rules, world that is not so stupid to repeat our own mistakes.

You should try to talk to some Chinese business people. They cannot believe their luck and stupidity of the west. The "free trade" with China only works one way. Try to sell products in China. You will quickly find out, that there is no such thing as "free" access to Chinese market for US goods.

J

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[Arker]

We have had nothing but exponentially growing interference in the markets by the federal government since the 70s. That is not a free market. NAFTA has nothing to do with free trade, despite the name. You can figure that out without even reading it. Just glance at it. It's huge. Thousands of pages. You dont need thousands of pages for a free trade agreement, in fact there is no conceivable reason for one to ever run anywhere near that long. Opening our markets to the PRC is the only thing you mentioned that is consistent with free trade, but unfortunately it came with political entanglements that were unecessary and unhelpful.

I dont disagree with your rant against the racists. Racists are just another form of collectivists. A mental disorder humanity needs to grow out of.

The Chinese rulers are not free trade ideologues but pragmatists, it is true. But they are not who we should be looking to for role models, frankly. They are only winning because their half-hearted and insincere adoption of a free market is still more genuine than what has been going on in the USA since the 70s. Seriously, free trade? Are you out of your bloody mind? Mercantilism at best, fascism at worst, no resemblence at all to free trade. Watch their hands, not their lips - their lips lie.

Re:How much more proof is needed ?

[Savantissimo]

Since you say everything should be on a purely capitalist money basis, just out of curiosity: what's the market rate for your mom? What's that? Maybe you aren't as against regulation as you thought.

Done on purpose

[Okian Warrior]

We've done everything possible to stifle innovation over the past 20 years.

Innovation: Patent trolls, nuclear patent portfolios, submarine patents, generic and inscrutable patents, court district shopping, DMCA, ACTA, losing tech to other countries, H1B visas.

Infrastructure: Rationed internet(data caps), net neutrality, spotty cell coverage, polluted water supply, inscrutable laws, discretionary enforcement, tax complexity, offshoring

Growth: Tax breaks to rich companies (if GE pays no taxes, it's hard to make a competing product), regulatory failure (example: deepwater horizon), tax incentives for companies to move from state-to-state, profligate wasteful spending.

Is it any wonder that American innovation has lost its shine?

Re:Done on purpose

[khallow]

Not all those items contribute to stifling innovation. On your list, rationed internet, net neutrality, tax incentives for companies to move from state-to-state shouldn't be there. The first is a necessity for the limited bandwidth of ISP infrastructure that is there (and I doubt it will ever go away). Net neutrality or its absence is IMHO innovation neutral. It doesn't contribute or take away. And competition between states is one of the few places that innovation in governance occurs in the US.

The rest seems spot on.

Re:Done on purpose

[DerekLyons]

We've done everything possible to stifle innovation over the past 20 years.

Yet, somehow, despite all the highly modded Chicken Little comments in this discussion about how the US has stifled innovation... innovation continues to happen.
 
I suspect the reason that Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Susan Hockfield is concerned about Federal spending cuts is because the institute she presides over is afraid of the gravy spigot being closed.

Re:Done on purpose

[labnet]

You forgot to add all the requirements for physical products.

Electrical Safety Testing (Like UL)
Electrical Emissions Testing
Electrical Susceptibility Testing
ROHS Compliance (Reduction of Hazardas Substances)
WEEE (Electrical Waste)
and the new kid on the block
REACH, which basically means you have to document the every chemical used in your product. Thus for every resistor, capapacitor, diode, connector, plastic part, IC, opto part, PCB, wire you are meant to list the 'registered' chemicals used in those parts.

When Steve Jobs was in his gararge, about the only thing he would have to comply with was his developing ego.

Re:Done on purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Net Neutrality was to help avoid stifling innovation? By not allowing large companies/Internet providers to block/reduce throughput to certain sites, while allowing greater access to ones they prefer.

Re:Done on purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that our largest competitor as far as economic upswing has all of this and has it in spades. You think the Deep Water Horizon problem isn't a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of damage that China does to their own lands daily? You're living in a dreamland.
 
Oh, and show me (as in cite me) a single instance when data caps has stifled innovation?
 
NAFTA has more to do with lack of American competitive stature than anything to do with the DMCA.
 
You list everything you don't like but you don't show how it stifles innovation. How about fleshing this out a bit. I bet you it's going to be a lot harder to come up with how your laundry list of bitches is stifling innovation.

Re:Done on purpose

[drinkypoo]

You don't have to do any safety testing, but you're a stupid tool if you don't, and good luck getting shelf space for your mains-powered product in the USA without UL testing.

Re:Done on purpose

[Dripdry]

You know, innovation isn't something that happens right now. It's a process that takes time to build up or break down.
  As someone who knows small business owners in tech, I will voice what the majority are saying here: Tech innovation is dying.
What's scary is that the window where the oldsters who are alive to teach very detailed, esoteric, difficult-to-obtain knowledge is closing fast, but no one is coming to the plate to learn it. Hell, they're having to go back and *re-invent* in the field of metallurgy in the US because they've actually forgotten how to do certain things! This is REAL stuff, it is happening NOW. It is not some talking point, it is not some across-the-table mentally masturbatory political discussion with a coworker. Businesses are beginning to fail in the US, key businesses vital to its health, because of these issues.

Innovation is happening, you're right, but where you lose us is that many of us IN THE TECH INDUSTRY can see that innovation is dying. It's not dead (never will be), but when it gets below a certain threshold bad things can happen.

Ingenuity and Innovation is in danger ....

[fsckmnky]

... because if we keep spending like drunken sailors, we'll destroy the economy even more, and that's been done before.

Re:Ingenuity and Innovation is in danger ....

[Sulphur]

... because if we keep spending like drunken sailors, we'll destroy the economy even more, and that's been done before.

Only if drunken sailors do it on credit.

Re:Ingenuity and Innovation is in danger ....

[AK Marc]

What's wrong with the spending? The problem is the budget. Spend all you want, just tax enough to cover it. If we paid off the debt, we'd not have any service on the debt. If we never grew it in the first place, it'd be much easier to manage the budget. The problem is that the two parties agree that spending is good, even if they disagree on where to spend. And they disagree on whether to borrow or tax to pay for it, so we end up negative, over and over, until we collapse the world economy and everyone is debating whether to try a bailout or let us tank, and which will hurt them more.

Money Does Not Create Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

The best innovations have always been on a shoe string budget. The simple approaches to a problem often lead to the most innovative solutions. But, instead we throw billions at a problem and hope that some bureaucrat finds some motivated scientist to solve a problem. Just think of all the garage innovations that have come about. (The personal computer?)

Learn to play guitar

[qualityassurancedept]

The idea that you would pay an american to do what lots of people all over the world can do for a fraction of the cost is ludicrous, and that goes for "research" at universities as well... unless of course you are talking about stealth bombers or nuclear weapons research, which it is illegal to export. Now that they have the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, american research in physics, for example, is on its way to becoming second rate and other than Women's Studies and Business School, American universities have less and less to offer. The american university system is more about generating revenue through student loans than it is about actually producing first rate scholars. The student loan debt bubble, that has lasted for 30 years, is probably ending and with it you will see a dramatic decline in the international prestige of american universities. It was always about the money... and it was the money that attracted the foreign nationals to the united states to teach... and the foreign nationals who moved to america are the only reason american universities were ever all that good.

Re:Learn to play guitar

[Anonymous Coward]

Better forget about the guitar, the people on this site have decided that all recorded music (and movies, video games, etc) should be free whether they've been offered for sale or not. In other words, everything that America does well should be given away for zero dollars.

You made your bed, now sleep in it.

A long time ago....

[girlintraining]

Bill Gates was once quoted as saying he doesn't fear other companies; He fears the guy working out of his garage who's busy producing the next big thing. Naturally, legislation has since been passed so Bill and the other billionaires of the tech world can sleep easy knowing he'll never get through the red tape to bring his product to market. There's patent law, copyright law, tort law, contract law, EULAs, and a plethora of other things making damn sure he'll get bought out or buried in debt and legal proceedings.

Has America lost it's luster? Yes. Quite awhile ago. You don't have to spend anything on education or science anymore... it's really quite pointless... nobody can benefit from it in this country anymore.

Re:A long time ago....

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! +10

I'm a straight up capitalist. Let people create and prosper, and let people buy as they wish. Capitalism works best in David vs. Goliath mode. The big guys become slow and complacent, and the guy in his garage turns the whole industry upside down. The problem is this:

1. We've created a business environment that can only be navigated with money and lobbying (GE anyone?). This effectively keeps competition at bay.

2. If the big guys did start to suffer from their incompetence, they'd probably get bailed out with taxpayer money anyway.

This is a giant crock of shit, and is the result of our capitalism/socialism cocktail. There isn't enough economic freedom to keep a free system balanced, and/or there isn't enough central control to make things "fair." It's just a giant FAIL. Personally I'm ready to try some Constitutionally limited government, Congressional term limits, and strict limits on lobbying. Go make your money in a free system, but don't expect it to bend to your needs.

It lost its shine long ago!

[bogaboga]

Here's why:

Take a look around your house and count the items that were manufactured in the USA. In mine, it's the toilet! Imagine, the toilet bowl. Everything else was manufactured in Mexico, Taiwan, Canada or China.

Now, there will be those who say: "Well, but that stuff was designed in the USA." To them I say, "nonsense."

Being designed in the USA is almost irrelevant if we spend all our cash abroad, servicing our debt. Banks are able to make profits because they 'enslave" us in debts and fees. That's how they make money. With our spending getting out of hand, foreign powers will only have to sit back and live on the interest we as a nation pay them while servicing our debt. It's insane.

That's how American academics dismissed the Japanese in the 70s and guess what, in a few years, you could not find an American (100%) made product.

We were a once proud nation with corporations like Zenith. It was the inventor of subscription TV and the remote control in addition to being one of the first to develop HDTV in USA. Where is it now? History.

Our car brands are non sellers abroad. Talk of GM and Asians will laugh at you. That's where the market is at the moment.

The latest frontier in electronics in the OLED with the AMOLED variation. No American patent is relied on in OLED technology. It's all Korean. How did it start? Yes, factories moved abroad...then the cash followed.

It's bad folks. When it comes to airplanes, an increasing percentage of these are foreign made. The new Boeing 787 Dream-liner has at least 30% foreign components. These will increase and when they get to more than 48% all manufacturing followed by research will be abroad.

I am waiting to see where America still shines. Worst of all, we're broke!

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

The unfortunate thing is, every first world country is broke. Every single one. I'm glad we (UK) are not on the Euro, but we're not doing much better.

You could argue that China is a first world, but we keep them going. If we implode and stop importing/buying, they implode as well.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until China's own property bubble bursts and they'll be as broke as we are...

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but we still have the defense industry, those industrial death merchants hammering us deeper in debt. We are the new Soviet Union, destroying ourselves trying to keep our empire.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our car brands are non sellers abroad. Talk of GM and Asians will laugh at you. That's where the market is at the moment."

GM has captured 35% of the foreign car sales in China. That's no laughing matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick#Buick_in_Mainland_China

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[CaptainLard]

Our car brands are non sellers abroad. Talk of GM and Asians will laugh at you

Unless you count china. Of all things, BUICK sells almost half a million cars a year there. Then there is the plethora of ford foci, fiestas, mondeos that you'll find all across Europe. Holden is Australian for GM. Just cause chysler made the sebring for so long doesn't mean the US can't make a world class car. Didn't pay much attention to the rest of your rant but that line was flat out wrong.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

Our car brands are non sellers abroad. Talk of GM and Asians will laugh at you. That's where the market is at the moment.

Hate to get in the way of a good rant, but that's not true. GM is the top-selling car brand in China.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

US manufacturing output at an all-time high. We still have plenty of consumer device companies designing in the US such as Cisco, Motorola, Apple. Also chip designers such as Intel, NVidia. British-owned ARM does plenty of design work in the US.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[satuon]

Technology is not only about things in your house. If you go to look in the Chinese factories you might see a lot of the heavy machinery and conveyer lines have 'Made in USA'. And those have bigger profit margins.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a skydiver in the UK. Most of the equipment used in skydiving in general have "Made in the USA" stamped on them with only a few exceptions of some electronics coming from Germany. I needed new lines replaced on my parachute, and I was told to post it back to the factory to get the job done. Where did I post it to? Yes, De Land, FL, USA. So don't think USA makes nothing - you still have a manufacturing base. You asked where USA still shines - well, USA shines in designing and manufacturing skydiving equipment - De Land, FL, USA has lots of skydiving related industries, enough to have roads named after skydiving jargon. The photo at the bottom of this page shows the US factory.

Okay, so you don't make the basic stuff any more, but the advanced stuff is still made there.

Outside of skydiving, I have seen a number of other "Made in USA" stuff.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, Buick is big in China.

And we are NOT broke... we're richer than ever, and richer than anyone else. It's just that that "we" is NOT a big tent "we," historically speaking. It's just a tough point of inflection to decide where and how and when and in what order to invest in what parts of the good 'ole U. S. of A. again.

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[Savantissimo]

How many of the cars you mentioned are actually manufactured in America and exported, rather than being made abroad?

Re:It lost its shine long ago!

[CaptainLard]

Probably a minority. But on the other hand, how many japanese and korean cars are built abroad and imported to the US? Also a minority! Toyota has 6 US factories building the camry and corolla (by far their biggest US sellers), Honda has 3, Hyundai has a few, BMW, VW, etc. BMW ships its X series SUV's from north carolina all over the world. I'm sure there are other examples. I guess my point is, most of the money spent on cars in america stays in america and a non trivial amount comes in from abroad. Unfortunately (and counter to common practice on /.) this car analogy does not hold true for the main story...

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[Anonymous Coward]

like the post-war innovation - the stuff the British and Germans invented that the Americans happily took on as their own.

It's not much different from Kinect, everyone says how wonderful this Microsoft innovation was, yet they just bought it from Primesense, no innovation whatsoever happened at Microsoft.

Awww

[Anonymous Coward]

Diminishing returns on stolen German WW2 era technology, have to make your own now :(

Re:Awww

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not stolen when a huge amount of German scientists voluntarily came to the US of their own free will.

Re:Awww

[sourcerror]

There's a reason Werner von Braun referred to his group as "prisoners of peace".

Re:Awww

[Nidi62]

Wasn't a hard choice between going to the US, and going to the Soviet Union

Re:Awww

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the Radar and the Jet Engines, that the Brits provided...

And the nuclear reaction, which came from Leo Szilard (Hungary).......

Re:Awww

[rastoboy29]

"Stolen" is such an ugly word.

I prefer "plundered"! ;-D

Re:Awww

[dbIII]

Neither group had a choice at the time.
Those who were taken to the USSR experienced the extreme form of how some outsourcing companies work today. The German scientists and technicians were working on a dummy project with Russian assistants. Once the assistant was trained to the point of being useful they would be be transferred to the real project and another untrained assistant would arrive. When it appeared that nothing more could be learned from the German scientists and technicians they were executed. So you see any parallels with what has happened with outsourcing?
Please note that it's an analogy and not a request for random readers to take it far too literally and make themselves look stupid. Obviously I do know there is a difference between being laid off and being killed.

Well, what do you expect?

[p51d007]

We have a "leader" bashing the United States 24/7 We have kids brought up in a world surrounded by helicopter parents, giving them everything they want, trying to buy them anything they want. We teach "conflict resolution" and other political correctness crap in schools. We never let kids fall down and get hurt, never let them play around with boxes, tape, scissors to "make stuff". Then if they make it out of high school with the ability to walk and chew gum without falling down, they go to college, get a degree in underwater basketweaving, rack up 200,000 in debt, THEN complain they didn't get a 100k a year job with 2 weeks vacation with no experience, hang out for a month on "wall street" complaining. You want to know why we are losing out in inventing things? We have no one to blame, but ourselves!

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[Beelzebud]

*golf clap*

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[bogaboga]

Ohh no no no...I take issue with this point you make:

We have a "leader" bashing the United States 24/7

No sir! That leader is saying the truth. Heck, all other past leaders have been sugar coating our situation, masking the truth while America was degenerating. Do you think the current perceived degeneration started when this "leader' came into office? I for one would like a leader who tells the truth.

I agree with you on this:

We have kids brought up in a world surrounded by helicopter parents, giving them everything they want, trying to buy them anything they want. We teach "conflict resolution" and other political correctness crap in schools. We never let kids fall down and get hurt, never let them play around with boxes, tape, scissors to "make stuff"

No wonder kids from the poorest nations come here and still out-perform our kids. One such kid, from one of the poorest countries on planet earth, wondered how one can "fail" in America...where everything is at your disposal. This kid used charcoal to write on hardened earth. Her class was under a tree. When she came here, she was 3 grades ahead of her age, solving mathematical problems in her head, spoke "correct" English and wondered why people spoke in sentences like, "I am like ..." What kind of English is that? She wondered.

