Engineering is Going Overseas - Goodbye Jobs 55

[havesealwilltravel]

A friend of mine sent me the following link:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POLICY/2003/061803.html

It is depressing but true. The current high unemployment among engineers is going to continue and not only that it will get worse.

One of the threads in this forum concerns itself with encouraging women to go into engineering. If you care about the person, be honest with them (and yourself). Engineering as a career for a large number of people is over. A bright young person would be smarter to pursue another profession.

I don't believe that a person is born an engineer and will only be happy if they become an engineer. Obviously, if current trends continue, a lot of engineers are going to have to seek happiness in another career if they want to earn a living.

Globalization is good only for individuals with substantial capital to invest overseas. For the rest of us who work for a living it has done nothing but lower wages and increase unemployment.

Please read the article !!!!!!!

 

[owg]

rhodie - I think we have converged somewhat in our views on this interesting subject but we may have to agree to differ on the outstanding issues. Many thanks for the debate.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[rhodie]

owg
Yes, and thank you for remaining affable! Thanks.

 

[EngineerDave]

After reading this, I found it interesting. In all these years the steel industry and other metals processing jobs have decreased but I've managed to have a job in materials engineering as well as several of my colleagues. Perhaps we have all been lucky. However a not so short 6 month stint in the unemployment line changed my thinking forever.

Things aren't as rosey now as they were when I graduated with my B.S. a short 7 years ago. With things changing so quickly, I wonder if I can make a career out of engineering.

Having had the personal experience of travel to Mexico on a frequent basis, I can say that trade has been an issue on my mind for quite some time.

I don't believe that either party has an answer for this. I think companies are directly responsible, but in the end they have to do what it takes to compete. This trade issue has brought to reality some of the job layoffs that were always feared by automation.

After working for a big company and the perks that it involved, I am now at a small company for a significant pay cut. I think the future will be more and more entrepeneurial ventures. The days of corporate welfare are over. But think of how exciting it will be now. There is still tremendous wealth out there. It is up to each of us to find supplemental income sources to capitalize on it. Beyond that I think it is an ethical duty to make sure our children get educated and have some of the same opportunites we have had. I'm only now 30 but I worry for the younger generation as well as my own.

 

[zqew05]

I'm not worried.....there will always be a need for onsite Engineers. The only people who should be truly worried are those who prefer to work exclusively in an airconditioned office environment and also the mediocre ones. I'm working fulltime but have been all over the world (except Eastern Europe) to know that the grass is not green on the other side of the fence. I'm working on my Engineering degree in my off-duty hours, I kave observed and talked to the Engineers in my company. These guys make a lot of money than an office-type engineer. These guys and gals don't mind getting dirty, they wear coveralls in the field but also wear a suit back at the home office. And us guys at the facilities prefer to call these type of Engineers because we've worked with them before. These Engineneers-in-coveralls are so in-demand they are stretched thin (only a few available for new-construction projects)yet there is an overabundance of office-type Engineers back at the home office doing office work.

 

[funnelguy]

zqew05,
Congrats on having a prosperous and fulfilling position. I wish we all could...

You have travelled extensively in your work. What would prevent your position from being replaced by someone from India or China or whatever in the future?

Look at the reconstruction work done in Kuwait after the first Gulf War. There were many contractors from many countries involved in the reconstruction.

Service technicians for a Korean machine tool builder were routinely rotated in and out of duty here in the US, while remaining citizens in their native Korea.

Why do you not believe you should be replaced by someone who works for less? It sounds as though you already understand how easy it is to move people from jobsite to jobsite.

Please don't toake this as an attack, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

[zqew05]

Funnelguy,

No offense taken, I'm just highlighting the positives. And no, I'm not as prosperous as the Engineers-in-coveralls but I do have great job satisfaction. Yes, companies are outsourcing our jobs overseas for the sake of the bottomline and it sucks. All their talk of being a good corporate citizen is just plain PR. They'll get rid of any of us if they can find a justification. This country is too generous in our technical info sharing with overseas competitors. But then again, I thought the subject was how outsourcing affects us at the individual level. Technology development in the U.S. (and Europe) is evolving in a dynamic way. We are always at the head of the race. We outsource technology after it has matured so others are learning from us, but basically playing catchup on how to make a product while here in the U.S. we moved on to the next level. Even though we are still giving away some of our industrial secrets, I still want to believe American companies are learning from their mistakes. They have learned that outsourcing might help the bottom line but in the long run it hurts their company as a whole because the outsourcing outfit they hired is now their competitor.

