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 !!!!!!!

 

[PSE]

arunmrao,

It is efforts like yours that will eventually transform society for the better.

Regards,

 

[beanbag]

But why is it more cost effective to send our jobs overseas?
It's simple. Because our government permits the rest of the world to hold lower standards than our own when it comes to workers' rights, environmental protection, permitting issues, and the civil legal system, all extremely costly and time consuming items associated with our (U.S.) society. One solution is to presssure the rest of the world to abide by our standards or we can lower our standards (not advisable). In theory it's a simple solution. Not one politician has (publicly) addressed these issues! But our politicians already know this, don't they? So why aren't they doing anything about it? Prediction: the next U.S. presidential candidate who campaigns on these issues publicly will be voted in as our next president.

 

[rhodie]

"Prediction: the next U.S. presidential candidate who campaigns on these issues publicly will be voted in as our next president."

I do hope so, but we must all remember it takes a massive amount of money to make oneself heard. MNCorporate contributions often "quiet" this issue, which consequently leaves us watching Presidential debates that partisianly argue over who is responsible for recent mistakes rather than who will fix them.

http://www.tradealert.org

is a great source for information on this issue.

 

[GregLocock]

I think you'll find most environmental and OHS controls are cost neutral, when viewed across the entire country, when things like health costs and quality of life are taken into account.

I /know/ that in the case of industrial injuries at the company I work for it costs us less to install safety rails (etc etc) than it used to cost us in lost time, quality and compensation. Pretty cheap way of reducing costs.

I don't know how much US industry thinks it costs to meet 'excessively stringent' standards, but those regs are imposed by the US voting public via its elected representatives.

I wouldn't mind betting that it costs US industry far more to pay its employees to the level to which they have become accustomed, rather than what they can justify in terms of productivity.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[QCE]

Beanbag,
"our government permits the rest of the world to hold lower standards than our own" , "One solution is to presssure the rest of the world to abide by our standards"

I am not even sure how to reply to such pompous statements.

I feel like I have been trasported to the future were the USA rules the world. I can't believe the USA would let other countries operate with out their permission. Maybe the USA should invade and put a puppet government in place?

 

[flamby]

Beanbag,
"Because our government permits the rest of the world to hold lower standards.."

I will question any wisdom which almost means to say that the poverty, lower standards of living, poor medical facilities, child labour etc. are an option chosen by the "third world" to be cost effective. If you mean so, it sounds ridiculous. The poverty in third world is a harsh reality. If your government suddenly decides to eradicate it, and force a higher standard on us, it will be all a welcome move. But let us not live in a fool's paradise.

Let this be also known that all standards, be those of living or environmental, have time as a basic element. By time, I mean the development. We are almost 50 to 100 years behind our developed friends. Your 21st century norms applied to a country still in 19th or 20th century does not impress me because our issues are different.

These are just two sides of the same coin - one is poverty, other is cost-advantage. Seeing only one, and brushing off the hands from another is not humane.

"I wouldn't mind betting that it costs US industry far more to pay its employees to the level to which they have become accustomed, rather than what they can justify in terms of productivity." - The truth is staring you at your face.

 

[funnelguy]

Flame and QCE, look at Beanbag's very next statement, "One solution is to pressure the rest...". Obviously Beanbag understands that the US does not rule or subjugate the rest of the world. Those types of ambitions are left to the United Nations and the IMF. We do, however get the blame when another country decides to eradicate its rain forest for the production of beef for McDonalds. True?

GregLocock, your statement, "I don't know how much US industry thinks it costs to meet 'excessively stringent' standards, but those regs are imposed by the US voting public via its elected representatives." is a bit oversimplified. There are many agencies in the US government that do not directly or immediately bend to the will of the voters. These agencies coupled with an activist judiciary branch of our government routinely fly in the face of the will of the voters. Sometimes the only way of taming "outlaw" agencies is to simply cut funding to them through Congress. This has been done in the past to tame both OSHA and the IRS.

One thing is for certain. Computer chip manufacturers had little to fear from either OSHA or a labor union's lawyer when they employed pregnant women in their facilities in Mexico. Cost neutral? Really?