Consumerism is killing us: I always wndered how someone would spend 14 hours for a store to open, spend upwards of $600 in order to have the "latest gadget", which gadget would be obsolete in 11 months. Insane. How much production work would that be?

You want to know why we are losing out in inventing things? We have no one to blame, but ourselves!

I agree 100%. We have whole legions of people on welfare with no hope of ever leaving it. Heck...put them to work. There are farms in Tennessee, Arizona and Texas that would be willing to get them work, but guess what, they are not willing to do that kind of work, but are willing to wait for a welfare check. Then follow the kids and grand kids...then we wonder why our nation cannot collect enough revenue to sustain basic human living standards. It's sad my friend.

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[znerk]

An article saying exactly this.

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[FhnuZoag]

Yeah, the irony with the statement "We have a "leader" bashing the United States 24/7" is that criticising the US is *exactly* what the OP is doing in his own comment. The US needs self-criticism to recognise its flaws and fix them. It's ones saying America is 'fine exactly the way it is', and that it's disloyal to try to point out issues and make changes, that is the real problem. If you are so damn fixated on denigrating and taking down people for having the temerity to complain about the present failing system, that you ignore their message completely, then no wonder the failure of the system is going to continue unarrested.

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from your grammar and punctuation, you're probably calling the kettle black, here...

Re:not in the upbringing

[TaoPhoenix]

Find a way to make Nerds/Geeks Cool.

Being facetious, pay a kid for every A and B he gets in class (and make it go to the kid, like lunch money, not the parents!).

Sure then the jocks will be envious, but ... oh wait, I'm sorry, what was that?

I know, we'll raise a bunch of little tyrants, but wasn't the question on how to make our country really value education?

The other half is we need some kind of Angel Investor to slow down the corruption circle at the top levels. One of the mega billionaires who is fed up with it all, and just buys entire industries and voting blocs. Like the RIAA.

Just imagine - 1,000 top properties get an exemption, so Disney gets to keep their Mouse, the Beatles maybe, etc. But then that thundering second pantheon gets released as Creative Commons - Attribution - Share Alike. ("Just don't claim it is yours").

I hear the voices of 400 lobbyists crying out in anguish!

Well no wonder

[Anti Cheat]

With the US business greed focused on making the fastest profit possible still in full swing, and this also true in other western countries. I'm not surprised innovation and ingenuity is faltering. Why would industry focused only as far as the next quarters profit see any benefit on long term investment.

For sometime now Companies have massively laid off it's historical knowledge held by what it considers costly western labour and researchers. Add to that the offshoring momentum and it set the stage for a 20 year decline in the skilled research and workforce.
We could make a long list of where all the short sighted decisions that all compile to spell out the US decline

So just a few examples of a long list that has lead to the US and other western countries slow and steady downfall.
a) Attraction of cheap offshore manufacturing jobs as 2nd world nation's labour forces gain education/training. Of note is that significant costs of that were paid for by Western companies as cheaper alternative to western training costs..
b) The rising costs of basic education and there being no desire to spend taxes on it in the west. In some cases a disproportionate shift to who shares in payment.
c) The secondary level education rising costs of a degree/diploma without the job that could pay it back in reasonable time.
d) Bleeding out the existing wealth of the middle class over to the so called 1%,Why destroy the middle class? Long term short sighted?
e) Traditionally in the last 50 years it had become the middle class that supported innovation and ingenuity through support of education as less and less was supported by industry.
f) Companies will follow the wealth. They have no loyalty to any nation or people. It's only to those people that control those companies. Rarely does a Corp have a sense of morality. Only what the laws allow is it's morality and that is not morality at all..
g) Corporate influence in making laws that benefit not the country or it's people, but rather only for its profits. Even if its convenient to the detriment of the country and its people.
etc etc etc. A sad comedy off errors.

Re:Well no wonder

[bogaboga]

g) Corporate influence in making laws that benefit not the country or it's people, but rather only for its profits. Even if its convenient to the detriment of the country and its people

That sad thing is that when a "reformer" tries to do something, the reformer is labeled a socialist/communist...as if we cannot have anything somewhere in between.

Re:Well no wonder

[znerk]

The root cause of all of these issues is likely the law requiring companies to show their shareholders a profit. A CEO can not only be fired, but can be fined and jailed for not showing a profit.

Things have deteriorated to the point where not only can the execs not make mistakes that cost the company money, but they literally have to not make mistakes that reduce the profit margins.

Corporate entities are a legal fiction that is destroying our economy.

Re:Well no wonder

[HalAtWork]

They only care about scrambling to make the current quarter look good, they have no long-term view. You can't keep luring in suckers, eventually they'll get wise. It's better to smarten up now rather than prolong the bullshit until we can't even climb back up the hill because we're exhausted and everyone else is already at the top.

Re:Well no wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Fined and jailed? That is absolute bull fucking shit and you know it. Yes they are there to make a profit, but there is no jailable enforcement if they dont. If the company doesn't turn a profit, the CEO usually gets a big severance package (golden parachute) and moves on. Take HP for example. How about the airlines? They haven't showed a profit in years. GM has been in the red for years and none of their top brass have been hit with so much as a slap.

Name one CEO that has been fined or jailed for not turning a profit. Jailed and/or fined for breaking the law is another matter.

Re:Well no wonder

[CaptainLard]

And you can't forget that for the past decade, the most brilliant minds in the US have wasted all of their time complaining on /.

Re:Well no wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent is an idiot. He meant that there is a law requiring the CEO to act in the interest of the shareholders eg. Red Hat lawsuit.

Anyone want to play a game of telephone?

Re:Well no wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Offtopic: I don't think 2nd world means what you think it means: Three Worlds Theory

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[0123456]

"Most Americans are basically the 99.9% - the non-innovators. The 1% comes from all over the world."

Does not compute.

This is innovative foreign percentages; they go up to 100.9%.

It's true in a way, though; America reached the peak of its power because it encouraged the 'best and brightest' from all over the world to move there by providing them with the best environment to bring their ideas to fruition. That's no longer the case, so we shouldn't be surprised that America is in decline now it's become a nation of rent-seekers.

Whatever would we do...

[sconeu]

What would we do without rhetorical questions?

Re:Whatever would we do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhetorical questions are pointless, you know what I'm saying?

By healthcare, please specificy INSURANCE

[RedHat Rocky]

We all need to make sure when we say "healthcare", we generally mean healthcare INSURANCE, not actual healthcare.

In my opinion, the big problem with healthcare is healthcare insurance. People tend to go for any procedures that are "covered" by insurance without regard for the actual cost. This puts the insurance companies in the customer role instead of the actual recipient. One can follow the downward spiral for non-insured recipients from there.

Re:By healthcare, please specificy INSURANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just insurance. As someone who works in healthcare (as a healthcare provider, and who also does scientific research), I think insurance is mostly a symptom. I.e., it's definitely a problem, but it reflects the expense of healthcare, rather than being a direct cause.

The healthcare expense crisis is complex, but this is what I see contributing more (or just as much as insurance):

1. The privatization, consolidation, and resulting monopolization of healthcare. Hospitals are increasingly being run as for-profit businesses, with all of the ills of modern American corporatization. They're being administrated by individuals whose experience, training, and interests are in making a profit, with little understanding of what makes for efficient healthcare. They're also consolidating, which reduces competition in any regional market. If all the hospitals in an area are owned by one corporation, insurance companies can't negotiate as effectively.

2. Overrregulation by the government in terms of licensure, etc. It's too hard for people who could provide services to provide those services, which creates bottlenecks in supply of care. Have you ever asked yourself why you need a prescription for antibiotics from an NP, PA, or MD? Doesn't it make sense to get that without a prescription from a pharmacist (much as with pseudophedrine), or with a prescription from an AN? Why has it been so difficult for psychologists to obtain prescription privileges, even when it's proposed as being optional and dependent on successful completion of extensive pharmacology training? If healthcare is so expensive, why isn't it being made easier for people to obtain services from a wider range of types of providers? Sure, there would be risks in some cases, but I believe those risks are often overstated, and it would decrease costs overall.

Insurance does play a role, as well as other things--e.g., malpractice, population changes in health, etc., but I think those two issues above are the major culprits. I don't see healthcare costs changing until those things are honestly addressed and changed.

And no: I have zero ties to the insurance industry.

End sports in college or make a sports only couse

[Joe_Dragon]

System where people in sports don't take up space in classes and don't get a free pass in class as they are on the football team.

Pay the people on the sports teams with the option of useing that to PAY for the NON sports classes or keep that for own use and treat being on the sports team like any other job.

Catch 22.

[HornWumpus]

If we had been paying and respecting our teachers we would have good ones.

But we haven't and we don't. So raising their pay has to come second. First is merit pay, reform multiple new teachers unions and abolish tenure for professional teachers. (ed majors, leave it for college profs where they actually should be independent researchers.)

The problem is the teachers we have today aren't even worth what they are making. Paying them lawyer's salaries won't help in the short term.

Re:Catch 22.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are never going to get people who are worth a damn to become teachers without providing them with benefits and job security. Your ideas fail to fix anything and will only drive good teachers into other fields. You have to start young, and that means creating incentives for people to become grade school teachers, not taking them away.

Teachers are more important than Lawyers, start paying them like it.

Re:Catch 22.

[misexistentialist]

There is neither enough money nor talent to possibly do that. You could shift resources from other fields, but then you'd end up with a guy making 40k who has a BA in "science" operating on your brain. Fake unions have driven teaching salaries close to the average for lawyers in many places, but most of the money goes to the most senile of the same mediocre labor pool.

Re:Catch 22.

[xstonedogx]

If teachers want good pay, they're going to have to be willing to be judged on merit and that includes the possibility of being fired. Job security is nice to have, but it leads to things like excellent teachers being paid the same amount as teachers who should have been fired many times over.

Re:Catch 22.

[cptdondo]

The problem is that every time a teacher teaches sex-ed, or gay-lesbian stuff, or tells his / her class to read something through-provoking, the luddites and idiots on the school boards would fire them. So you would have teachers who are afraid to teach.

Tenure is important to shield teachers from the stupidity of the masses. It also has the unfortunate side effect of shielding bad teachers. If you get rid of it, you'll lose the good teachers.

Re:Catch 22.

[xstonedogx]

I'm not sure a 'good teacher' teaches things his employer doesn't want him teaching. I see that more as a problem of public education: you get the education the loudest want, not necessarily the education you want.

Regardless, I think merit-based compensation and firing are doable while still protecting against these types of shenanigans.

Re:Catch 22.

[ultranova]

First is merit pay,

Which requires a somewhat objective measure of merit, in other words, a standardized test. This, in turn, incentivizes teachers to teach how to pass the test at the expence of everything else, which in turn will make the problem worse.

Re:Catch 22.

[xstonedogx]

It's only our American obsession with the perception of fairness that *requires* an objective measure of merit. I don't think we've found a useful objective measure for teaching, but I think subjective measures would work just fine if we'd let them.

Re:Catch 22.

[Kohath]

And there's no way "good teachers" could ever find another teaching job, I guess.

That's why "good teachers" need to be shielded from the employment realities faced by everyone else in every other job.

Re:Catch 22.

[Anonymous Coward]

It' also a problem of Univs having loud, rich, stupid donors and the media they control. "The masses" often do what's been programmed into them over a lifetime of hearing certain messages. Try listening to the recent NPR interview with Umberto Ecco, who grew up in fascist Italy, it details this phenomenon and coming out of it as WWII ended.

Northwestern, one of the best schools out there, no longer teaches intro to sex just because the head of the department held an optional, after-class demonstration where they showed that a girl can "ejaculate", and talked about safe sex with toys. Chicagoland went bonkers, donors went crazy crying that it was immoral and wrong, while those of us in the sex-ed community shook our heads and did our best to defend what was a very educational and intelligent engagement of something that many kids have no clue about (sex, safety, having fun for god's sake). Now they can't engage at all if they go to Northwestern, so those kids will just fumble around and hope they develop some type of healthy sexual identity on their own.

Trust me, it's not the masses, it's the people with the big bucks and the media they often control that cry down most attempts at intelligent discussion and, by extension, progress.
 

Re:Catch 22.

[ppanon]

I'm not sure a 'good teacher' teaches things his employer doesn't want him teaching.

That's exactly the problem he's talking about isn't it? The 'good teacher' should be teaching his students what they need to know. However his customer/employer can often be pressured into pushing material that is not in the students' best interest (from lobbying by textbook publishers to pandering to religious biases of a vocal subset of the population).

Re:Catch 22.

[Politburo]

"have driven teaching salaries close to the average for lawyers in many places, but most of the money goes to the most senile of the same mediocre labor pool."

Citation needed. Average lawyer salary is twice that of teachers per BLS. Areas with higher teacher pay also have higher lawyer pay so it's generally a wash there (and in many cases the increase in lawyer pay is greater than the increase in teacher pay).

The national average for lawyers is $129k mean, $113k median. In NJ it's $126k and $110k. NJ has the 4th highest teacher pay, and only 0.15% of teachers make more than $110k.

Re:Catch 22.

[HornWumpus]

I've heard this argument many times.

It implies that the teachers have a copy of the test _and_ that the test is poorly written.

Write a good test. Teaching to a good test is the right thing to do. You can't just have the kids memorize the answers (you don't know the questions, you do know the material). You have to teach them how to think.

Re:Catch 22.

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit.

O levels are not American tests. A levels ether.

Germans take a test in middle school that puts them onto the university track (gymnasium) or a trade.

Japanese have very high stakes college admission tests.

The only people who's subjective evaluation mean anything are parents and future employers. Teachers are not on the list. They are biased and unobjective.

Re:Catch 22.

[misexistentialist]

Well I guess all the complaints from lawyers about falling salaries are exaggerated. But I suspect the average teacher's "prep time" complaints are also exaggerated, and a comparison of the pay per hour actually worked would end up a lot closer.

LOL ingenuity

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the notion that the success of the US in the post war era was purely a result of American 'ingenuity' - and not, say, the decimation of the most developed competitor nations, and a continents worth of natural resources to exploit.

Sure, some things were invented in the US (far fewer than most Americans believe though) but you can't ignore non-human factors just to give yourselves a pat on the back.

Re:LOL ingenuity

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the notion that the success of the US in the post war era was purely a result of American 'ingenuity' - and not, say, the decimation of the most developed competitor nations, and a continents worth of natural resources to exploit.

Sure, some things were invented in the US (far fewer than most Americans believe though) but you can't ignore non-human factors just to give yourselves a pat on the back.

+1
Call it the Reality Distortion Field of Americans.

Stop outsourcing production, first

[Krachmanikov]

Cry me a river! America's innovation lost its shine, because of outsourcing every single production bit overseas. Most innovation steps are incremental improvements, not radical. Therefore, feedback from the market (customers) and from the production line is absolutely necessary. By outsourcing production to an external contractor, companies will first loose the feedback from production. Once the outsourcing contractors know the products, they will get to know the sales channels, too. In time companies loose their market, their ability to produce products and finally the ability to improve their products. What we see today is the result of a short-sighted service-oriented economic principle. Wake up! Start "doing" things, again.

Re:Stop outsourcing production, first

[Anonymous Coward]

America didn't lose its shine when outsourcing occurred, it lost its shine when outsourcing start to be considered innovation. Thanks to Jack Welch and the like, MBAs think they are being innovative when they find someone to do the same job, with the same technology in a different location preferably with minimal government regulation

I think that the U.S. will shine again. It will do it when we take every one else under with us because of our crushing debt. Then no large companies will be interested in us and we can start all over again..

Re:Stop outsourcing production, first

[rally2xs]

And why is outsourcing happening? No, its not the labor expense in the USA, its the taxes in the USA. Near-40% corporate income tax makes it a good idea to do as little "corporate" in the USA as possible. Wanna fix it? Pass the Fair Tax. www.fairtax.org. That abolishes all Federal income tax, including individual, corporate, capital gains, inheritance, self employment, alternative minimum, gift, social security, medicare, etc. all of 'em, along with the IRS. Instead, things for sale, both goods and services are taxed.

Before you start thinking "regressive" (which it isn't, after you read and understand it), consider that the income taxes have social security and Medicare at 15.3%, plus 22% of the selling price, on average, of everything made in America is the result of income tax expense to the businesses that manufacture it, and you can see that the poor are getting hit with up to 37% income taxes, all tolled, while never having to file a tax return. The income tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have.

And, that is what is destroying America, high costs of manufacturing, not high labor costs. I say we zero the taxes, keep the high wages, and let people work themselves out of poverty and the need for Federal assistance to the poor.