I think this thread will go on and on, so I'd like to pass on a 'Kodak moment" I had in the Middle East during Desert Storm. Two ex-military fellas I knew back in California visited me at my unit. Both worked as contractors for that country's Air Force. One guy worked on aircraft hydraulics while the other fixed military vehicles. They were complaining that too many jobs back in California are going overseas yet in the same breath they were so happy to get these high-paying contract jobs. The next day an engineer from that particular country complained to me in a half-joking manner that there are no decent jobs for locals because the Americans and British expatriates have a lock on the good jobs. It is something to think about.....

 

[funnelguy]

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[zqew05]

Touche'

 

[funnelguy]

zqew05, I meant that all viewpoints should be considered. I can certainly understand the frustration of the local engineer in your story. My use of the ox goring statement was mostly in agreement with you. I certainly do not wish for Americans to benefit at the expense of other nations. Neither do I desire to improve the lot of other nations at the expense of Americans. I am hoping that, someday, there won't be any more oxen being gored.

 

[buzzp]

I was one of them coverall wearing engineers for some time. I would not trade that experience for anything because it gave me a leg up on the competition. Yes I made a lot more money but I also traveled continuously. Ultimately, this is why I changed jobs.
I don't think we are going to solve the problem of jobs being shipped over seas. I think one needs to concentrate on learning new skills and subject areas to maintain job security and value to your employer. If you are an expert in one area (like brakes on airplanes) then you probably have more to worry about than someone who can design a product from the ground up (including software), troubleshoot new products or field installations, etc.
The key is to get experience in as much as possible and do not get locked into one specific area. If your present job is not offering you that then one should seek different employment or at the very least pick up on another area on your own time to be more valuable to more employers.

 

[zqew05]

Totally agree with BuzzP. Continual learning is the key, unfortunately many companies consider that as an unnecessary expense

 

[Speedy]

The recent and significant decrease in value of the dollar should help things a lot. If you see my post from July 31, I talked about this.

Why didn't I put my money where my mouth is?

 

[buzzp]

I do not put a lot of value in short term formal learning sessions. Universities are the place to go for that and some employers will reimburse you. I guess most of my diverse experience has been job related. I suppose you could pick up a new hobbie or if your company is big enough, try to get an assignement outside of your area of expertise. Or if not an assignment, get permission to spend some time in another area to learn. I am a huge fan of engineers spending time in the manufacturing or field if they are new. This gives them some real knowledge of the product and its application.
I have stood firm by this since I graduated that the only real way to have some control over your career is to OWN YOUR COMPANY. Its us small companies that people are starting to turn to because the big giants offer terrible customer service, terrible web pages, and chances are, they dont even mfg the product. However, the small fries are becoming more rare due to the ultras buying them out and becoming a subsidiary.

 

[Scorpio7]

This is a very long thread, but it seems to be overlooking one of the primary factors driving manufacturing and the related engineering job overseas - environmental regulations.

The United States is no longer on a level playing field with much of the rest of the world. The added costs associated with complying with environmental regulations, along with all the other government rules and full employment for attorney legislation that has been past in the last twenty years makes the US a very unfriendly place for a manufacturing business. Add to this union issues, and the workers compensation costs in a state like California and you have a strong incentive for a business to look for greener pastures. That happened in this country a couple of decades ago when US manufacturers moved to the southeast because of cheaper labor and friendlier local governments.

I encourage young people to get an engineering education, preferably mechanical or chemical, because it gives them the tools they need to do just about any job they want. Of course civil and electrical are also useful, but not a broad based.

I agree with the concern about national security and the exporting of technology to potentially dangerous countries. I certainly would not want some terrorist to have the ability to deliver the smart bombs we used in 1991 much less the stuff we have today.

So what do we have to do? Stop the tail from wagging the dog! Pass one more law – That law would be that all environmental regulations would be subject to review and repeal after five years if it can be shown that the regulation has caused significant economic damage to our citizens and all environmental regulations would be either repealed or reinstated by a two-thirds vote every ten years. Yea! I know it is extreme, but we have a real problem here and it is the primary reason our jobs are going overseas while our housing cost continue to rise out of sight.

 

[GregLocock]

" Pass one more law – That law would be that all environmental regulations would be subject to review and repeal after five years if it can be shown that the regulation has caused significant economic damage to our citizens "

That has got to be one of the most idiotic proposals I have ever seen on this forum.

What is the point in having a high (economic) standard of living if every creek is a Love Canal, and your children have PCBs instead of a liver?

Bizarre.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[funnelguy]

Come on Greg, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. I think Scorpio7 is using an outrageous proposition as a means to make people think.

The flip side of this argument is to require all of our trading partners to comply with our labor and environmental laws. I suggested this in another thread and was accused of only wishing to inflict trade restraint on developing nations. Here I thought we could avoid dragging other nations through the sewer of our mistakes and simply allow cheaper labor costs to carry the day.