 

[QCE]

Bush: Hello, can you tell your people to quit living in those poor conditions and tell them to move into bugaloo's.

Musharraf: Who is this?

Bush: This is your leader George Bush. I had some complaints from some engineer's living in the USA, that they could hardly make their payment on their new Hummer's.

Musharraf: What are you talking about?

Bush: Just listen I told these engineer's that I would tell all countries to start living by our US standards to get reelected.

Musharraf:Umm.

Bush: Okay, just make sure all your people start living by US standards. I gotta go phone China and India. Talk to ya later.

 

[profengmen]

This thread is six months old now.

How many of you have lost a job overseas?

I'm still working. I'll check back in six more months.

 

[beanbag]

The "law of capitalistic entropy", or, the "law of diminishing middle class", as I like to call it, seems to be in effect doesn't it? But then again, it has been this way since the dawn of mankind. There have been some blips throughout history when the middle class prevailed but with the current global state affairs, where is the middle class now heading? I don't drive a Hummer and I don't know anyone else who does. I see a few on the road every now and then and I'm betting they aren't engineers. Perhaps they are global outsourcers? My wife and I, combined, work approximetly 90 hours a week so that we can live in a safe neighborhood for the next 15 years or so before it becomes too unsafe and its time to move again. I want nothing more than the standard of living in all countries to be raised, not just the U.S. Why are so many people against this? Oh well, I'm just happy to see so many people beginning to discuss this subject. We need to be optimistic.

 

[ie3]

flame and qce,
The main reason we are not able to compete globally here in the US is the playing field. Simply, it's not level. We have some of the most restrictive environmental, labor, and safety regulations in the world. Don't bother to tell me that China is even close, been there, seen that. We cannot use (cheaper) harmful chemicals that they can. We cannot dismiss an employee simply because they are old and not as fast as they used to be, they can and do. We cannot dismiss an employee simply because they are handicapped and not capable of doing a full production job, they can and do. We cannot use solvent based paints, or styrofoam with the same chemicals they can. These make them both higher quality and cheaper. All of these things add costs that we cannot control.
This past fall, my company was the lead company in an ITC lawsuit that was successful in applying a 24% tariff on competing goods from China and Malaysia. Ten days later, we were approached by these same companies to build their product here. They (President and CEO) made the comment that only the tarrif brought them to us. Why were we successful? They were dumping goods on the US market at below cost. It was proven with documented fact. Will the cost to the consumer go up? Only slightly, you see Walmart was taking all of the profit anyway.
The statements I have made above are known as fact to me and not conjecture. They are the result of conversations with production managers, materials managers, etc.. in Chinese facilities. As to the strictness of regulations, I am aware that Europe has even more restrictive regulations, but then again they really only compete with themselves because of that situation, and the tariffs they have imposed.

 

[davefitz]

I think part of the problem is also related to the US tax structure. We do not have a value added tax (VAT) , and instead rely heavily on employee income tax to fund the gov't.

In the case of european countries that rely strongly on VAT's, regardless of where the item is fabricated, the act of selling the item raises tax revenues via the VAT, and these taxes are used to fund the social welfare programs. In the case where a country does not have a VAT, the social welfare programs are financed soley by employee income taxes, so the purchase of a produce fabricated overseas does not significantly contribute to support such programs. In the limit where all products are produced in some other countyr ( which the US is rapidly approaching) the effect on the ability to fund such programs is magnified.

 

[rhodie]

profengmen:
How many of you have lost a job overseas?

Your post implies that no body has lost jobs to overseas alternatives, or that the problem is blown out of proportion.

75,000 people in S.Carolina in the textile industry would hog tie you upon hearing your question.

I just last December quit a manufacturing job that will be eliminated in 7 months to relocate somewhere in China. The Fortune 500 company I worked for calls the moves "strategic relocating". They insult my intelligence.

If you check my pervious posts, you will find I was bitter and sensitive about this subject before the news broke in my personal situation, but I am out of breath and indifferent with regards to it now. There is very little that my efforts will contribute toward in "fixing" this problem. This country is just waiting, almost begging, for a big screw job by the Chinese government.