Mod Parent UP

[znerk]

Taylor Mali, "What Teachers Make"

The tech feeds needs some kind of apprenticeships

[Joe_Dragon]

System or some kind of way to have smart people not to get tied down by others going to college just for the piece of paper.

Also there is big parts of innovation and other part of it. Like testing, building out and deploying it.
That can work better then just sitting in a class room.

Now the time in class is to long 4 years of theory for IT work and programing? Lots of crap software comes from people with 4 year CS that is lacking in the hands on part. And other people are real good with no college at all.

Now why can't we have some kind mixed tech school, apprenticeships system? I think big time theory is to high level now some theory is nice.
But whats the point of coming up with good idea based on theory with out the knowing about the hands on side of working with tech to see how stuff goes together?

MIT Prez predicts disaster if education funds cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what did you think the University President types would say?

This reminds me of how newspaper publishers predicted that if they were allowed to go under, the Internet would eventually be full of fluffy, unfiltered press-release type stories masquerading as news.

Wait a minute, I guess that did happen...

It is not the Idea . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . it is the execution. If I had a nickel for every idea ever conceived, I could pay off the federal debt, buy China, and still have enough money left to bail out Europe. The problem is implementing the idea. It has always been hard, but the government (a.k.a. we the people) has created an environment where productivity is taxed to a point, then unregulated. For example, if you are smarter and work harder than me, and then you make twice as much money as me, you will pay OVER twice as much tax as me. If you manage to make enough money, you may become wealthy enough not to need to work at all. Then you can hire a tax attorney and a financial analyst to move your money to a place where you pay LESS tax than I pay, maybe no tax. Of course, most hard working, smart, and honest people never reach this level of wealth. The point -- the barriers to implementing good ideas are not just talent and effort. The country has become more of a hindrance. If we just taxed passive income (and not active income), then more ideas would be realized. There would be fewer billionaires, too

Another nail in the Coffin of the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of restriction is modern day equivalent of Indentured Labour.
Why should any business have a claim on something that is not related to their business that you have done in your own time.

In other parts of the world this sort of employment contract condition is illegal. So why do they insist on it in the US?
I'm not from the US but worked there for 4 years under my UK Contract. I was offered a permanent position but turned it down due to this clause in my contract.
My current employer is cool with me working on two FOSS projects in my spare time knowing fullwell that they can't claim ownership of any code I write in my own time.
If the US wants to encourage innoovation then they need to let people create stuff in their own time and then to let them take the risks with it. You did once but sadly not now.
With all these MAD Patents lawsuits, don't you see that the rest of the world is laughing at you while they get on with life and business.

YEARS AGO

[roman_mir]

Well, not all my comments end up like this

Here is a comment from "NASA Head Ignores Congress, Eyes Cooperation With China" story. (more than a year ago now)

Quote:

Here is the thing: society that loses manufacturing jobs, loses the manufacturing sector, it then pretty much loses the need for engineering, and in reality in most of realities, engineering is what drives progress forward and it even drives the need for scientific advancement forward.

So society that stops making stuff, stops thinking of stuff as well. You can't be thinking without actually producing, even though those who really build/engineer and those who do basic science are different people and working in different institutions.

Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?

Re:not in the upbringing

[Anonymous Coward]

Best grades I ever got was when my dad bribed me (so many bucks per grade increase). I didn't see what the point was of getting good grades and I didn't crave the approval of my teachers but I did see the benefit of his offer. I did so well he didn't do it again. In retrospect it seemed like a very cheap bargain for him. It was a way of putting value on something I didn't see the immediate value in (it didn't make me a tyrant). Funny how we defend this system for business people (to a ridiculous degree) but students should never be paid for performance.

College needs to change / be updated for today wor

[Joe_Dragon]

On line schools and tech schools have better class times that let's people work and go to school at the same time + as well continuing education That is not just MBA / PHD level stuff as continuing education.

Text books are out dated, have high cost and some times are out of date. E-books / some kind of wikipedia like systems.

Tests just based on creaming need to go! They need to be open book, more hands on, some times group based, and maybe even open Google.

Don't judge people with not best witting in testes or other places when you have people out there that are real good at wiring let that tech guy do the tech part and the witter do the wittering part. That is part of why there are so many essay writing service out there and based on reports about them alot of people doing that are good witters so why should some on fail or get a lower grade just because they are not a good witter.

Filler classes should not count as part of the GPA.

Gen edu's should be cut down for some majors in some ways / also over all there must be some that can be cut down.

Filler classes should be cut down as well.

Feature creep in some colleges has pushed the # of credits / classes needed out to 5 years for what used to be 4 years. We need to cut most 4 years planes down to 3 and some of 5 years stuff to 4. Also have a 1-2.5 year plan for tech apprenticeships / tech schools.

NO forced meal planes and forced living in dorms that cost more then renting on your OWN for a sheared room and bathrooms If you can find room mates renting can save you even more.

At the higher end the PHD system needs work and last thing we want is for even more people to be pushed in to it.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472261a.html

No country for the young

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll again support my alma maters and state institutions when they stop the preference for foreign students. I have seen too many of my youthful colleagues being denied admittances in favor of some foreign student quotas. This "diversity movement" denies qualified U.S. students their desired path and loses our education and tech to other countries. A country is defined by its culture, language, and borders.

Re:No country for the young

[AK Marc]

The "diversity movement" is driven by higher international fees. It's more "free market" and "capitalistic" than you think.

the country is dead.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Buy guns and kill each other. This thing is only going to get worse.

Re:the country is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

can't wait. been hating these fat stupid american fucks for 20 years now.

MIT Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well obviously as more regions around the world attain better education then innovation will be less centralized in one particular region. America is still the leader in many innovative pursuits however I like to think we have moved on from thinking that ingenuity and innovation has to mean exclusively technology. So yes MIT should be worried, they've dug there grave and now they do not want to lay in it. Ingenuity and innovation does not always have to equal baseless IPO driven software sweat houses or hipster electronics.

We can spend our time and resources tackling more worthy pursuits. But its not a question of whose "winning", its a much more profound and meaningful question that I am sure is lost on many engineers, which is as a country what are our values.

Not in every field

[betterunixthanunix]

The first gene sequencing technology was enormously expensive to use, and subsequent developments would not have been possible without it. Not every field is abstract like computer science, and this is not some Ayn Rand fantasy -- sometimes a large up-front cost is needed to pay for innovation, and private industry may be reluctant to pay for technologies that might become profitable 20 years down the road.

Re:Not in every field

[0123456]

private industry may be reluctant to pay for technologies that might become profitable 20 years down the road.

If it's not going to be profitable for twenty years, why not wait twenty years and develop it then?

Imagine trying to build an iPhone in 1990. Sure, the first clunky models would be kind of cool even though they required you to drag a half-ton trailer around with you, but would also be utterly pointless until technology had improved enough in other areas to eliminate that half-ton truck.

Re:Not in every field

[Pseudonym Authority]

Things take time to develop. Under your 3 year plan, there would never be any iPhone, because you would never have the foresight to invest in anything that wasn't immediately profitable. You lack vision, and ultimately the ability to innovate, and any company you own will stagnate until dead.

Re:Not in every field

[betterunixthanunix]

If it's not going to be profitable for twenty years, why not wait twenty years and develop it then?

Sorry, perhaps I should be more clear: some technologies require twenty years of development before they become profitable. If nobody is working on those technologies, they will never become profitable at all.

Gene sequencing systems come to mind, which is why I had mentioned them in my original post. The first small-scale gene sequencing technology only became feasible in 1979, and sequencing complete gnomes only became possible in 1995. Now it is 2011, and gene sequencing is only somewhat profitable and only as a very restricted form of the technology (full genome sequencing is very expensive and not very useful). Private industry tends to shy away from research that requires such long periods of time to become profitable, especially when that research is so expensive.

Imagine trying to build an iPhone in 1990. Sure, the first clunky models would be kind of cool even though they required you to drag a half-ton trailer around with you, but would also be utterly pointless until technology had improved enough in other areas to eliminate that half-ton truck.

How do you think technologies improve? Someone has to sit down and do the research, and that costs money. It is easy to assume that because profitable incremental improvements in computer technologies have led to substantial innovations that the same must be true in other fields, but that is not always the case. If the incremental steps are not profitable on their own, why would any for-profit operation undertake them?

Re:Not in every field

[Kittenman]

Imagine trying to build an iPhone in 1990. Sure, the first clunky models would be kind of cool even though they required you to drag a half-ton trailer around with you, but would also be utterly pointless until technology had improved enough in other areas to eliminate that half-ton truck.

I worked in an Infrastructure team in the mid 90s in the UK - we were buying big, clunky mobile phones with massive battery packs, for people to use when they tripped around Europe. If we'd waited ... well, we couldn't. They wanted to call home from Berlin/Warsaw/Amsterdam. People need the solution, not the technology. Give them solutions first and then improve it.

Re:Not in every field

[Hognoxious]

sequencing complete gnomes only became possible in 1995.

Before that, they could only do the little red hats.

Spend more on education?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, let's spend more on education. The hundreds of billions wasted already have been so effective. How about more subsidies for industries that investors will not touch? Best of all, let's arrange to send more unqualified students to college and subsidize it so that tuition rates continue to soar.

That which you subsidize will proliferate. I am not surprised that the Harvard president would advocate this course.Her self interest is exactly the same as any corporation.

Why?

[khasim]

So you are for cutting regulation then?

That doesn't even make sense. Patents are one, very specific, form of "regulation". And software patents in particular are a very, very, very specific form of "regulation".

Yet you immediately went with the general category of "regulation".

Why?

The only way for me to get it to market is to go through FAA certification.

Certification is NOT the same as patents.

Why are you trying to associate the two different concepts?

The requirements do not, in themselves, make better software, I just saw a speech ...

First, make that a period rather than a comma.

Second, again, you're trying to associate two different concepts.

Requirements are not patents.
Certifications are not patents.
Regulations (in general) are not patents.

You want to help out workers? Cut regulatory requirements.

I'd disagree with that. The "regulatory requirements" (in what appears to the case you're describing) are there to check that the systems meet the safety requirements of the FAA.

I'm okay with the FAA having requirements on software/hardware when the risk is something falling out of the sky.

You are complaining about the actions of the fortune 500 companies who have spent a lot of money to create regulatory hurdles for the little guys.

I don't see that.

I do see the Fortune 500 abusing the patent system to create hurdles for the small businesses.

But getting FAA approval ... no, I don't see that as a hurdle from the Fortune 500 put up that needs to be reduced.

Particularly when you confuse regulations, requirements and certifications with patents.

Re:Why?

[0123456]

Regulations are primarily used to keep new, cheaper, more innovative competitors out of the market.

Do you really think that planes would be falling out of the sky every day if the FAA stopped regulating? Airlines whose planes crash regularly tend not to last long.

Re:Why?

[KhazadDum]

Airlines whose planes crash regularly tend not to last long.

You go first, asshole.

Re:Why?

[Electricity Likes Me]

How happy would you be to be on one of those planes that crashes before said airline goes out of business?

Re:Why?

[AK Marc]

Do you really think that planes would be falling out of the sky every day if the FAA stopped regulating?

Yes. Not the large commercial jets, but the garage builders making recreational planes would have at least one incident a day.

Re:Why?

[cyber-vandal]

Airlines whose planes crash regularly tend not to last long.

Which would be a huge comfort to those killed at the hands of incompetent but cheap airlines. You think low-cost airlines wouldn't skimp on safety if they could? It's not like any of the senior managers would be punished with anything worse than short-term unemployment.

Planes wouldn't have to fall out of the sky every day for deregulation to be wrong. One preventable accident would be one too many.

I'm all for getting rid of unnecessary regulation. Identifying what is unnecessary is the hard part. A quick look at a history book in times where there was little to no regulation would show you that things were not better, they were a great deal worse.

Re:Why?

[TaggartAleslayer]

The reason we have regulation, inspection, certification and licensing in place is because we, as a society, don't like people falling out of the sky. It's certainly not a good rule for keeping the market safe and stable.

Waiting for the market to self-correct after mass casualties is a huge step backwards for humanity as a whole. The reason we have rules and regulations is because we, as a people, determined that unnecessary loss of life is not acceptable in a modern world and we put measures in place to prevent such things.

Would you want to live in a world with no safety checks in place? In a modern society where you have to rely on complex machinery, medicines, and processed foods to simply survive? If you rode a horse and buggy to work, ate what you grew, and died at 30 from pneumonia it would be fine to remove all regulations from everything. But we don't. We rely on products created by others. The stability of our market, as well as our own safety, relies on having checks in place to give reasonable assurance that we won't die from simply trying to live in modern society.

Re:Why?

[euroq]

Do you really think that planes would be falling out of the sky every day if the FAA stopped regulating? Airlines whose planes crash regularly tend not to last long.

I am a proponent of a quasi-free market. I really do understand how regulation can erode an economy. But the biggest problem with the real free market is what you just said.

If milk producers sold sour milk, they wouldn't last very long. But without regulation, there is no way to prevent milk producers from selling sour milk. Sure, you may think the big corporations will go out of business, but guess what: in a real free market, there would be TONS of small businesses changing logos all the time. And guess what, this isn't a theory of mine: there ARE under-regulated businesses. Two of them are construction firms and moving companies.

Construction firms go until they run out of money. When they run out of money, the executives keep all their earnings and the laymen are told there is no more work (they don't get 2 weeks, btw). I see this happen on a regular cycle, approximately every few months in the Atlanta metro area. (Not every company goes under every few months, I mean a company of ~20 people goes under every few months, but the people behind them keep making new businesses). I'm not talking about regulations on building safety (of which thankfully there is regulation), I'm talking about the businesses behind them: they just keep changing names after their shitty business practices prevent them from continuing under the same name.

Another is moving companies. You may think that moving companies wouldn't last long once they get a bad reputation, but once again they do the same trick: make a buck until they get a bad enough reputation, and then switch logos. There is no history of their "bad reputation". The federal government has tried to help with a national moving company registry, but they don't help for shit. The help desks tell you "The only people who comment on moving companies are the people who had bad experiences; trust me, I've been in this business for twenty years and something bad is bound to happen. But it rarely happens." Yeah, bullshit, there are good companies and bad companies, you just can't tell without a trusted source... and a trusted source isn't an unregulated free market.

So when it comes to boarding an aircraft which could kill people, yes, I'm glad that a company had to work its way through expensive regulations. In doing so, they prevent executives from affording to making cheap products and switching the logos once a mistake is made. With those expensive regulations comes a economic imperative to produce nothing but ultra-safe products.

Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends, how shiny is a dry turd?

Civilization!

[cbarcus]

Remember that game? Surplus energy is critical for supporting innovation within a society, and as some of our energy resources are becoming more expensive to exploit [Peak OIl], surplus energy declines. Apparently per capita energy consumption has declined over the past 40 years, so it seems possible, perhaps likely, that this is having numerous deleterious effects within our society, which are actually symptoms rather than prime causes of our unfortunate situation.

It is a bit late in our game to respond to this old problem (we peaked in our domestic petroleum production back in the 70s), but if we could tap into a vast source of carbon-free energy, we could conceivably synthesize all of the carbon-neutral fuels we require. Now, where is that wonderful machine?

[The game!] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(video_game)

[Peak OIl could limit economic growth] http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31330.html

[LFTR] http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/10/04/flibe-uk-4/

Re:not in the upbringing

[Belial6]

Grade inflation is already WAY out of control. I won't comment on parents making that deal with their own children, as I believe parents should be, well, parents. That means they choose how to raise their children. As for a national policy of paying for good grades, it would only take the first round of report cards to come out before the public would start considering it theft to not give their kid an A.

No, it's just

[bratwiz]

"Is American Innovation Losing Its Shine?"

No, it's just that everything these days is patented, copyrighted, intellectually-protected and DMCA'd with legions of lawyers, patent trolls and marketing leeches, that hardly anybody in their right innovative mind wants to swim in such submarine shark infested waters. If Alexander Graham Bell or Charles Babbage were alive today, they'd both have been eaten by preemptive litigation and opportunistic legislation long before they'd have had a chance to innovate. In fact, about the only person I can think of who might have been stood a chance, even today, would be Nikola Tesla, as nobody could be really certain as to whether or not he was able to retaliate with long-distance death-ray beams...

Re:No, it's just

[obliv!on]

Except wasn't Tesla the victim of such tactics courtesy of Edison?

Re:No, it's just

[bratwiz]

Yeah, you're right, we're all doomed.

Re:No, it's just

[nospam007]

"If Alexander Graham Bell or Charles Babbage were alive today, they'd both have been eaten by preemptive litigation and opportunistic legislation long before they'd have had a chance to innovate. "

Bell had a corporate patent lawyer, Anthony Pollok, even then, provided to him by one of his financial Backers Gardiner Hubbard. So nothing has really changed.

