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 !!!!!!!

 

[GregLocock]

Why do you talk about a level playing field but then expect a higher standard of living than everybody else?

If the playing field were truly level your pay would be directly linked to your productivity... and I see no sign that an American (or English or Australian...) engineer has a productivity 10 times that of an Indian engineer. So I wouldn't go on about level playing fields too much.

As to catalytic converters, global warming, etc, I can and will discuss them, but let's not do it in this thread.






Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[zqew05]

KYOTO PROTOCOL. We in the U.S. will try to comply to environmental laws if we agree to put it into effect. Only a very few of the signatories to the Kyoto agreement are following the protocol. It is all politics, this is just one of the reasons why we did not sign the agreement. Countries go to these flashy meetings to sign agreements but nothing gets done past that event. It would be nice to know the very few countries following the rules, compared to the majority of the signees who did it just for show. I've walked the streets of some of these so-called righteous countries and frankly, their environment is very filthy (smog, sewage, rubbish)compared to ours, yet they love to slam the U.S. for not signing the agreement.

 

[ietech]

Greg,

A level playing field doesn't ensure sucess for US engineers it only gives us the same opportunities while playing by the same rules. I certainly don't expect more if I don't earn it, and don't believe I am better by any degree than an Indian, English, or Australian --- just need the chance to try to play a fair game.

Just making the environmental laws equal in all countries would be a start.

QCE ---
That doesn't mean getting rid of or lowering environmental standards, just that all have the same ones.

ietech

 

[GregLocock]

Oh, so you are happy to work for the wages an Indian engineer works for in India, adjusted for productivity?

THAT would be a truly level playing field. Remember, the cost of living where you live has no bearing on the objective value of your labour.

Sorry, I don't believe you have thought this through.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[jmw]

The phrase “A Level Playing Field” is one I must use with more care. I also forget that there are a couple of threads running here on similar topics and what I have said in one isn’t recognised in another.
I think it is inevitable that manufacture will go where the costs are more favourable.
(I’ve said all this somewhere else: (javascriptpenindex(450,350,'

http://www.tipmaster.com/includes/refinfo.cfm?w=450&h=350')).

But GregLocock is right in suggesting that I cannot mean that under the same “rules” a higher standard of living in the US compared to another country is sustainable. It is not. Not if we are looking at the same segment of the market.
What protects jobs and standards of living is the uniqueness of the skills.
In much of the wider engineering industry, skills are no longer unique. They are transferable. When they become transferable, other factors favour manufacturing overseas, such as access to raw materials and cheap labour, slack legislation etc.
In every industry there will come a point when this happens and many jobs related to that sector will disappear. The jobs that remain are the non-transferable skills; innovation is key component of staying ahead.
The problem is not how to stop engineering jobs going overseas, they will whatever happens. The problem is managing the change.
In the past, a profession could survive many generations, and the problems when the profession dies are limited to one generation. Today, change happens rapidly and each generation may see these changes in its own skills sector. This means many more people affected more often and heightens the impact of job losses.
One modifying factor is that the playing fields are effectively on the way to self-levelling as education and aspiration increase in the so-called third world countries. The gap between their capability to absorb new technologies and the Wests ability to generate new technologies is closing fast. Globalisation also plays a part here.
I have to think we are now in that most difficult of times; when skills are more easily transferable, because of advances in education globally, but where labour rate differentials remain significant.
Legislation is one more factor.
Short term trade barriers can probably justified if used to manage the transition in the job market as some manufacturing goes overseas. Some legislation is helpful and some not. Everyone working toward the same set of rules would be nice.
What happens next? The wage differentiation is being eroded. As that happens, the manufacturing costs plus shipping costs will begin to make self-manufacture competitive again.
What is important is how we manage the transition of the workforce from one industry sector to another; from cars to planes and planes to aerospace, from steam trains to diesel and from prop planes to jet and so on. The jobs that survive in any sector will be the few that depend on unique skills or innovative ability. But what about the rest? Possibly we need to look at how re-education can help engineers. Most unemployment programs seem to be aimed at the unskilled or semi skilled because they can be comparatively cheaply retrained in just a few weeks (or so government believes). But how much help is there for engineers or any other profession with a substantial investment already in their education? In the UK the government thinks that as a higher wage earner you are better placed to look after yourselves; this translates as sell the house, fund your own education, take a lower paid job probably not requiring all the skills or abilities you have and just get on with it. Perhaps there aren’t enough votes in engineering to make a difference.

