Slashdot Mirror
The US Drops Out of the Top 10 In Innovation Ranking (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The U.S. dropped out of the top 10 in the 2018 Bloomberg Innovation Index for the first time in the six years the gauge has been compiled. South Korea and Sweden retained their No. 1 and No. 2 rankings. The index scores countries using seven criteria, including research and development spending and concentration of high-tech public companies. The U.S. fell to 11th place from ninth mainly because of an eight-spot slump in the post-secondary, or tertiary, education-efficiency category, which includes the share of new science and engineering graduates in the labor force. Value-added manufacturing also declined. Improvement in the productivity score couldn't make up for the lost ground.
South Korea remained the global-innovation gold medalist for the fifth consecutive year. China moved up two spots to 19th, buoyed by its high proportion of new science and engineering graduates in the labor force and increasing number of patents by innovators such as Huawei Technologies Co. Japan, one of three Asian nations in the top 10, rose one slot to No. 6. France moved up to ninth from 11th, joining five other European economies in the top tier. Israel rounded out this group and was the only country to beat South Korea in the R&D category. South Africa and Iran moved back into the top 50; the last time both were included was 2014. Turkey was one of the biggest gainers, jumping four spots to 33rd because of improvements in tertiary efficiency, productivity and two other categories. The biggest losers were New Zealand and Ukraine, which each dropped four places. The productivity measure influenced New Zealand's shift, while Ukraine was hurt by a lower tertiary-efficiency ranking.
South Korea remained the global-innovation gold medalist for the fifth consecutive year. China moved up two spots to 19th, buoyed by its high proportion of new science and engineering graduates in the labor force and increasing number of patents by innovators such as Huawei Technologies Co. Japan, one of three Asian nations in the top 10, rose one slot to No. 6. France moved up to ninth from 11th, joining five other European economies in the top tier. Israel rounded out this group and was the only country to beat South Korea in the R&D category. South Africa and Iran moved back into the top 50; the last time both were included was 2014. Turkey was one of the biggest gainers, jumping four spots to 33rd because of improvements in tertiary efficiency, productivity and two other categories. The biggest losers were New Zealand and Ukraine, which each dropped four places. The productivity measure influenced New Zealand's shift, while Ukraine was hurt by a lower tertiary-efficiency ranking.
... we're staffing almost all of our BioTech staff in Vietnam. We have several championship winners of regional (ASEAN) computing competitions as well as the very top students in A.I. and computational theory (essential for crunching the gigantic datasets that the genomic revolution is bringing).
It is very difficult to get even these supremely qualified candidates work permits (unless we're willing to game the system like some Indian outsourcing companies) and even then it's literally a lottery. So their minds, the technology they create and benefits (and investment) that follows will stay overseas.
Maybe we'll go to Canada.
The fact that our president is an openly racist ignorant fraud doesn't help (in the first meeting with the Prime Minister with Vietnam, Trump went around to all present making fun for a few minutes of his name "Phuc". Imagine that, the "leader" of the free world acting like a third grade Beavus and Butt-Head. I understand that this has happened with other leaders who've had the misfortune of being introduced to Trump).
I agree with you 100 percent. Many, if not most of the countries in the developing world have long had stances hostile to immigration similar to Trump's. A large part of what made America great was that we were open to immigration for 400 years, and each successive wave contributed qualities that we didn't really have before.
Most of these waves of immigrants were opposed by some of the old timers who felt insecure in their careers and positions on the social ladder. It's no different today, although the anti-immigration folks try to present it as being different. Human nature doesn't change very much from one generation to the next.
What went wrong is that we legalized bribery in the '70s by equating speech with money and declaring bribes to be free speech. We then went about throwing out the antitrust regulations so that companies could stifle innovation from rivals and expanded IP rights to the point where it's difficult to do anything that doesn't infringe on somebody's property.
And if that weren't enough, we pretty much destroyed labor so that the small parties that were previously the source of most innovation mostly didn't have the money or job security to do anything interesting.
There's still innovation going on, but it's not anywhere near what it used to be or should be. And it's probably not going to get any better as long as we've got two right wing pro-corporate parties.
What I'd like to see is a list of innovations (by industry) made in the last 5 years (or even 10), and next to that where that innovation was made and by whom. Then we would have some idea of how to make an innovation ranking.
Bloomberg's rankings don't look at actual innovations but rather the potential for innovations being created.
For example, India produces something like 25% of the world's engineers, but I'm pretty sure 25% of the world's engineering is not being done in India.
Here's Bloomberg's categories:
R&D intensity (R&D expenditure as % of GDP)
Manufacturing value-added (MVA as % GDP and per capita)
Productivity (GDP and GNI per employed person age 15+ and 3Y improvement)
High-tech density (Number of domestic high-tech public companies such as aerospace, defense, biotech,hardware, software, semiconductors, internet software and services, and renewable energy companies as % of publicly listed companies and as share of total world public high-tech)
Tertiary efficiency (how much of population has advanced degrees in the labor force plus what percent is tech degrees)
Researcher concentration (percent of population (per million) that are engaged in R&D)
Patent activity (patent filings, patents in force, per million population, patent filings per $100 billion GDP, and total grants by country as share of world total.)