Re:No, it's just

[Anonymous Coward]

no, this is a second order effect at best

just try to get funding, or any kind of post-creating market valuation for some idea that will change the world.

its just not going to happen

we're stuck outside watching a giant circle jerk

Re:No, it's just

[Anonymous Coward]

If Alexander Graham Bell or Charles Babbage were alive today, they'd both have been eaten by preemptive litigation and opportunistic legislation long before they'd have had a chance to innovate.

It is interesting you should mention Alexander Graham Bell. There was a protracted patent dispute between Bell and Elisha Gray regarding who invented the telephone.

Re:No, it's just

[Savantissimo]

No, it's not patents that are the problem as such, it's bad, obvious, over-broad, incomprehensible patents and ridiculously expensive litigation that are the problems. This means one can never know if one is infringing, nor can one afford to defend oneself.

On the other hand, as an inventor I won't release anything I come up with. Without a patent I have no way to get anyone to pay me rather than just take the idea. I don't have the money to get a patent. $10K x n hundreds of inventions is more than I'll likely make in my life, and even one patent would mean going into debt for years, with less than a 2% chance of breaking even. That patent would take about three years to issue, then I'd need another million at least to be able to enforce it, otherwise there would be no point in getting it - a patent is only a license to sue. If I try to license the rights, or enforce the patent against infringers rather than trying to overcome insurmountable barriers to market entry, the dweeb-hordes on the internet will be calling me a patent troll. Even if none of the above applied, I'd still need vast sums to bring anything to market which even for a great invention would entail getting royally screwed by the money-men. If I worked for a corporation, they'd just use my ideas and give me nothing - or more likely, claim my ideas and sit on them. So, fuck it. Anything I come up with will die with me.

I imagine most inventors who aren't completely naive have come to similar conclusions, and the others have mostly given up after beating their heads against the wall. This is why there is less innovation today in the USA, particularly innovation that actually makes it to market.

Re:not in the upbringing

[sgt scrub]

Find a way to make Nerds/Geeks Cool.

Federally fund free sex for Nerds/Geeks.

China...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do think the whole of the west now feels the hot breath of Chinese economic power in our necks. German companies often have highest-quality and maximum-sophistication products in their respective sectors (tool machines, cars, engineering), but wages have been more or less flat over the last ten years here.
It is time to accept that the Chinese have stopped to be stupid Maoists; it is time to accept that their financial and industrial policy is highly successful. They have found a way to finance essentially free-enterprise corporations and let them run quite freely. The West does not have a monopoly on free enterprise economics and the resulting resource consumption. Let's accept this fact and prepare ourselves for the coming austerity. Let's prepare ourselves to ride a bus instead of a 2-ton SUV. Say goodbye to resource-hungry holiday travel.
1300 million hard-working Chinese will share the global oil, gas, nickel, chrome, wheat, rice, maize production with 400 million Europeans, and 350 million Americans. Time to accept living less resource-wasting lives !

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

eh?

The People are busy elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

The critical mass need for that type of change are too busy watching TV and getting fat.

Whatever idea + luck that got the Romans to rise up and dominate all around them eventually went away, and with it the Romans.

Same is happening with the US, and something will replace the US and then the US replacement will go away too.

The bast you can do is the selfish act of figure-out where the "new happing place" is going to be and be there when it err .. happens. "catch the wave"

Tis sad really. :-(

Re:The People are busy elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me, I'm surfing the net and getting fat.

Re:The People are busy elsewhere.

[euroq]

Whatever idea + luck that got the Romans to rise up and dominate all around them eventually went away, and with it the Romans.

As an self-educated expert in ancient Roman history, I hate it when the "fall of the Roman empire" is compared to modern America. Regardless of what trends you may see in the rise and fall of civilizations, the Roman empire had 1200 years on its timeline... America has about 150-ish, give or take, when comparing the timelines that matter. And the economies, the societies, ugh... they're so fucking different. Please compare America to the British Empire if you must, but even then, we aren't an empire.

Too much "innovation" on irrelevant issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it has lots its edge. Instead of innovating in areas such as engineering (be it mechanical, chemical or even civil), we are counting software things such as "social networking", "Web 2.0", Farmville-type stuff and other regurgitated crap as "innovation". Companies setting up a website are being valuated at billions of dollars.

Wake me up when someone gets to solve a real problem.

Do "something"

[Kohath]

"Do something about outsourcing."

Like what? Arrest people for outsourcing? Arrest people for buying non-American manufactured items? Arrest people for importing items? Tax or fine these people (because arresting people is too expensive, and sort-of a buzz kill)?

My suggestions are the same as the last time ths came up:

- Remove artificial government-imposed burdens and costs from producers.
- Radically reform education.
- Stop giving companies a huge tax incentive to invest outside the US.
- Stop giving productive individuals a huge incentive to retire or otherwise not work.
- Remove artificial government-imposed costs on individuals so we can get by on a salary that's a little more competitive with the non-US guy who does a similar job.

Note how no one gets arrested or taxed or fined in my suggestions.

Counter arguments were:
- No! Some company might make a profit
- No! Someone with money might make more money!
- No! Artificial costs are sweet when you're the one getting paid.
- No! That's a red team answer. Go blue team! Status quo! Status quo!
- No! Someone once said that a similar idea might not work.
- No! Spending one dollar less anywhere in government will be the end of civilization.
- No! We owe it to the plants and trees and birds and insects to maintain the status quo or retreat even further.
- No! Let's change the subject to defense spending or waterboarding or whatever. Those things are bad.

So that's why we won't be doing "something".

Re:Do "something"

[Dahamma]

No one even remotely suggested "arresting" people over business decisions. I don't see why you would start your argument with such an absurd straw man.

- Stop giving companies a huge tax incentive to invest outside the US.

Which was exactly the kind of thing he was suggesting (though I'm not sure how "no one gets taxed" comes out of "stop giving tax breaks"). Anyway, I'm confused - you seem to agree with him that something needs to be done, why all of the hostility?

But anyway - taxes/duties/etc are not only a reasonable solution (to an extent) but they are actually justified. US corporations get a huge benefit from being US corporations in terms of US government military, economic, trade, and foreign policies, not to mention infrastructure, education, and other government expenses. Pretty sure the US government wouldn't have bailed out Toyota or Deutsche Bank if they had threatened bankruptcy.

If companies want these benefits, they should be paying for them with some of the profits they make because of them. If they want to keep their investments and profits overseas to avoid their responsibilities, they should be forced by penalties/duties/taxes to bring their fair share back into the US economy or move to another country (and quickly see what they were taking for granted).

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

No one even remotely suggested "arresting" people over business decisions.

No. People say "pass a law prohibiting X" instead of "arrest people for X". It's a way to deceive yourself and others about what you're proposing.

Anyway, I'm confused - you seem to agree with him that something needs to be done, why all of the hostility?

I would prefer people not be arrested or taxed or fined for making normal business decisions. I don't think it's a straw man. We arrest people all the time. There's a woman facing prison time in Washington state right now for importing lobsters in clear plastic rather than cardboard cartons. She's already been arrested and convicted for violating the Lacey Act. She is not a straw man.

But anyway - taxes/duties/etc are not only a reasonable solution (to an extent) but they are actually justified.

Ok. But now you're arguing against doing "something" because not doing "something" is "justified".

...they should be forced by penalties/duties/taxes to bring their fair share back into the US economy or move to another country (and quickly see what they were taking for granted).

And if they don't pay, arrest them, right? And if I find a way to get around these duties and buy stuff for the real price rather than the government protection racket price, arrest me too, right?

Because the alternative is not bailing out companies and not spending money we don't have on things everyone else in the world has already decided they can't afford.

Re:Do "something"

[Undead Waffle]

Or we could just use import taxes targeted at equalizing the cost of outsourcing with manufacturing in the US. Simple concept but companies will scream and China won't be too happy.

Re:Do "something"

[Dahamma]

No. People say "pass a law prohibiting X" instead of "arrest people for X". It's a way to deceive yourself and others about what you're proposing.

Are you actually arguing we shouldn't pass any laws that might punish people!?

I would prefer people not be arrested or taxed or fined for making normal business decisions. I don't think it's a straw man. We arrest people all the time. There's a woman facing prison time in Washington state right now for importing lobsters in clear plastic rather than cardboard cartons. She's already been arrested and convicted for violating the Lacey Act. She is not a straw man.

Ironically, with her you have in fact created another straw man, as well as the fallacy of overgeneralization - "all trade laws are bad because I found one example that is bad".

Ok. But now you're arguing against doing "something" because not doing "something" is "justified".

What? I was arguing *for* doing something because it's justified. Not sure how you interpreted my statement as the opposite of what I really said.

And if they don't pay, arrest them, right?

If someone owes taxes and flat out refuses to pay, yes, they might be arrested. That's not a new concept, it's a basic tenet of pretty much all forms of government for as long as the concept has existed, from monarchies to democracies going back beyond the ancient Greeks.

And if I find a way to get around these duties and buy stuff for the real price rather than the government protection racket price, arrest me too, right?

If you knowingly broke a law doing it and that was the established punishment, sure. I agree there are a lot of stupid laws out there, but the solution is to fight to change them, not ignore them. If everyone were able to decide which laws they felt like following, what's the point of a legal system? That's called anarchy.

Because the alternative is not bailing out companies and not spending money we don't have on things everyone else in the world has already decided they can't afford.

Well, there's a point I agree with you on! Or at the very least the taxpayers should now own significant shares in some of the largest banks in the US - and getting income from *investing* in those once again hugely profitable banks rather than whatever meager taxes they haven't figured out how to avoid paying. And now we have come back to my original argument. Glad you agree with me ;)

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

...and arrest people who find a way around paying them.

Of course, this plan of yours has the following consequences (beyond arresting ordinary people for engaging in ordinary commerce):

- Prices go up for people buying things. This lowers their standard of living.
- Domestic production costs remain comparatively high (they actually increase), so domestic companies can forget about exporting anything.
- Other countries retaliate and impose their own import taxes on US goods. So domestic companies can really forget about exporting anything.
- Millions of people in jobs involving international trade lose those jobs.
- The shift from economically advantageous trade to politically protected commerce is a long and disruptive one, causing severe economic hardship.
- The shift from free decision-making to government decision-making empowers government. Bribery and crony capitalism and flourish. Insiders get rich, outsiders get to beg for scraps.

Luckily, this won't happen because all economists -- left, right, and center -- know it's destructive.

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

Are you actually arguing we shouldn't pass any laws that might punish people!?

It should be kept to an absolute minimum. Why are you so anxious to punish people? I'd prefer people were allowed to just go about their business and live their lives rather than being punished because you (or someone else) disapprove of their choices.

Ironically, with her you have in fact created another straw man, as well as the fallacy of overgeneralization - "all trade laws are bad because I found one example that is bad".

All of these laws are similar. You seem to be arguing that you know the government can thread the needle and only create good outcomes. Or you're arguing it's OK to put a few innocent people in prison for the greater good. Or we should only look at the intentions, not the consequences. Or something. Nevertheless, she's still facing prison for her crime of importing lobsters in clear plastic containers instead of cardboard cartons. Hooray for punishment!

If someone owes taxes and flat out refuses to pay, yes, they might be arrested. That's not a new concept, it's a basic tenet of pretty much all forms of government for as long as the concept has existed, from monarchies to democracies going back beyond the ancient Greeks.

It's an arrest that can easily be prevented by simply not imposing the taxes. Of course, then people would have to stop spending as much money they didn't earn. We should try it.

If you knowingly broke a law doing it and that was the established punishment, sure.

There's no law yet. You want a new law with new punishments to "force" (the word you used) people to do things the way you choose rather than the way they choose. You are specifically calling for people to be arrested in the future for continuing to do things they currently do every day.

Also, check out the Lacey Act again. There's no "knowingly". You're guilty whether our not you "knowingly" violated it. This is the new trend for lawmaking.

I agree there are a lot of stupid laws out there, but the solution is to fight to change them, not ignore them.

We should repeal them. And we should stop adding new ones just because someone wants to "do something" and someone else thinks it's "justified".

Re:Do "something"

[Rich0]

Yup. You don't even have to tie them to wages per se - just tie them to working conditions, environmental laws, political freedom, access to courts, and such. You could even use the proceeds to help drive improvements in these things overseas as part of foreign aid. I think that much of the cost difference overseas boils down to the fact that if a factory worker gets their arm chewed up by a machine you can hand their family $10 and pay somebody else 50 cents to clean the machine, and if in the process 5000 gallons of toxic waste leaks out you just hose it into the creek. Then if the family does get upset and sues chances are the local government will shut them up (perhaps brutally) since they're in the pocket of the company and they don't like to advertise their conditions.

So, outsource your work to Belgium and vice-versa if that makes sense economically - I'm sure that sort of thing will just balance out. The real problem is jurisdiction shopping to get around basic human rights.

Re:Do "something"

[Undead Waffle]

I like how every one of your arguments starts by assuming someone else's idea leads to arresting innocent people.

- Prices go up for people buying things. This lowers their standard of living.

In some areas. In others it leads to more people with money to buy things, more sales, and therefore lower costs.

- Domestic production costs remain comparatively high (they actually increase), so domestic companies can forget about exporting anything.

Well first, the idea of building things locally leading to an end to all exports is utter bullshit. GM, Ford, Boeing, Intel... all export their products and make much of it in the US.

- Other countries retaliate and impose their own import taxes on US goods. So domestic companies can really forget about exporting anything. - Millions of people in jobs involving international trade lose those jobs.

So? I would expect them to set similar import taxes, meaning stuff is imported when it is genuinely better and bought locally when the products are similar enough. Not unreasonable. This still puts us at an advantage since tech companies are still largely based in the US.

- The shift from economically advantageous trade to politically protected commerce is a long and disruptive one, causing severe economic hardship. - The shift from free decision-making to government decision-making empowers government. Bribery and crony capitalism and flourish. Insiders get rich, outsiders get to beg for scraps.

Luckily, this won't happen because all economists -- left, right, and center -- know it's destructive.

Haha. Slippery slope bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that.

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

I like how every one of your arguments starts by assuming someone else's idea leads to arresting innocent people.

That's what government is: arresting people. If you can accomplish something without arresting people (or threatening to arrest them), then you generally have little use for government involvement.

Haha. Slippery slope bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that.

I see. Any talk of any consequences at all is "slippery slope bullshit". So there shall be no discussion of (or any reason to think about) consequences. Well played!

Re:Do "something"

[Undead Waffle]

Yup. You don't even have to tie them to wages per se - just tie them to working conditions, environmental laws, political freedom, access to courts, and such. You could even use the proceeds to help drive improvements in these things overseas as part of foreign aid. I think that much of the cost difference overseas boils down to the fact that if a factory worker gets their arm chewed up by a machine you can hand their family $10 and pay somebody else 50 cents to clean the machine, and if in the process 5000 gallons of toxic waste leaks out you just hose it into the creek. Then if the family does get upset and sues chances are the local government will shut them up (perhaps brutally) since they're in the pocket of the company and they don't like to advertise their conditions.

So, outsource your work to Belgium and vice-versa if that makes sense economically - I'm sure that sort of thing will just balance out. The real problem is jurisdiction shopping to get around basic human rights.

I have thought about tying taxes to conditions but you have to be really careful going in that direction because it tends to be used as a bargaining chip and loopholes get added. And since such laws are currently written by the industries they're targeting you can guarantee it would have so many loopholes the law would be effectively useless from the beginning. In the end I think the simpler you can make it the better.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

I like how every one of your arguments starts by assuming someone else's idea leads to arresting innocent people.

The idea was to "due something about outsourcing". What do YOU think government can do to stop it? Ask people really really nice? Or enforce new laws, which is done by arresting as needed.

- Prices go up for people buying things. This lowers their standard of living.

In some areas. In others it leads to more people with money to buy things, more sales, and therefore lower costs.

USA is just not competitive, because on all work you do, big part is taken and redistributed how current masters of you agree. With minimum wage and high tax everything is expensive. Adding new taxes will only make things worse. Rest of world will enjoy cheap electronics,tshirts and everything, while you will be forced to buy from eachother, everyone of you giving more and more money to gov. To be wasted or corrupted. Or perhaps invested into next war "on terror".

Re:Do "something"

[Undead Waffle]

I like how every one of your arguments starts by assuming someone else's idea leads to arresting innocent people.

The idea was to "due something about outsourcing". What do YOU think government can do to stop it? Ask people really really nice? Or enforce new laws, which is done by arresting as needed.

I suggested import taxes. He said that leads to "arresting ordinary people for engaging in ordinary commerce". Are you really defending this?

- Prices go up for people buying things. This lowers their standard of living.