I feel extremely blessed to have found a suitable alternative within commuting distance, but am starting with lower pay, less benefits, and more uncertainty.

Check back in six months.

 

[funnelguy]

profengmen, I compete daily against shops in India. The only thing keeping work in my shop is quicker turn around and a perception of better quality. I have a previous customer who will only contract drafting work through an agency in India. This is through top management edict. The ability of the contract house to understand the product and design and drawing standards is of no interest to the beancounters behind this decision. I would have more work at better rates without these situations.

Now, arunmrao, don't get upset with me picking on India. I harbor no ill will towards you or anyone trying to improve their position. India happened to be involved in these 2 examples, but it could just as easily have been China, Mexico, Malaysia, et al.

davefitz, thank you for that post. VAT sounds much nicer than tarriff. What a simple and direct concept. Sort of like a national sales tax. Implementation of VATs in the US would go a long way towards helping our infrastructure with funds lost to overseas outsourcing.

Rhodie, good luck. I wish you well.

 

[profengmen]

rhodie,
My post "Implies" nothing. It was a factual statement, a relevant question, and a comment.

75,000 people in S.Carolina in the textile industry would hog tie you upon hearing your question


That's fine. I'm not asking the question to 75,000 "people". I'm asking ENGINEERS. Besides what's wrong with asking a simple question? I've been in S. Carilina a lot, the people there don't seem to be that unreasonable.

 

[pablo02]

To beanbag:

first of all I have no ill will toward those of other countries seeking higher standards of living, but between you and me, the rest of the world can not and will not reach the living stardard of the USA -- the "medium" will be somewhere in the middle: much higher for the rest of the world, and much lower for the USA --

we are bemoaning the fact that corporate America has forgotten that (currently) it is the American consumer keeping most of them afloat and they are essentially cutting their own throats because the American consumer will be without the jobs to continue contributing to their corporate pockets -- but also, between you and me, most coporate officers don't care, because they have already lined their pockets and can live well off for the rest of their lives for what they have already put away, or will put away in the next 5 years... [I've rubbed shoulders with enough "officers" to know that it isn't the stockholder who comes first in fulfilling their corprotate duties...]

 

[arunmrao]

funnelguy, I have no issues with your comments. The only message we get is that you are not keen to undertake low end jobs,manufacturing is expensive due to high labor costs and environment laws are stringent. Last week I got an order from US company to supply castings. The rates are not good excepting that the business is regular.

VAT is a good concept to generate revenue.We in India are also on the verge of implementing VAT(this is a IMF recommendation).Presently we have a system which taxes at every stage thus making it expensive for the consumer.

 

[MechEng13]

profengman,

I am an engineer that lost a job due to China. One of the companies major customers stipulated that all products must have an engine supplied by China. This was a stipulation from there Customer....guess who.....WAL-MART!!!

Due to that stipulation, 1/4 of our business in that division was sent to China.

Fortunately the company I am with now found out, and knowing my work from machining some fixturing for me took me on right away.



Alan M. Etzkorn
Product Engineer
Nixon Tool Co.

http://www.nixontool.com

 

[profengmen]

Mecheng13,

OK... that's one.

I do suspect that WalMart only cares about cost. I doubt they Specified that the "engine" (on whatever) had to come from a specific country. WalMart is another issue though, one which I hope goes down the tubes.

Glad you were good enough to get noticed. Congrats on your new job.

 

[Speedy]

A group of engineers discussing what is essentially an economic topic….ever listen to economists discussing an engineering problem. Get the picture?

There doesn’t have to be a downside. A lot of the misunderstanding here is the believe that wealth is a finite thing. This I believe goes back to the days when it was, when wealth was tied directly to finite things such as land, gold, diamonds etc. To become wealthy, one had to take (steal) that wealth from someone else.

In the modern world wealth can be created from a simple idea. Take Microsoft for example, started in a garage, no invasion of a foreign country.
The reason economists strive for a free and open global market is because we all benefit...yes all of us, in the longterm anyhow.