 

[colinp]

Greg Locock is spot on (as usual) with his comment about environmental regulations.

While I do not think we have any authority to coerce other nations to adopt our labor policies, most environmental regulations need to be universal. If the harm we are trying to prevent is non-localized than the preventative measures must be as well. It is also critical that measures to prevent environmental damage be taken as soon as possible. It is much easier to prevent such damage than to correct it!

colin pitts

 

[GregLocock]

OK, before I sound all Greeny, let me make an idiotic proposal of my own.

Scorpio7 is suggesting parity in environmental and health and safety regs between the USA and its competitors.

Why not have parity between USA wages and its competitors as well? This would make US manufacturing industry more competitive, and reduce the domestic appetite for imports.

Now, this is really a trick question, because this is what will happen anyway. As the competitors get more affluent their standard of living will rise, and the cost benefit analysis of environmental and OHS will encourage safer and less polluting industries. If you don't believe me look at "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521010683/104-0610785-9739901?v=glance

for a well argued data driven version of this. Sure, societies in the early stages of industrialisation are pretty hideous places to work, but as people get richer they start to complain, and do something about it. Think Shanghai vs ChongQuing, if you have ever had the pleasure. Or 1890s London vs current London.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[QCE]

I also think the USA should lower environmental standards. If we pollute more we will have more jobs and more money.

That would be great!

QCE

 

[jmw]

Did i miss something here?
I thought ducking out of Kyoto was saying something about competitiveness.
And before we go overboard in criticising Scorpio7, how much of the environmental legislation is well implemented and effective? How much of it is downright wrong?
And how much of it is adding to the problems of the US economy, and some other western countries?
The popular view is that we live in an age of global warming. Is it true? There are some very strong views about and some say it just isn't proven. Some that we are just in one of those cycles when we are warmer now.
Can anyone say whether catclytic converters on cars are the right way to go? Correct me if i am wrong (i know you will) but i understood that most of the pollution from a car occurs when the engine is cold. The catalytic converter is at its best when it is hot. So the time when it is most needed it is the least use. I also understood that lean burn and modern engine management could have done just as good a job had the industry been told to do something but not been mandated what it should do. (Incidentally, i hear that the way to overcome the problem is to install preheaters to warm up the catalysts. Yeah. Right. So we are all going to sit and wait for the thing to hot up before we drive off.) Of course, i may this totally wrong. But how many cars on the planet have catalytic converters and how many don't. And how much extra fuel is burnt to compensate for the otherwise better gas mileage that could have been had?
Politics and legislation are the bane of everyones lives. In Europe, the trend is toward more and more diesel passenger cars. This may be because they are thought to be less polluting, I wouldn't know. The exception is the UK where the proportion of diesels is actually falling. The reason? taxation. (see SMMT reports). The price of diesel is lower than petrol just about everywhere in Europe except the UK. A phsychological point i guess since the mpg is still better with diesel. But government gets it wrong again. In factlegislation fears are one reason why LPG fuelled cars never made it in the UK, the fear that if it became popular the tax burden would increase and strip all the benefits away again.
So, do catalytic converters represent sensible environmental legislation or bad politics?
How about "renewable" energy? How many of us are pursuaded that oil and gas are bad? Should we use Hydro-electricity? Solar power? Wind farms? well, so far as i can work out, none of them is as popular as they once were. In fact many do quite a bit of harm to the environment themselves. Hence the latest European proposal is for off-shore windfarms. Great for countries with a continental shelf i.e. shallow waters over the horizon. But cheap? No, tax subsidised. In Europe the green target is 12% of power by 2010 or something similar. We're going to be paying for it but is it as green? is it as environmentally friendly as the popular view says it is? There are some who say Natural gas is pretty near as environmentally friendly, uses 1/100 the space of a wind farm and natural gas resrves are pretty much renewable due to gas migration (that one is a bit of a stretch... ).
Take some other "green" issues such as the opposition to incinerators in the UK. Frankly, we know there are some chemicals we need to dispose of carefully. A well controlled incinerator in a well regulated country is a good solution to me. But the "environmentalists are agiants it. The result? well i would suspect a good few more drums of chemicals will be "washed overboard" off the west african coast for a while to come. We are getting to live in a PC world where we dare not challenge the received wisdom of a few pundits and we are paying a price. Not all environmental legislation is well constructed, well intended, well thought out or even any use at all.
So is it wrong to suggest that environemntal legislation should be reviewed? No, not even for reasons of economy. Like everything else, some luxuries are beyond affordability if there is no level playing field. Don't forget that we are not talking about environmental legislation universaly applied but legislation that harms one economy more than another.