In some areas. In others it leads to more people with money to buy things, more sales, and therefore lower costs.

USA is just not competitive, because on all work you do, big part is taken and redistributed how current masters of you agree. With minimum wage and high tax everything is expensive. Adding new taxes will only make things worse. Rest of world will enjoy cheap electronics,tshirts and everything, while you will be forced to buy from eachother, everyone of you giving more and more money to gov. To be wasted or corrupted. Or perhaps invested into next war "on terror".

That doesn't even make sense. The new taxes would be for imports (or more specifically, outsourced labor), which would not apply for things made domestically. So high wages + new taxes is not the proposed scenario. It's about making companies choose between the two and hopefully making them cost close to the same in the end. Some things would be more expensive due to the wage differences, but I would rather pay more for a product my neighbor made than pay for his unemployment checks. And the last part about giving more and more money to government is completely ridiculous since it would be no more than we do otherwise.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

I suggested import taxes. He said that leads to "arresting ordinary people for engaging in ordinary commerce". Are you really defending this?

Import tax is either 1) being arrested for not paying such tax -or- 2) the following:

That doesn't even make sense. The new taxes would be for imports (or more specifically, outsourced labor), which would not apply for things made domestically. So high wages + new taxes is not the proposed scenario.

Ok, so...

It's about making companies choose between the two and hopefully making them cost close to the same in the end.

The same HIGH price, right? The china+anti_import_tax or the high USA_taxed_priced? Well, then YOU sir are now poorer, because I will spent the same amount on money on buying the cheaper directly imported stuff.

Some things would be more expensive due to the wage differences,

Some things? All things. There is wage difference, and what product requires NO WAGE not even to pay someone to toss it on a truck and ship it? Also, you pay tax on everything.

but I would rather pay more for a product my neighbor made than pay for his unemployment checks.

Then go do it. Anyone stopping you? Or even better, your neighbor can make something really cool, so really you would prefer it for quality. or for sentiment or any reason. Maybe even so good that one day he could compete with Chinese? But he would have to be incredibly good since he has to pay taxes, health care, and pay minimum wage for even smallest of jobs, while Chinese guys do not have this problems. Thats why we all love importing from them, and barely anyone buys from USA (in comparison of total value yearly).

And the last part about giving more and more money to government is completely ridiculous since it would be no more than we do otherwise.

What? Introducing an import tax does not mean paying more money to government? Unless it is a 0% tax or really ineffectively collected tax.... ;)

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

Remove artificial government-imposed burdens and costs from producers.

Abolish the EPA and OSHA? Go back to routine worker deaths and rivers that catch fire? That's where they are in China now, and why it's cheaper there. They get to ignore externalized costs. We must internalize them, and so it costs more. Even if the labor in the US were free, it's still cheaper to ship the materials to China, make it, and ship it back. And we didn't like the results when we "removed the artificial government-imposed burdens".

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

. People say "pass a law prohibiting X" instead of "arrest people for X". It's a way to deceive yourself and others about what you're proposing.

"Do something about" isn't the same as "pass a law prohibiting X" You are the one lying, not him. Funny how the liars are always quickest to accuse others.

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

Thanks. I'll be sure to remember to include this in the list of counter arguments next time:

- No! If we relax a single regulation then rivers will immediately burst into flames and workers will get chewed up by buzz saws every day in every factory.

Obviously we mustn't "do something". Your warning came just in time.

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

So you want the US government to micro-manage essentially all production and commerce worldwide, using an army of super-smart, infallible bureaucrats to make (or second guess) every decision. Then The Right Thing will always happen.

This is wise. It's great that we live in a world where something like this can never go wrong, governments never make mistakes, and all choices are consequence-free.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

So you want the US government to micro-manage essentially all production and commerce worldwide, using an army of super-smart, infallible bureaucrats to make (or second guess) every decision. Then The Right Thing will always happen.

This is wise. It's great that we live in a world where something like this can never go wrong, governments never make mistakes, and all choices are consequence-free.

Yeap. I think someone did this already. And it worked great! It was the Soviet Union. Hope they didn't patent their wonderful and obviously successful idea! ;)

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

Just make everyone in the world respect "working conditions, environmental laws, political freedom, access to courts, and such"! Wow that is so easy! Why did no-one think of that?! Seriously are you people using your brains before posting?

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

Some things would be more expensive due to the wage differences, but I would rather pay more for a product my neighbor made than pay for his unemployment checks.

Honestly, I'd much rather buy from the foreign manufacturer. The foreign guy just wants an honest transaction. He wants to build something, and he wants me choose to willingly, voluntarily pay for it. He's offering me the best product he can, at the price I'm willing to pay. I'm being treated like a valued customer.

Meanwhile, "my neighbor" wants my tax money taken from me, by force, against my will to subsidize his lifestyle. This is in no way, a voluntary and honest transaction. I'm being treated like a burglar treats a house when the homeowner is on vacation.

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

...the Soviet Union...

McCarthyism!!!

Besides, you don't understand how super-duper-smart and uncorruptible our bureaucrats will be. They'll also have good luck, unlike their soviet forebears.

Really, this plan has a chance of solving almost every problem humanity has ever suffered from. Why do you have to be so sarcastic and negative?

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

. People say "pass a law prohibiting X" instead of "arrest people for X". It's a way to deceive yourself and others about what you're proposing.

"Do something about" isn't the same as "pass a law prohibiting X" You are the one lying, not him.

It might be too soon conclusion that "doing something" is "lets prohibit", indeed. But simple people often solve everything with "lets ban it". People beat up wives when drunk? Well obviously... let's ban alcohol! (instead of enforcing the SIMPLE law of NO VIOLENCE). Putting this problem aside now. What then you think can be "done about outsourcing" other then "ban [part of] outsourcing"?

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

Were this "routine worker deaths" happening when people where not under any government?

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

Factories in the late 1800s in the USA. What, are you a product of US public education? I guess that's why you've never heard of Laissez-faire

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

Ah, so all the other "counter arguemnts" are lies. You do realize that a river bursting into flames was one of the actual reasons the EPA was started. It's not a fabricated "slippery slope" but an actual historical event. Or do you take pride in complete ignorance of history and lying about what your "opponents" say?

Re:Do "something"

[Kohath]

I just restated the crazy stuff in your argument. If you don't want to sound crazy, then stop saying crazy things. Obviously, we're not one or two regulations away from rivers starting on fire. Why did you imply that we are? It makes you sound crazy.

Did you think I was proposing that we go back in time and un-create the EPA? I wasn't. Time moves forward. It's impossible to go back. Sane people acknowledge that.

We can make some reasonable, thoughtful compromises on environmental costs to business. This will lead to more jobs. We'll end up with a better environment, because we'll have a more prosperous country. Prosperous people can afford environmental protection. Poor people can't (or at least they can't afford as much).

But we can't have any thoughtful discussions about anything when guys like you claim, directly or by implication, that any change at all will result in rivers starting on fire. Because a claim like that isn't thoughtful. It's crazy.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

Factories in the late 1800s in the USA. What, are you a product of US public education? I guess that's why you've never heard of Laissez-faire

I asked ``Were this "routine worker deaths" happening when people where not under any government?'' So in late 1800s people where NOT under any government there? (btw Are you happy of YOUR education in reading skills?)

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

Laissez-faire is a policy of non-interference. There was a government who chose not to act. There exists no location "not under any government" (and arguably hasn't been for thousands of years at a minimum) so I didn't take you literally, as you gave an impossible constraint. Now that you've stated you are a troll who makes up impossible situations for the goal of ridiculing anyone who dares disagree with you, I'll treat you accordingly. Fuck you.

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

The fact we polluted our rivers to the point we needed the EPA because they burst into flames is insane. We made flaming rivers. We've done it before. But if I say "if could happen again" you lie and say "if the EPA's funding is cut, all water in the US will become inflammable" in order to portray it in the most ridiculous manner, rather than a restatement of the reality: "rivers caught fire before the EPA, and if the EPA is abolished, it could happen again" because the truth isn't as funny as your lies.

But we can't have any thoughtful discussions about anything when guys like you claim, directly or by implication, that any change at all will result in rivers starting on fire. Because a claim like that isn't thoughtful. It's crazy.

No, we can't have thoughtful discussions because liars like you purposefully misrepresent the arguments of everyone they don't like. When you stop lying, then maybe someone will have a thoughtful discussion with you.

The EPA was started because rivers were catching on fire. There's no evidence that corporations are any more responsible now than then, so yes, making it explicitly legal to dump toxic waste into drinking water will have negative effects. You opinion otherwise will not change reality.

We'll end up with a better environment, because we'll have a more prosperous country.

You'd rephrase that as "when we pay people to pollute, the environment will be better off."

I've been to China. I've seen an industrial country with no EPA. What have you done, watched some YouTube and Fox News? There's a reason why education correlates with liberalism, and it's not because the liberal education system brainwashes you more the more you are in it, it's because reality has a well known liberal bias, and learning new things increases knowledge of reality. But you just surrounding yourself with lies you make up to attack all ideas you don't agree with, rather than actually discussing them as you falsely claim you desire. I manage political conversations with others all the time without incident, but then, I don't lie to them like you do. So perhaps the problem isn't everyone else on the planet, perhaps it is you.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

Laissez-faire is a policy of non-interference. There was a government who chose not to act. There exists no location "not under any government" (and arguably hasn't been for thousands of years at a minimum) so I didn't take you literally, as you gave an impossible constraint. Now that you've stated you are a troll who makes up impossible situations for the goal of ridiculing anyone who dares disagree with you, I'll treat you accordingly. Fuck you.

The way you went to a personal attack is really sad. If someone proposes something new (or not existing for long time) you insult him? How open minded of you, America Innovates indeed! :D Btw. skeleton "government" that just sets rules: 1) do not use violence (robbery, beating, forcing to pay tax, imprison) unless in minimal self-defence for 1 and 2 and 2) respect private property - would also work. Not sure if any such thing exists or not, but a man can dream. And discuss. Well, not you apparently. Still I would be interested in your comments if you are willing to make some logical arguments.

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

The way you ignored reality and history is really sad. It was "something new" only if you've never studied history. Coincidentally, the only people advocating "libertarianism" are those who don't know (or know and ignore) history.

The logic I'd use is to point out that power abhors a vacuum. When the government is weak, the power hungry step in and take over. libertarianism leads to despotism. I'm against despotism, so I'm against the "gateway drug" of libertarianism.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

"When the government is weak, the power hungry step in and take over" - yeah? And what happens now in USA? RIAA stepped in? SOAP, ACTA? What happens in Mexico? Or was the government too weak there, with tanks on the streets? So far all that strong gov is doing in USA seems to be opress its citizens. So I would say this is not working. Communism was about very strong central economical planning. Did it worked out? Or is it more productive to let in thousands of individual companies and innovative people, entrepreneurs to figure out the market based on a free trade? This is what I would propose. And the lower the tax, the more free market and prices are what they should be instead of centrally manipulated.

Re:Do "something"

[Rich0]

No need - just have a tax table with countries on one side and rates on the other. If you're Belgium you get a rate of zero, and if you're China maybe you get a rate of 300%.

There aren't that many countries so no need to "micro-manage." If a country wants to get its rate changed they can bend over backwards to convince everybody that it is justifiable.

Or I guess we can just fall back to the original proposal and tax the living daylights out of imports from anywhere without exception. Then we merely need to micro-manage our own economy.

Re:Do "something"

[Rich0]

You don't have to make anybody do anything. You just apply a tax of a few hundred percent to their exports if they don't. China is welcome to pollute their streams, but they won't be allowed to sell their products in the US on the cheap if they do.

Countries that are civilized can have free access to US markets, and vice-versa.

I'm not suggesting the US should rule the world - only that US companies shouldn't be able to outsource crimes to countries where they are legal.

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

Communism was about very strong central economical planning. Did it worked out?

That's not what communism is about. That's just how it was implemented by some dictators. Communism is "about central planning" just like capitalism is about taxing the poor and welfare for the rich.

And the lower the tax,

That's just insane. You are arguing for "low tax" without arguing for a "balanced budget." That's why this country is fucked. No one ever wants actual fiscal responsibility, they just want their own own "spend for everything I want, and don't make me pay for it" crap.

the more free market and prices are what they should be instead of centrally manipulated.

I'd love if there was a "free market" but I've never heard anyone advocating it that can define it as the technical economic term that it is. It requires massive regulation to enforce, as the producers have large financial incentives to violate the requirements of a "free market."

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

Obviously I mean balanced budget. More exactly, if people can organize then we do not need 1 central government enforced by violence, so there is no problem of spending more then we earn. Free market as in - you can do everything you want market.

Re:Do "something"

[batouzo]

Adding tax? So iPod will cost - 500 USD as usual paid to Chinese, and then 500 USD you-are-bad tax paid... by the American customer to American government? Well yes, THAT will show them evil commies! They will not loose any cent on it, only USA citizens will be able to afford less goods. If you would make the Chinese to pay the tax directly to USA gov on import, then they will increase price if possible to still be profitable. If price would be too high it would just mean again Americans can afford less goods - they can not get the iPads. In the end, USA citizens will just have less goods then now and Chinese will not give a flying. Think.

Re:Do "something"

[AK Marc]

Free market as in - you can do everything you want market.

So fraud would be explicitly legal. Caveat emptor would be coded into law? After all, those pesky anti-fraud laws just block effective "Free market" marketing.

Re:Do "something"

[Rich0]

Adding tax?
So iPod will cost - 500 USD as usual paid to Chinese, and then 500 USD you-are-bad tax paid... by the American customer to American government? Well yes, THAT will show them evil commies! They will not loose any cent on it, only USA citizens will be able to afford less goods.

Who is going to spend $1000 on an iPod when they can buy some competing phone built in Kansas for $600? And what idiot would send the work to China when they could send it somewhere else and make the same profit on a price tag $500 cheaper?

The Chinese would lose lots of money on such a tax, in the form of lost sales.

Plus, you don't think it really costs $500 to build an iPod, do you? Products are sold based on what people are willing to pay, not what they cost to make. If it costs more to make than people would be willing to pay then you don't bother making it in the first place. If Apple lowered their cost to produce an iPod by $50 you wouldn't see any change in the price. Likewise, if competition made people less willing to buy them then the price would drop without any regard to the cost of production.

d(Cost*Volume)/d(Price)=0 -> solve for Price.

So, if the ideal selling price of an iPod is $500, then that is what the final price tag will be, tarrifs or not. That just means that Apple has to only collect $250 itself so that it can hand the other $250 to Uncle Sam. Of course, they would instead either clean up their plants (so fast you wouldn't believe it), or send the work elsewhere.

Companies always whine about how they can't do this or that until you tell them they can't sell their product until it is fixed. Then suddenly all those problems seem to disappear. Those CEOs are just doing their jobs - making money at the expense of anyone or anything else, and it is time government started doing theirs - keeping them from doing it..

Since when have Americans been innovators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Practically all 'American' inventions were either copied from Europe, or pushed out by European immigrants who found they could make a lot more money over in the US.

The Americans have developed 'innovative' business practices, but all the stories of 'firsts' are American myth. For instance, most Americans think that the Wright Brothers were the first people to invent the aeroplane, that Edison invented the first light bulb, that Lindbergh was the first to fly across the Atlantic and that America invented the car....

Where is the incentive to innovate?

[khallow]

The problem here as I see it is that the US did the Ben Franklin trade. They exchanged freedom for perceived security. This didn't just happen with actual security (such as the TSA mess) or social security (such as the vast amounts spent on social entitlements). It also happened with the way the US used to do business and research and development.

We're seeing the use of regulation to attempt to protect businesses from competition and labor from economic downturns. Many attempts have been made to inflate the value of certain assets such as residences. But I have a special rant for the way R&D is done today in the US (and pretty much, the rest of the developed world).

Prior to the Second World War, most scientific research was privately funded in the US. Now it's mostly funded by government. While lots of money is being spent, we're seeing a lack of a crucial form of research, namely, research paid for by the parties interested in the research. We still have Google, for example, but most of the great business research labs have died or dwindled greatly.

Researchers and businesses have become dependent on government funds. This is revealed in the spectacle of the MIT president whining about the lost of US innovation while simultaneously, begging for more public funds to continue the destructive cycle.

Finally, I'm sure that somewhere in this discussion we shall see someone invoke "basic research" in an attempt, deliberate or not, to conflate indiscriminate squandering of public funds with research on basic or fundamental scientific endeavors. A brief perusal of the history of science shows that most basic research had concrete, near future application.