Countries whose economies grow a lot of food, or use natural resources, or have low unemployment get dinged by the per capita and percent rankings. Bloomberg's methodology favors small manufacturing-intensive countries whether or not that country actually invents anything new at all.
That's why Iceland is above Russia.
Or Ireland above the UK. really?
An old friend back in the Rustbelt works at an insurance company telephone call center that's choc full of PhDs. Because that's the best job they can find.
Yes, but who do you think owns patents on parts you in US use?
Later on in your post you nitpick about who manufactures it, yet here you nitpick about who invented it. But even then, this is just that, a nitpick, because very few components are covered by foreign patents. I recall when SpaceX first successfully landed a first stage rocket, and they shouted USA! USA! USA! internet forums, including slashdot, were being raged at by people abroad saying that it wasn't just the USA that did that...only, it was just the USA. SpaceX is 100% domestic, and the company that paid for the launch is also a US company. And most importantly, NOBODY else has pulled anything even close to that off. The US private sector is technologically superior to every government in the world in this respect. But that doesn't even touch on NASA. The ESA has yet to run a single successful Mars mission in spite of many attempts. Russia has, but they're mostly failures. The US has run many more than both combined, and nearly all were successful, some succeeding by far beyond what the original mission called for.
Yes, the US really is THAT much better than the rest of the world here, and coming soon to a global theater near you, we're going to put a submarine under titan's ice, and the James Webb Space Telescope will be a NASA creation, with relatively small assistance from ESA and CSA, and is in fact being constructed by two US companies.
The best the US can do is 80s/90s era ICs. Modern ICs drive the high bandwidth of the modern Internet. Welcome.
If I didn't already know you were somebody butthurt over the US utterly dominating this space, I'd think you were making a joke. The #1 and #2 top creators of CPUs and GPUs are US companies, and most of the world's most used ASICs (especially ASICs that power most advanced networking equipment like switches and certain types of routers) are created here. The top technology companies for internet communication in the world are Cisco, Intel, Qualcomm, and Broadcom. Nokia comes close admittedly in just the wireless side, but they still don't match those four. Anything beyond these, i.e. realtek or huawei, create substandard components. Quite simply, without us, the rest of the world would be back in the 90's.
That is not an innovation so much as a discovery, so perhaps your methodology is flawed. But no cares, point for the US for innovating quantum mechanics into existence.
Pretty sure he's referring to making practical uses for quantum mechanics. Presently that is 85% only the US, with China being maybe another 10%, with the rest being divided among other places.
That is a company. Now their AI, that is something you can loft up. Google is not the only person for AI. So innovative maybe fifteen years ago, perhaps?
You're handwaving away the fact that Google is still at the forefront of AI research and development. They're also at the forefront of self driving cars, the world's most used web browser, the world's most used smartphone OS, the world's most used email service, and web search engines, in which theirs is the one that most of the world is hopelessly dependent upon. Though they're not unique in this regard, as the world's economies are hopelessly dependent upon much US technology, including our ICs, namely those made by Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, and US software from the likes of Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, VMware, Citrix, Adobe, Amazon, and many others.
Because you all are not innovative. You are not making things, you are outsourcing to other countries to make bits and pieces that make what you all hold to be innovative. Being third link in an chain, is not being innovative, it is just be clever in putting puzzle pieces together. Do not be a puzzle solver, be a puzzle maker.
And at the start of your post, you were acting as though the intellectual property matters the most, but
Actually proportionally Israel is way more popular than the US. Medical tourism to the US is basically an exception.
Here's the actual data: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/defa... The average treatment time for cancer in Canada is less than 20 days. In the US many people simply used to get NO cancer treatment whatsoever.
Right, although I am not entirely sure a micro aggression is rude. It strikes me as something that is actually civil,
Well, there's the problem. True politeness is rooted in being considerate, but since it has to govern interactions between even strangers, it needs conventions that people share.
When I was young I was taught that gentlemen opened doors for ladies. Yes, I am that old; I was even taught to place myself on a sidewalk between a lady and the street. Now the door convention is you hold the door open long enough for the person following you to catch it, unless one of you is carrying something and the other is not. Then the unencumbered person (male or female) holds the door for the encumbered one (male or female).
So now what was once conventionally polite can in fact carry an unintended message. Holding a door for an unencumbered woman can be perceived as a slight on her ability, rather than a gesture of respect. Neither interpretation is objective, it's all a matter of context.
This by the way points out another good reason to bring back etiquette: it provides a whole vocabulary of disrespect that is less provocative than calling someone names. If you presented the Queen of England to the US President, and were presumed to know better, that would correctly be interpreted as a slight on the UK. It also gives the recipient a pretext under which to ignore the slight. Since we no longer regard such norms as important, we have nothing to ascribe our hurt feelings to but malice.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.