The invention of the telescope gave a trade advantage to the Italian merchant who could identify incoming ships sooner than the competition. The discovery of the laws of gravity allowed one to begin to calculate the trajectory of cannon balls (along with the concurrent invention of calculus). Exploration into the phenomena of electricity and magnetism led to the invention of lightning rods and a better understanding of how the magnetic compass worked (and didn't work!). Number theory would have application to cryptology, and to probability and combinatorics. Probability, combinatorics, and statistics would have application to making profitable gambling games.

The point is that it is rare to find research in the past that didn't have near future application. So when people advocate such today, they are doing so contrary to thousands of years of human history. As I see it, the chief effect is to introduce an intangible benefit that can't be questioned rationally. Spending a few billion on a fancy particle collider without near future application is ok because there will be some nebulous future gain which we can handwave to, which will justify the expenditure.

My experience however is that when private sources actually do research, they do so for vastly less cost than publicly funded sources. For example, a couple weeks back, I helped launch an airship to 95k feet. That beats the old world record by about 30k feet. And it was done for almost three orders of magnitude less cost than the previous attempt, which was publicly funded (the cost of the effort was $30k plus the time of about a dozen volunteers while the previous effort was, so I gather, almost $200 million including launch costs and construction of the vehicle).

Re:Where is the incentive to innovate?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget - innovations are more complex now. Most of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked. The cotton gin can be described fairly straightforwardly, but even when you get into, say, relativity, which is necessary for accurate GPS, things get waaaay more complex.

The innovations of the future will not be the same as the innovations of the past.

Re:Where is the incentive to innovate?

[khallow]

You forget - innovations are more complex now.

And why is that relevant? We can and do achieve complex things a lot faster than we did in the past.

The innovations of the future will not be the same as the innovations of the past.

Again, why is that relevant?

Re:Where is the incentive to innovate?

[Anonymous Coward]

You said

A brief perusal of the history of science shows that most basic research had concrete, near future application

and gave as one of your examples

Number theory would have application to cryptology

You're seriously using number theory as an example of an area of basic research that had "concrete, near future applications"? The same area that for centuries was the standard example of an area of mathematics that was worth doing for beauty alone, with no conceivable application? Somehow all of the great names in modern number theory (dating back to Fermat in the 1600s) knew that in the last quarter of the 20th century someone would finally find an application for their ideas, and that's why they did what they did?

You're also making a fundamental error in some of your other examples: the mere fact that research was shortly followed by an application does not mean that said application was the motivation for the research. I mean, you're seriously claiming that Newton developed modern physics in order to calculate the trajectory of cannon balls? That people were investigating electricity and magnetism in order to develop better lightning rods? It can take decades from the first "hmm, that's funny" until one gets any application at all, and even the "hmm, that's funny" won't happen if the entire effort is focused on a short time frame.

The sort of unexpected applications you give as your examples are precisely the reason publicly funded basic research is a good idea! (Did any of your examples of research that had "near future" applications actually pay off for, you know, the people who actually funded the research?)

My experience however is that when private sources actually do research, they do so for vastly less cost than publicly funded sources. For example, a couple weeks back, I helped launch an airship to 95k feet

Ah, I see now, you seem to have mistaken "research" for "development". You know, the sort of incremental improvements that one gets when aiming for a "concrete, near future application"...

Re:Where is the incentive to innovate?

[khallow]

You're seriously using number theory as an example of an area of basic research that had "concrete, near future applications"?

Yes.

the mere fact that research was shortly followed by an application does not mean that said application was the motivation for the research.

But it was in large part society's motivation for supporting the research in question. We don't support science merely to keep scientists occupied and out of trouble, after all.

The sort of unexpected applications you give as your examples are precisely the reason publicly funded basic research is a good idea!

This is a non sequitur. Just because there has been considerable short term benefit from research in the past says nothing about the viability of current publicly funded attempts.

Ah, I see now, you seem to have mistaken "research" for "development".

And I see you make a bogus distinction between the two. It is very rare that one happens without the other.

You know, the sort of incremental improvements that one gets when aiming for a "concrete, near future application"...

Like a modern technological society? Like the wealth of scientific knowledge at our disposal. It is all "incremental improvements".

Re:Where is the incentive to innovate?

[khallow]

The same area that for centuries was the standard example of an area of mathematics that was worth doing for beauty alone, with no conceivable application?

I really didn't give it credit in my previous post. Number theory is the basis for our systems of representation of numbers and used to make powerful algorithms for calculating and approximating all sorts of things. It's part of the basis for accounting, recordkeeping, and engineering, all which which were immensely useful in ancient times.

So if one of the most stereotypical examples of something that supposedly was done for its beauty alone, happens to be deeply and fundamentally flawed, then why did this myth come about? My take is that it is a combination of the confusing of motives of mathematicians with society and a natural human inclination to avoid having to justify one's activities.

I don't see that as an improvement.

[khasim]

Airlines whose planes crash regularly tend not to last long.

Somehow, that doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

"Yeah, we got rid of some regulations and some planes crashed but that's okay because those airlines went out of businesses and the executives got jobs with other airlines."

Regulations are primarily used to keep new, cheaper, more innovative competitors out of the market.

Strange. Because wouldn't the existing airlines be happy to buy the new company and then use the "new, cheaper, more innovative" tech to undercut their competitors?

If you can do the work cheaper, you can charge slightly less than your competition and still make a bigger profit.

Isn't that one of the tenets of Capitalism?

Is this a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

What American innovation?
Has it ever existed?

Re:Is this a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

No American refinement either the Germans/Poles*/British invented the computer.you just refined it in an obvious manner when technology had advanced far enough toallow it.

* Bombe device Poland designed to crack german codes used at Bletchley park.

Hmm ...

[lennier1]

What gave it away?
The remakes of remakes of remakes?

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Explanation for a foreigner who doesn't get it? (There might be an up-mod in it for you, unless your being a racist or something, and if you are, I'm sure someone has haxxored the account. I know your history. Your a good person.

Good riddance, a new day dawns

[Anonymous Coward]

In every area funded by the federal government, small groups of researchers seize control of the funding apparatus and enforce their own variety of intellectual monoculture.

High energy physics is still wasting $Bs on fusion, cold fusion doesn't get money. Every one of you who has had anything to do with research has your own list.

It is impossible to look at the institutions built by the best and the brightest and still think that any of them have a clue : The FDA kills 1000s of times more people than its rules save, and nobody even seems to notice. The Fed greatly exacerbates the business cycle and thus moves wealth from the 99% to the 1%, it took 40 years for anyone to notice. The 'Department of Defense' enables continuous war, loves it, that is still real popular. The CIA finds new enemies under every rock, creates even more by killing those supposed enemies, their wives and children and everyone raves about how wonderful drones are, how they have transformed power, ...

So, it is a very good thing to get all government out of research, the combination of less money and more freedom will produce 100s of new areas of research.

It is not the end of the world, look at how many Nobel Prizes IBM Zurich has won.

Re:not in the upbringing

[MisterSquid]

Find a way to make Nerds/Geeks Cool.

Federally fund free sex for Nerds/Geeks.

Didn't that already happen when DARPA funded the Internet?

Re:College needs to change / be updated for today

[Anonymous Coward]

"Text books are out dated, have high cost and some times are out of date. "

Yours certainly were.

Re:Done on purpose - Made in China

[Anonymous Coward]

American innovation still exists. The jobs created, however, now mostly go to the lowest bidding country and not to the neighbors of the innovators.

Many good comments, but I would like to add..

[blind biker]

...that one of the reasons why, in the long run, USA will lose out to countries such as Sweden, Germany etc. is the high tuition costs for universities/colleges. In the nordic country where I live, education (including university) is free for all - we have high taxes for high earners ("tax the rich") which pays for a lot of things, inlcuding universal university education. These countries are picking up, little by little, from the US. The US is lucky to have many graduate students and postdocs flocking to their universities, but that's not a sustainable model for having highly competitive research - these people will start going back home, as their countries' economies improve (China and India in particular). The US will find itself depleted of scientists, because the high tuition fees guarantee that only the rich can afford the university degree, and those are fewer than you'd want. And if they're not coming from a rich family, they'll have to work through their studies, slowing them down considerably, and having and adverse effect on their academic achievements. Einstein didn't have to worry about working in a cafeteria 30 hrs/week to pay for his tuition.

Why innovate when you can cut corners?

[Anonymous Coward]

This comes at no surprise. From the turn of the 20th century going forward, American innovation and ingenuity drove large parts of our economy. Now, companies seem to be more about cutting corners (off) than investing in new technologies. Either that, or they use something similar to that used by Hollywood and Video Game companies - why create something new when you can desiccate an already existing franchise?

What innovation?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The Americans obtained half of the tech by strangle holding Britain while it funded the nazi's to an extra ordinary degree and obtained the other half by protecting nazi war criminals in exchange for tech. NASA would in any ethical world be covered in more shame then a swiss banker.

And if this upsets you, then you are doomed to keep wondering what the fact happened to the USA. You can only learn from history if you acknowledge the true history not some nursemaid fantasy designed to keep everyone happy.

The real history of the USA post WW2 is that due to all kind of less then ethical behavior the USA got their hands on far more tech and scientist then anyone else AND did rather poorly with it. Compare after all what the soviets achieved through simply killing of nazi scientists or improsing them with a bit of torture. They never had von Braun the killer of many American prisoner of wars among his many war crimes AND were the first in space. And the soviets had a huge war to recover from and had started far further back on the tech scale.

For that matter, Japan recovered far better, bombed out it was soon AHEAD of the USA in almost all fields. Cuba, sanctioned to hell and back, has better health care then the US for all this time.

What exactly did America once have that it is now supposed to have lost? From many posts on this subject I get the feeling some people claim the US went from fictional history to fictional presence from what we can determine a fictional future. Right, that is about useful as asking who would win in a fictional figure fight. An American thing if I am not mistaken.

If you still want my personal opinion? Then here it is, it is a bit more complex then most made up theories.

The USA profited from a post WW2 world in which all other countries had massive rebuilding effort while its own rebuilding has started ahead of the curve for the POST WW2 world. In the same way that the US had been way behind the curve for WW2 itself. When it started US military tech and civilian production capacity was hopelessly behind. But people US citizens forget that the MEANS to this build up were un-american. There was a LOT of government control over private industry. Not the same as in planned economies like the soviet union but far more then fits in the idea of the USA and far more then is now available in the USA. The only comparison is really the tiger economies. Japan, Korea, China. (and a few other asian nations I am to lazy to mention)

When the war ended, the US had a lot of power in the world and virtually nobody to oppose them. The south Americans were to backwards, so was China. Europe didn't need any more conflict and the soviets had more land then they ever would know what to do with. And its factories were booming who had conveniently switched ahead of the actual end of the war from war production to civilian production. A lot of the brightest people had either escaped the horrors of the nazi regime to the US or were being sheltered by the US from being prosecuted for the same horrors. The US was in a perfect position to make an economic boom and it did.

And yet, did it? How much of our knowledge of that era is movies and chosen images versus reality? To show how much movies lied, women of that post war era are often shown as helpless needing the hand of a man to guide them and do technical stuff. Really? Were these the same women that had been building bombers and putting war ships together? Did Rosie the Riveter unlearn all her skills in a flash once the boys came back home? Yes, many returned to their kitchens but the skills would have remained. So, you have a husband with no more tech skills then cocking a rifle and a woman who knows the ins and outs of a high performance engine, who would YOU let do the plumbing?

How much this of economic revival of the US and its position at the top was simply because that was what everyone reported and everybody refused to look at what was happening in the rest of the world. Easy to say you are number one when y

Re:What innovation?

[pellik]

Great rant but you failed at occam's razor. All this crap about nazi scientists and plotting war and squandered female tech skills just obfuscates the simple (and touched upon) and direct answer. Europe's production capacity was destroyed, and there was nowhere else in the world capable of mass producing industrial goods.

Re:What innovation?

[mosb1000]

Did you know that liquid fueled rockets were invented in the US? Also submarines. Not to mention Nuclear Weapons. Saying nothing's been invented in the US is the height of ignorance. It's just a silly thing to say, really.

Re:What innovation?

[superdude72]

German contributions to American rocket science notwithstanding, there is no equivalent to Silicon Valley anywhere in the world. I'm not just talking about talent and risk-taking, but the intersection of talent, risk-taking, and tens of billions of dollars in venture capital. And let's be blunt: of those three, the tens of billions of dollars in venture capital is the decisive factor. The pool of venture capital in Silicon Valley is several times that of its nearest competitors in Boston and New York. No one else even comes close.

Foreign engineers may get their training at Stanford then return home to work for their government, or for a major conglomerate making incremental improvements. But if they want to start a new business--or even an entire new industry--they're better off renting an overpriced apartment on the Peninsula and heading hat-in-hand over to Sand Hill Road.

Re:What innovation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you are a troll, but I just can't let this one pass.

When it started US military tech and civilian production capacity was hopelessly behind.

Bullshit. Wrong on both counts. Civilian production was scary high, and military tech was at least on par. Your fantastic claims undermine your otherwise raving arguments.

The US still has trouble acknowledging to this day that despite spending an insane amount of money on health care it isn't at the top in terms of results

Bullshit. Stop pretending you know what is in my head. Clearly your own thoughts are muddled enough.

The USA prosperred but did it against everyone else just having had a major setback

Jealous? Maybe the US should have sat that war out. The Marshall plan was probably too costly too.

How much of the idea that the US was a research center of excellence is based on pure myth and stolen tech?

Riiight. Because all that rocketry tech we got from the Germans really moved the nation forward. And think of how much electronics expertise we imported after the war. Oh wait, the US and UK were way ahead in electronics. If you are trying to claim that the US hasn't had any research excellence in the last 70 years, you're in a fantasy world.

Yes, your country is important too and very researchy.

Cuba, sanctioned to hell and back, has better health care then the US for all this time.

Sure, if your name ends with Castro.

How much this of economic revival of the US and its position at the top was simply because that was what everyone reported and everybody refused to look at what was happening in the rest of the world

So was the US at the top or not? First you say the US was on top purely because of the situation it was in, and then you say that the it being on top was a myth. You can't have it both ways.

It seems to me that you're the one claiming the US was "at the top" rather than anyone from the US. Do you enjoy inventing evil thoughts for Americans and then working yourself into a frenzy over them? "That American bastard thinks he's better than me." "I bet that American thinks he's hot stuff because his country sells more coal than mine" "Those Americans with their so-called aid money. Why do they think everyone else is lower than them and needs help?" There, I can make a straw man and knock it down too. For the record, we really don't sit around thinking superior thoughts all day. Do you sit around fuming because you imagine we do?

You seem to feel that Americans of the post-WWII era knew or cared about the rest of the world. Mostly we just wanted to get home and forget the pain of foreign wars. In order to have your "USA #1" mentality, you have to compare yourself with the rest of the world. That just doesn't happen when everything you see and hear originates within 1000 miles of where you are. Ever stop to think that your characterization of post-war America is based on your own insecurities? Yes, your country was important in the post-WWII era too. Feel better now?

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if they spent less on government, then lowered taxes we would have a lot more chances for innovation.

So smart, yet so dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The automatic cuts amount to 109 billion in a budget of 3.4 trillion dollars. Half that money is coming out of defense with another 11 billion from Medicare. Seriously?

Re:not in the upbringing

[RubberChainsaw]

"pay a kid for every A and B he gets in class" No, not this. Don't pay for results, pay for the behaviour that brings the results.

I recall a study a few year back where schools in several areas did pay students for achievements. One school paid 3rd graders money if they got A's and B's on their tests. Another school paid their 1st graders for every book that they read. The result: The 3rd graders showed no improvement in their scores, but the 1st graders did. Why? Because the 3rd graders didn't know how to get the A's and B's. However, the 1st graders had their education improved by reading the extra books, so they got better grades.

So the key is to reward the behavior that leads to success, not merely the success itself.

American Innovation still alive

[tempest69]

The big problem is that today when you have innovation in the US there's always a risk of encountering one or more patent trolls which costs a lot of energy to fight.

Agreed, our parent/copyright system is jacked. We're sending away foreign nationals that we educated. The ability to make a small business work is still tricky, as getting decent insurance is a mess. Banks aren't really good to small business either, CC machines are a horribly unfair system to a merchant. While corruption isn't rampant, it is not an oddity. Narcotics prohibition cause all sorts of down stream effects. Many people are still waiting for the economic bubble to pop, or finish popping.
A good chunk of what America has been providing to the world is banking -- our economic instability has damaged our reputation. We need to build longer term stability with less turbulence. We need a revamp of patent law/intellectual property law. We need an enforceable framework for digital property.

I look around and see a bunch of people with well considered ideas for products, Even ones that would be reasonable to implement are hosed by a cranky system.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Stormthirst]

A good chunk of what America has been providing to the world is banking -- our economic instability has damaged our reputation.

It would help if the knee jerk reaction to banking regulations wasn't to launch scathing attacks on the person suggesting it. You only have to look at the Canadian banking sector and their banking regulations to realise its the way to a stable economy. Sure it's not sexy, or extremely profitable - but it is profitable and the Canadian economy has benefited greatly in the current climate.

The other thing most Americans don't seem to realise is many outside of America are angry with Americans because they have wrecked foreign economies too - and America doesn't seem to be at all apologetic about it either.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[tempest69]

Kinda tricky to be apologetic about something you're not really aware that you caused.

I think most people would be happier playing blame games than doing the harsh measures required to get the problem under control. So how does Canada prevent the banks from lobbying sexier rules through the legislature?

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Stormthirst]

I guess Americans don't read the news - you only have to look at the troubles in the Eurozone (e.g. Greece, Italy and Spain) and do more than listen to Fox News to realise it's the American banking system that's at fault. It was the American banks who were selling the Greeks credit-default swaps, and then betting that they would fail.

As to how to stop the banks from lobbying - keep the Liberal Party or NDP in power. Steve "I'm-a-left-wing-nutjob" Harper is already on record a little while ago saying he wanted to soften the regulations for Canadian banks (I think 2008 - right before the American economy tanked - but I could be wrong on that). Fortunately he only had a minority government back then can couldn't push the changes through. So what has Canada gone and done now? Oh that's right, given him a majority. *sigh* Never mind. I suspect the banks here have been lobbying for changes.

As I understand it, the Canadian economy went through a lot of pain back in the 80's - which included very tough banking regulations. When you have something as critical as the banking sector propping up the economy (and as it turns out, the world's economy) tough regulations should be in place. We have tough regulations controlling electricity and it's generation, we have tough regulations controlling pharmaceuticals (the purity of them at least - and preferably their viability to ensure they do what the drugs companies say they do) - so why not the banking sector? Most people these days have mortgages, most people have savings of some kind - or at the very least can't get paid unless the have some way to bank their pay cheque.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Grishnakh]

Agreed, our parent/copyright system is jacked.

I totally agree. Not only is our copyright system totally screwed up, but our parenting in this country leaves a lot to be desired too. Parents in America have done a terrible job raising their kids over the past few decades.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Grishnakh]

It sounds like the Europeans need to put in some strict protections against American banks getting involved over there.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[gtall]

Greece, Italy, and Spain have been spending beyond their means for years. The Americans banks didn't cause that. What the American banks did was add the last straw that broke the camel's back. Also, the banks in Europe were just as greedy as the American banks, they knew that the housing bubble and its funding bubble was just bubbles. However, they assumed they were so much more worldly and intelligent than the American banks that they couldn't get caught when the musical chairs stopped. They were wrong.

I'm not interested in absolving the American banks for what they did. And they were never made to pay for it. At the very least, the parts of Glass-Steagall that were repealed under Clinton and the Republican Congress should have been reimposed. Then the American banks should have been made to underwrite new proper loans to stem the foreclosure crises and not the ARMs they had been selling. That would need to be done under Federal supervision because, while the banks were at fault, so too were a lot of Americans who thought they could get rich quick. And we might as well force the rating agencies to cough up too, they lied.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Stormthirst]

And then they get vilified for being protectionist and anti-American.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Grishnakh]

So what? Maybe they should grow a spine instead of cowering because of name-calling.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece. The US did all of that. Idiot.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Stormthirst]

You're American aren't you?

The pervading feeling outside the States is to appease the Americans at all costs. Why? Because there is a feeling that Americans are the worst when it comes to nepotism - that if one company is slighted, then the others will up sticks and leave. And then politicians get involved and it all goes to hell in a hand basket. Why else would England keep kowtowing to Americans demands to fight in wars they have nothing to do with? Don't believe me? I still remember Dubyah pointing out to the countries who didn't join them in fighting Saddam what they lost out on economically.

When you have the strongest economy in the world, everyone else wants a piece of your pie. And America is selling that pie, one piece at a time every time something gets off shored or outsourced to India or some other second world country. England has been doing it just as much - and consequently they don't manufacture much any more either. Sheffield is a ghost town compared to when it produced arguably the best steel in Europe, possibly the world.

Re:American Innovation still alive

[Grishnakh]

You're American aren't you?

Yes, but I'm also not a believer in American Exceptionalism, and I believe other countries should stand on their own two feet, even if that means giving the finger to the corrupt corporate-whore politicians in Washington. I think the world would be a lot better off with a strong European presence to counterbalance the American domination and now the growing Chinese power, and I'm really disappointed that the Euro experiment seems to be running into some major roadblocks.

Because there is a feeling that Americans are the worst when it comes to nepotism - that if one company is slighted, then the others will up sticks and leave.

I don't know if these is true or not, but as an American, I don't feel it to be true at all. Our corporations are all run by sociopaths who care about nothing other than how big their next bonus will be, so unless there's some profit involved, I don't see why any of our corporations would stick up for each other (unless of course they're part of a cartel, such as the movie and music companies). Did you even watch Star Trek TNG? The Ferengi are a somewhat accurate portrayal of American businessmen, except that the Ferengi had better moral values. If one of our corporations can make more money by screwing another of our corporations, they'd be happy to do so.

Why else would England keep kowtowing to Americans demands to fight in wars they have nothing to do with?

I think this is largely about money, not about our corporations working together. The wars are very profitable for defense contractors (who actually do operate a lot like a cartel, esp. since they've been merging so much lately that there aren't many left) and Halliburton. Britain has its own giant defence contractor (I'll use the British spelling here :-), named BAE. Also, I don't know any details, but the US and Britain have very extensive economic ties and have had for a long time. The entire reason that America got involved in WWI, after all, was because the American banksters were afraid (rightfully so at the time) that they wouldn't get back all the money they had loaned to British entities, and there was far more money loaned to the British than the Germans. If it weren't for that, America probably would never have joined the war, Britain would have lost, Hitler would never have amounted to anything, and WWII probably would not have happened either.

When you have the strongest economy in the world, everyone else wants a piece of your pie. And America is selling that pie

The problem here, as I see it, is that this "pie", which used to be a really nice apple pie, is now nothing but an empty cardboard box. Our economy doesn't have any real foundations, but no one's realized it yet (or they're still pretending it does, hoping no one else points out the obvious either): our economy's been built on nothing more than shuffling money around between giant banks, selling overvalued houses to each other, one bubble after another. We don't actually make much any more, certainly not enough to support the value of our currency. (All we make for export is a few commercial airplanes, a lot of crappy GMO corn, and dirty coal.)

England has been doing it just as much - and consequently they don't manufacture much any more either. Sheffield is a ghost town compared to when it produced arguably the best steel in Europe, possibly the world.

England's in much the same place we are; they don't make anything either, so their whole economy seems to rest on just shuffling money around (i.e. the London stock exchange). Consequently, with the Euro leaders talking about a new financial transaction tax to deter millisecond trading and the like, Britain is completely against it because that's all they do, unlike, say, Germany, which manufactures all kinds of high-tech equipment for export and has the 2nd-highest exports in the world by value (and all their exports are high-quality high-value stuff like industrial machinery, not cheap junk like China's).

Re:obligatory

[PopeRatzo]

Explanation for a foreigner who doesn't get it?

Somebody playing a stupid prank.

Very nice systems analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, governments have to be implemented by fallible humans.

Thus, the system of government must be constructed to withstand individual dishonesty. That means lots of oversight, checks and balances and minimum power exerted by individuals. Otherwise the government escapes control of the system design.

Sounds like a requirement of minimum government to me.

Too much focus on innovation.

[damburger]

Ultimately, an economy does one thing; it converts natural resources into output. Services can redistribute this output, and perhaps this redistribution can increase the total output - but the game is still, ultimately, a big complex heat engine.

If you invent a better widget machine, you can get more output for your input. But you are still limited by a) the amount of input available, which is diminishing and b) physical limits for how much output can be got per unit input, which assuming you pick the innovations with the best returns first, also diminishes.

Maybe if the US were not so thoroughly entranced by the myth of the self-made entrepreneur (for a modern technological society, pretty much a contradiction in terms. Nothing worth money is entirely 100% new) then you guys - and the rest of western civilisation - might be able to address the structural problems that have become clear to everyone since 2008

Re:Too much focus on innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you invent a better widget machine, you can get more output for your input. But you are still limited by a) the amount of input available, which is diminishing and b) physical limits for how much output can be got per unit input, which assuming you pick the innovations with the best returns first, also diminishes.

And, the universe will end in a heat death billions of years from now. For the lifetime of a human being, the input isn't diminishing. Is electricity diminishing? Is human labor diminishing?

Maybe if the US were not so thoroughly entranced by the myth of the self-made entrepreneur (for a modern technological society, pretty much a contradiction in terms. Nothing worth money is entirely 100% new) then you guys - and the rest of western civilisation - might be able to address the structural problems that have become clear to everyone since 2008

There are infinitely many new things and probably infinitely many new things that are worth money. You're totally wrong there assuming that nothing is new. Well, unless you're using some weird definition of new.

Re:Too much focus on innovation.

[damburger]

The input IS diminishing, due to peak oil. Neither renewables, fission, or fusion are moving fast enough to replace fossil fuels. Denying this is just putting your head in the sand.

Infinitely many new things that are worth money? Got any evidence of that, or just mouthing off?

Give even *one* example of something that does not depend at all on prior work.

Re:Talk of GM and Asians will laugh at you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Travel to China, and you'll be amazed at the number of Chevy (esp Cruze), Buick (esp Lacross), and Cadillac models. It's hardly a non-seller.

No, it isn't, and this article is utter rubbish.

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is such comprehensive bull; mostly it's Intel whining about not Recieving handouts. Why the heck is slashdot mudracking this kind of kludge?

What we need is:

A: Abolish the department of Education, the states can decide for themselves which way they want to go. We've been dumbed down by an education system that takes the brightest students and forces them to learn at the same pace as everyone else for the sake of political correctness and fairness. This needs to stop, NOW!

B: Make education cost little; Allow kids with school loans to declare bankruptcy and get finance out of it. That immediately stops people from taking out 40k of loans and going into art and flipping burgers for the rest of their lives, and stops the college educators taking a f-ing COMMISSION on selling kids on college. It's a scam a middle class family can't send a child to school on what the TWO COMBINED PARENTS make. People are often FORCED between going into debt to go to school, or staying poor; what kind of society are we running when education isn't low-cost?

C: Get the garbage out of the patent and copyright system. We have no public domain today and, here's the kicker guys, the reason piracy is so pervasive? There's NO REASON for the public to participate in a system which DOES NOT enrich the public domain. We're going to be paying royalties to the Beatles' great grandkids because someone thinks their tune kinda sorta sounded like another at the rate we're going. Patents need a shorter lifespan to force companies to take more risk with technology.

Most of all, we need a government that isn't going to loot the public and is looking at bankruptcy and leaving millions of senior citizens without something to show for a lifetime of paying taxes.

Spoken just like a good commie

[Lawrence_Bird]

More dough for edukation? Gee that's worked all so well the past 40 years. How deep is that pit now? Yeah lets just take some more money out of the taxpayer pocket - going to do wonders for property values when property taxes go up even more.. isn't 60% of the take enough?

Same goes for research. There are so many pigs at the trough because it is so heavily sponsored/subsidized by the government. Why are the feds subsidizing cosmologists? Is something practical actually going to come of it? Will the people get a return on their investment? Cut it. Completely. That is a perfect example of research which should be funded purely philanthropically .

Manufacturing? WTF? It is up to business to decide where and how to make their products. If that is China or Mexico or where ever else, so be it. If the products are sold in the US market that means consumers are paying less.

Re:Spoken just like a good commie

[Anonymous Coward]

I see it differently. You say that spending public money has been a failure, but it's hard to pinpoint exactly where the failure is even if we agree there has been one. Maybe we're failing because we're leaving too much money with people. If the government took more - something like the 85% top tax bracket under Eisenhower - at least we wouldn't be in debt and we might be able to build and rebuild some infrastructure. Whenever I drive on one of the roads of the ginormous Eisenhower interstate highway project, I'm thankful that once we had a leadership was actually able to build something for the good of our country. Back then, rich people and Republicans like Eisenhower had a sense of decency and social responsibility. My how things have changed!

Re:Spoken just like a good commie

[Lawrence_Bird]

Ha! put the crack pipe down and get a dose of reality ok? What did the government do with the money they took in the 50's? DId they run a giganormous surplus? Or did they just spend the whole fucking wad? What did they do in the 60s? They spent it. How about the 70s? Yep, they spent it then too. Government will spend every last nickel you allow them to take from you. Period. As a bonus question: go look up per capita education spending in 1960 vs 2010 and compare test score results during the same. Hint: look here to start.

Print walls

[Leuf]

Not quite, but yes that is already here in the form of SIPs. Glue OSB to either side of rigid foam, cnc out the window and door openings and you're pretty much done. You still need a few people to put the erector set together, and plumbers and electricians.

Theocracies have a long history

[Anonymous Coward]

of complete failure.

The rulers base their rule on ideology. Schism always defeats ideology, even if reality doesn't act so quickly.

we need income based loans payback system

[Anonymous Coward]

we need income based loans payback system so people can go to higher ed and if they end up working at lower wage job they are not stuck with the high bill and lot's of interest.

Do more without patents

[zman58]

The fees and complexities to file a patent are beyond reach for nearly all of society, except the businesses and people who can afford the cost. Access to the patent system should be free. After all, patents are supposed to benefit society--so why should patents have any fee at all to obtain. The entire patent system would obviously fold if this were the case. So tell me how government sponsored monopolies granted to patent trolls and monopoly organizations somehow advances society and the arts? The patent system is totally abused and convoluted and should be eliminated completely.

The whole patent system, as it is currently, looks like a government propped racketeering system designed to enrich the wealthy at cost to the common folk. The costs in dealing with it bring us down as a society. It does nothing more than stifle competition, breed corruption, and higher prices of goods and services. It is a game of the wealthy, waged with great success, against the common man. Monopolization of ideas--pathetic and sad. Why should anyone be the servant to another's idea?

Re:not in the upbringing

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoop de fucking do. Timmy got all A's and B's. That won't make him an inventor, it will make him think that memorization and regurgitation is relevant. You can't measure and reward genius. That's what capitalism is for. We need to give kids more freedom and quit treating them like enslaved peons.

We're doomed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an idea that could improve the quality of all mankind!!!

Oh wait, they're cutting back federal funds....forget it, I give up. Innovation only comes from government resources.

I'm going to apply for a job at McDonalds now. That "tele-porter" thing was probably a lousy idea anyway.

(Must... resist... gah!)

[HiggsBison]

Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?

What do you think?

Total BS from a major recipient of govnt largess.

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is total bullshit. If anything, innovation is hampered by government. I am not surprised a professor from MIT, a school that gets federal dollars to research and design core technology to make and enhance weapons, is worried about his financing (and his job) disappearing.

Re:End sports in college or make a sports only cou

[Kohath]

This is ridiculous. You're bigoted against "sports" of all things.

I guess we need a Coexist! bumper sticker with a protractor for the C and a football for the O.

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The camera hardware was made by PrimeSense, but the software that interprets the depth was made by MSR.

Yikes.

[mosb1000]

If innovation in the US depends on the Federal Government, we're hosed.

Re:Yikes.

[Phil06]

If the government demands that students drill repeatedly to pass standardized tests then, yes, we are hosed. If the government promotes innovation and creativity then we will continue to lead the world. You cannot teach innovation, you can only create an environment where innovation is revered, and then let it happen. Imagine giving grade school children a class in brainstorming rather than have them recite multiplication tables.

President of college wants for more govt funding

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 6

Re:not in the upbringing

[Totenglocke]

That's because you're assuming that kids don't get better grades because no one taught them how to learn / study. For many, they have all the necessary tools - they just simply don't care to put out the effort and take the time to do the homework / study.

What American ingenuity?

[Anonymous Coward]

What 'American' ingenuity and innovation?

I was always under the impression that the US acquired innovation and ingenuity by buying bright people from overseas.
That's a one way flow by the way, I've worked in a few countries and I've yet to meet bright American innovators...

I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that stuck out in my mind is that culturally the teaching profession is held in the highest esteem there. Here in America teaching has become a job of last resort where only the desperate or truely dedicated put up with the abuse and meager wages.

I disagree. What about retail sales, a warehouse worker, a trash collector, a bus driver, cable installation technician, and many more? An elementary school teacher makes more money, and has higher social prestige than the prior mentioned jobs.

Besides, the average elementary school child knows far less than the average adult, the material itself is easier, and is limited in the amount of knowledge he/she can absorb. It seems more economically efficient to stick the good and expensive teachers for the oldest, and most advanced pupils. There are diminishing returns for putting better and more expensive teachers in front of average students. I would argue that good community college teachers are more important than elementary school teachers, and should get paid more. The highest (University professors) should get paid a lot (~$70K) and be quite competitive (which they are). This is part of the reason University education is expensive.

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most Americans are basically the 99.9% - the non-innovators. The 1% comes from all over the world."

Does not compute.

Congratulations! You're the 0.01%!

Wasting money on Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, the big Federal spending issues are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and military. Military includes all those wars. I argue this country would have been much better off if it had kept a Clinton era sized military, and throw a few tens of billion at the CIA to fight al qaeda. America would not be in the Federal debt crisis that it is in right now, and not have to make financial choices. Iraq was hugely debated, but this country held the course.

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[digsbo]

Time we got used to making $30K for web development jobs, and time the anthropology, english & history majors.. end up flipping burgers.

What's wrong with that? As long as the government stops propping up the value of bank assets to save them at the expense of every other part of our economy, it wouldn't be a problem. A massive deleveraging event that unwinds over a decade would be just fine.

America is strangling it self with absurb patents

[lsatenstein]

Let me make a few points about life. No one has exclusivity on intelligence or ingenuity, or creativity. The USA has exclusivity of stupid patents due to stupid patent laws. That and greed chokes all creativity.

If you ship the manufacturing offshore, as you have, then based on the standard of living of that poorer country, their worker's students will become the future engineers, and who needs the USA. You shipped the jobs offshore, you shipped the earning power off shore and you shipped relatively low cost superb education there too.

Your university fees have become so high that you cannot afford to have open doors for the masses of potential intelligent engineers or entrepreneurs from which innovation arises.

So yes, the best is yet to come. Will it arise offshore, or in your own back yard. Take a guess.

Why blame outsourcing?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is the nature of capital.

I would like to blame education, which is about the government.

Blaming government is always right.

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[quenda]

Too true. Back when IBM was king, or AT&T, lots of genuine new inventions can from their labs.
Now we have Apple and Microsoft, who seem to invent very little, just buying up some real innovations (e.g. Siri) so nobody else can share them.
With all their billions, has Apple or Microsoft ever invented anything interesting - like a new display or input technology?
Has either made real contributions to the science of filesystems or networking protocols?

Simple answer

[level380]

Simple answer = Yes!

Re:not in the upbringing

[tftp]

A much simpler explanation exists. 3rd graders can get easy money out of 1st graders. However 1st graders can't get money from anyone else, so the easiest way for them to get money is by studying.

Fucking duh, you guys outlawed innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we're falling behind.

Surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as companies such as Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple (to name a few big wig tech companies) are continually allowed to throw their weight around in ridiculous non-deserving patent lawsuits, of course our innovation will only continue to dwindle. It's no surprise we're suffering, and we shall continue to do so until the people in power begin to add 2+2 and get 4. So far, they're far from that target.

What a load of crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

An academic, whose instituution survives on government handouts, declares that the sky will fall if that institution, and others like, don't have tax dollars dumped into them. Self-serving whore.

Re:not in the upbringing

[f()rK()_Bomb]

Money doesn't work as an incentive for cognitively taxing tasks, it only works for mindless tasks. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Re:American Ingenuity ? You mean immigrant ingenui

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the best and brightest must come elsewhere, because they are WILLING TO WORK FOR LESS!

Tyranny is dominant and liberty is recessive.

Alive but not well

[Anonymous Coward]

Innovation in America is very much alive, but it's not well.

As soon as somebody comes up with an invention, any rival (usually a corporation) will initiate a legal action claiming it's their creation, or it infringes on their rights. As a result, people do not put as much effort into it, or intentionally withold it from markets.

This is what happens when ellected officials do not do their jobs correctly.

No shit !

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit we've lost innovation, just look at the state of our current system.

- You get pushed through a school system that was designed over 50 years ago, designed to train factory workers and store clerks. You are taught during this time that there is always a correct answer, and that every other answer is wrong. Furthermore your taught to look for that answer in existing knowledge bases (books, computers, etc), that if it's not in the books it's either wrong or irrelevant. Very few things in the public education system encourage students to find the answer themselves, even science classes are by-the-book with experimentation discouraged due to superstitious bullshit.

- You then enter menial jobs. If you point out something that's wrong, or worse yet point it out multiple times, your risking losing your job so that your employer can save face. If you try to do things that aren't on the checklist of your job duties, your facing a few situations: don't fix what isn't broken, your overstepping your boundaries, your misusing company resources. If a coworker is not performing their job adequately and you say something, you risk defamation charges.

- You might make it into a college/university, which cost more money than you'll make in a year after acquiring your degree unless you have some amazing foresight into what will be a hot field when you finish.

- If you do somehow manage to get through all that, land a good job that can develop into a career, and innovate. Your then forced to prove to the world a million times over that you came up with the idea yourself and did not "steal" it from someone else. Don't even dream of trying to improve upon an existing idea/product, you'll be sued out of house and home before you know what hit ya, or worse find yourself in prison.

Seriously the whole thing sends chills down my spine. I've been working forever on developing software that upon release (which is rapidly approaching) will definitely attract the attention of some big corporations that'll want to sink their competition. I am downright terrified of that day, and I shouldn't be, I should be happy. It's a cold fact, that if you make anything, people will come clawing at you from every direction trying to get a piece of your pie. The only thing I can take solace in is my meticulous logs I keep, maybe they'll save my ass, but I have my doubts about that.

Construction is different

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Maybe they could go work in construction. Except the tech will get there as well. You can bet that the construction companies are salivating at the prospect of having machines that print walls, and they'll get made at some point.

I disagree.

The construction industry builds, among other things, the places people live and work. People, for all sorts of sentimental and illogical reasons, like to be in spaces that feel handmade. As a result, the construction industry (in all phases, but especially in residential homes) is one of the most conservative around. It's been possible to manufacture houses remotely and install on site for a long time. It's done on a reasonable scale in some places. But still, the majority of housing is what is called in the U.S. "stick-built". It's pieces of wood, hammered together.

I'd love to live in a super-insulated plastic house with a roof and exterior finish that will last forever without maintenance and can be built for half the price of stick-built, sort of a "500 square foot Japanese pod hotel concept" house. Such a thing is technologically possible. But you can't buy one. No one offers it because no one except us weird tech geeks would ever want to live in one, no matter how practical it is.

That's why, when the subject of what to do for a living comes up, I usually say to young folks "Find something that can't be outsourced that everyone needs. Housing needs are universal so carpenter, plumber, electrician are good choices. Alternatively, if you want a job that's different, find a position that exclusively provides services to rich people since it seems we'll never run out of those. Yacht crewman looks pretty good these days."

tl;dr - Construction is a conservative (nearly hidebound) business and while technology may disrupt it, the basic trades like electrician and plumber will remain a good way to make a living for at least another generation, probably longer.

Re:Construction is different

[vadim_t]

The construction industry builds, among other things, the places people live and work. People, for all sorts of sentimental and illogical reasons, like to be in spaces that feel handmade.

"Feel" is the key word. Enough tech can solve that problem. There are two ways:

The "precision machined" option: What high end cell phones go for. Ignore the handmade part entirely. Make things with a precision to the fraction of a millimeter, shiny and perfectly polished beyond the ability of the best artist.

The "faux handmade" option: Take the above and add a "human" touch by engraving something with a laser/CNC machine, to give it the "crafted by an artist" sort of look. With good enough equipment you can take that precision and mirror all the imperfections of something made by human hands, if you want.

They'll get there. At some point they'll show up with some sort of huge 3D printer, make the whole structure for the house, then glue on wooden panels over that for the sake making it feel handmade.

I've seen the fake brick version already on a photo of a house after a hurricane.

I'd love to live in a super-insulated plastic house with a roof and exterior finish that will last forever without maintenance and can be built for half the price of stick-built, sort of a "500 square foot Japanese pod hotel concept" house. Such a thing is technologically possible. But you can't buy one. No one offers it because no one except us weird tech geeks would ever want to live in one, no matter how practical it is.

You can have anything you want, if you pay for it. People have built all sorts of weird houses: The hobbit home from LOTR, houses made from shipping containers, geodesic domes, etc.

tl;dr - Construction is a conservative (nearly hidebound) business and while technology may disrupt it, the basic trades like electrician and plumber will remain a good way to make a living for at least another generation, probably longer.

I don't think that's what the grandparent was talking about though. Being an electrician or a plumber requires education, and as far as I can't tell they're not fields that need a lot of people.

Re:Construction is different

[BenEnglishAtHome]

You can have anything you want, if you pay for it.

You missed the part where I specified "for half the price of stick-built."

Technology will have taken over the construction business when your vision of

At some point they'll show up with some sort of huge 3D printer, make the whole structure for the house,...

becomes a reality AND the price of such construction drops as precipitously as the price of computers. I just don't think that will happen in the lifetime of anyone currently alive.

I hope I'm wrong, mind you. Every time I see one of those 3D concrete printers (which is not what they're called but the concept is the same) that extrudes finished guardrails I yearn for the day when such technology is widely deployed to make inexpensive, high-quality housing for everyone. I just don't think I'll ever see it.

Re:not in the upbringing

[grep_rocks]

Does that explain why CEOs make so much money?

American ingenuity and innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

is blunted by fat and lazy

A bigger problem, with inovation.

[bored]

Is that a lot of it comes from having the engineer on the factory floor talking to the machinist/whatever.

If you don't know where the manufacturing difficulties are, then you can't redesign it, and produce the next generation that is lighter/faster/cheaper/whatever.

Sitting in an ivory tower playing with CAD/simulations only gets you so far. Eventually you have to actually build it, its then that you discover that you design cannot be built, or it fails in some catastrophic manner. This happens far more than anyone is willing to admit.

The same is true of software, this year you teach a bunch of people how to create your product. Next year, they build their own without you. Now instead of those jobs being the next town over, they are in some foreign country where the cost of living is 1/1000th and you simply cannot compete.

Globalization is great, if your china/india/etc and have a surplus of labor. For everyone else, other than those that can exploit the foreign workers it sucks.

Invention, not innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is invention, not innovation.

Invention is the only thing that brings totally new products and processes into being. All innovation can do is tweak what is already there.

The problem?

Invention is risky, expensive and slow to pay off--truly new things require educating the market.

Innovation is quick, cheap and pays off quickly--changes tap a ready market.

But no amount of innovation will take humans from walking>riding>wheeled vehicles>aircraft>spacecraft.

Innovation fits with the 3-4 quarter future view of most modern companies.

Invention may require years of work with a high risk that no profit will ensue.

The recent change from "first invented" to "first filed" for patents injures this process severely.

But the trend of allowing patents for things already existing (several software patents issued in the past 20 years are for techniques widely used long before that time;) and the longer-standing practice of permitting patents for techniques and devices which cannot be built by experts in the field based solely upon general knowledge and the patent document; have severely crippled our productivity.

A patent is a short-term monopoly awarded in exchange for making public the details of your new process or device--so that others may duplicate and advance from your work. If you cannot replicate something from the patent filing, then it should not be awarded a patent.

Patents are too easily 'stolen' by deep pockets.

This is because patent infringement is handled as a civil rather than criminal matter, and thus those claiming infringement must prove the guilt of the infringer--at their own expense.

Patent infringement should be prosecuted as a criminal matter in Federal Court, at the initial expense of the government with costs and damages awarded to both the government and the wronged person.

This makes it much harder for a 'deep pocket' entity to financially overcome a complainant (which is a usual method of patent 'theft.' Sales of patent rights unde financial duress caused by the purchaser needs to be processed as the crime it is--extortion.

Overall, our economic problems are closely related to the fact that neither government nor industry reports meaningful statistics, but instead tweaks the definitions of various measures in order to make things appear to be fine when they are not.

Example: comparing this quarter's economic growth percentage to last quarter's growth makes it appear the you are growing even if you lost considerable growth in the quarters prior to last quarter. A huge loss in 2 quarters, followed by decent growth stats for several following quarters can leave you far below the point before the initial huge drop.

Example: Consumer Price Index measures items which are no longer typical or indicative of current consumer purchases--understating the number of poor by a considerable amount.

Example: The make-up of the stock indexes Dow Jones & such, now changes often enough that numbers comparing current and previous years are meaningless.

Example: When politicians say no increase in taxes, they actually mean that there will be no increase in the rate of taxation--a very different meaning from the common use of the words. (Government redefines words regularly with definitions so different than standard usage as to be unrelated. My city has defined 'lawn' as "space between buildings and property lines which contain growing plants." The common definition is "mowed turf surrounding buildings."

Example: Placing presidential candidates names rather than the names of the candidates for the Electoral College misleads people into thinking that they are voting for a presidential candidate which is untrue.

Example: "Conspiracy theory" has been defined in for the public as "nutty, off-the-wall,and untenable." In fact, conspiracies (more than one entity planning illegal acts,) is common--it's just not called "conspiracy" if it is the "official" explanation for an event. Enron was a conspiracy. The "official" and all other explanations for 9/11 are conspiracy theories.

There are thousands of other examples.

That shine is lost

[jbrader]

I'd say it's quite rusty at this point. It could use a good soaking in a bucket of Coca-Cola.

She has it backwards

[bwiltschko]

A simple, yet poorly understood, fact is that saving (incl government surpluses or at least the absence of deficits) produces conditions favorable to technology. Japan 30 years ago and China now were/are terrific savers, which kept/keeps their currency cheaper and manufacturing in the country. Reducing government deficits is good for manufacturing, and local manufacturing supports innovation. Recent book "Endgame" discusses context for this.

Sigh

[SmallFurryCreature]

Name the tech giants. Siemens, Samsung, Sony, Toyota etc etc. Where do you think these companies came from? Where was the CD invented? TU-Delft Holland and Tokyo japan. You are right, there is no direct equivelant of Silicon valley. That is like saying that because no mountain ranges are the same as the alps the US doesn't have mountains.

Read tech news a bit more carefully, most of them have nothing to do with Silicon Valley anymore then the best movies got much to do with Hollywood.

But hey kid, keep dreaming the dream and everything will be alright... oh remind me again, how much of iPad tech is actually from the US? Produced in the US? So, you got a nerd producing the next big thing that never happens. Meanwhile the real world is going on elsewhere.

Re:Sigh

[superdude72]

Siemens, Samsung, Toyota, Sony, Toyota... these are all huge corporations that have been huge for decades. Silicon Valley spawns Google, Amazon, Ebay, Genentech, Yahoo!, Netscape. This is what sets Silicon Valley apart. New companies, new industries, funded by venture capital unmatched anywhere else.

I should mention Facebook, Zynga, and Pets.com, but doing so makes me feel dirty.

Re:Sigh

[superdude72]

I accidentally deleted the "(ok, sometimes they don't last that long)" from behind "Netscape."

But then you listed Sony as if in recent history they've made products that don't suck, so I'd call that even.

Re:No, it isn't, and this article is utter rubbish

[Savantissimo]

I agree.

On your point "B":
MIT charges about $40,000 per year. Lets say that is 30 weeks of instruction, 16 hours per week. After deducting the 62% of students receiving $22,611 average aid, call it $17,400 receipts/student/yr. That is over $36 per classroom hour per student, (a penny a second) even before the gouging on dorm rooms. (~$900/month for $300 worth of space)

A big lecture class has about 300 students, so that is about $11,000 per classroom hour, 4 hours a week, 15 weeks a semester = $650,000. Lets say there are 30 TAs, each making $25,000/yr for 4 classes per year, or $6,250 for the class, and round the total TA expenses up to $200k. Let's add $50K for the professor(s). (Probably a gross overestimate - they teach more than 2 classes a year for around $100K.) The amphitheater and maintenance are paid from the endowment, the labs are paid for from the endowment and the equipment from the high added fees for lab courses, so that is a profit of over $400,000 for just one class. Even doubling the costs means $150,000 profit from one single class. Even an intimate seminar with just 8 students gives a likely profit of about $150/hr, even after expenses of $50,000/lecturer/yr/(24 credit hours) = ~$140/hr expenses. Classroom expenses shouldn't reduce the expense more than $10-$20 hr - and even that is generous, considering the actual out of pocket is just maintenance, electricity and heat - the land was given, the buildings were built with donations, and are fully depreciated and have no mortgages.

MIT is making money hand over fist. How they are laundering their obscene, exploitative profits and making it look like they are the non-profit they claim to be is a good question. The first thing to look at is administration and padded overhead.

So your solution is total uneducation?

[Travoltus]

De-fund schools so that parents, who have a hard enough time making ends meet with two incomes, have no options for educating their kids?

Great move.

We're getting our butts kicked by cheap labor countries whose kids are coming up as educated or better, in Government-funded schools. Imagine how badly we'll get beat when there's no schools for most of our kids... except for the wealthy 1% who can afford private school.