 

[BJC]

JWM
I think you got it almost right. The problem is more than managing change. The problem is to assure that you are the one always making the changes as well as managing them.
Technology will always be stolen and taken to different places. It happened with copper production 5,000 years ago, gunpowder about 800 years ago and with a lot of other things ( might be a topic for the engineering history forum).
In order to keep jobs you have to lead in the developement and production of new products and processes. You can name a lot of products we (US) developed that are now made in China or somewhere. That may be bad, but not near as bad as if we had to steal them from the Chinese.
Inovation and the developement of new systems and products depends on the level and quality of the education system. It is not just dependant on engineering education but of all fields. If we let our educational system slip we're on the slippery sloap to being a third world country.
There are a lot of being made elsewhere that were made here first. It's a lot of work staying ahead of the curve but it's the only way. Building a fence and hiding behind it won't work.
We need to build an economy that the world looks at and says two things: "What will they come up with next?" and "You can buy those things elsewhere but if you want the best buy if from the Americans".
Two of our greatest leaps cmae from educational programs, one was the GI bill after WWII ant the other was with the Space race.
Leading the world may be tough on engineers. Your primary job may be coontinuing education and your secondary job may be working as engineer.

 

[jmw]

Well, i think the word "steal" might cause some outrage, but...you're right, in the sense that in technology termsa lot of products made in the US, or Europe, have ended up being made elsewhere and cheaper.
It's a tough call on quality, though. I'll just suggest that with the engineering skills you can design to the quality level that fits the market. I've seen products that were "over-engineered" and never sold. For example, in the UK one of the then leading supplier of water meters designed a new meter to meet the new standard. They were told it was a "Rolls Royce" of meters and bought the Kent "Bomb" instead.
Over the centuries, it hasn't been a one way street. Marco Polo did his bit taking from China in the days of the Mongol court. Prized targets included the secret of silk.
It is whatever drives your economy or culture that is prized and "stolen".
Japan, well Japan took just about everything not nailed down from the Chinese...writing, arts, culture, the lot. Of course, being Japan, they then went and "added value".
Algebra we got from the Arabs, and some math was considered ultra top secret, maps were another valuable comodity.
In todays economies, engineering and consumer products happen to be what drives us, nobody seems interested in stealing cultural ideas anymore, and this time it is the west that has it all.

 

[QCE]

I think the level playing field thing is funny:

Now that the USA is developed, we want all the other nondeveloped countries to take on our rules so that they can't develop as fast as us and therefore we stay on top. These are the type of ideas that make USA so popular in the world.

In reality if everyone was even we would have the "world-average" type of standard of living. I'm thinking mud hut with a bowl of rice a day for food.

 

[ietech]

Greg,

I think it is a "No Brainer" that regional cost of living is a major factor in the determination of fair wages.

No I did not say that I would work for the same wages as an Indian engineer living in India. That's absurd, I wouldn't even be able to buy food in California.

A "level playing field" that others find so funny or unfair in earlier threads would include:

1) Not put major industries out of business with overzealous environmental laws, i.e. fisheries, lumber, steel, etc. Our politicians should legislate laws that are reasonable and enforceable, not just to gain votes or political favor from people who participate in special interest groups.

2)Not allow importation of products from countries that permit child labor, prisoner labor, sweat shops, and penalize any American company that participates in these activities. I suspect you will say these things don't exist in the business world -- IMHO they do.

3) Impose fees on companies who send any jobs out of the country, and those who hire immigrants when there are Americans with comparable skills looking for a job --- especially in the current United States job market.


QCE

I don't think voluntarily lowering our standard of living to the world average is acceptable and it is not what I am refering to when the phrase Level Playing Field" is used. The phrase is directed to the issue of fair business and employment practices of competing industrialized nations.

Yes all countries or businesses -- even under developed --- should have to play by the same rules. ESPECIALLY ENVIRONMENTAL rules. I don't mind trying to keep the earth clean but it should apply to all countries on earth.

I am not especially concerned with the ability of the earth to survive our feeble onslaught on its' resources. When the earth gets tired of putting up with us it will spit us out, as it did the dinos, and make oil out of us.

 

[Scorpio7]

Hello Again,

Go back and read what I said on January 4th. Then think about what you would do if the eves of your home were suddenly invaded by a flock of swallows(we are talking about nearly 100 birds). That happened to my neighbor and she had to pay over $800 to have netting put up before the birds could get their nests built. If she had not done this the birds would have lived there for a long enough time to destroy the paint on her home as well as making her life miseable. Why because these were an endangered species. We have another situation in our area where a community that lacked the funds to do dredging and before they could obtain the funds six pairs of Loons have moved in. Now about $100,000,000 worth of home are deterioring in value because environmentalist are blocking the dredging using the endangered species act.

I was in Mainland China in 1996. We do not want to regress to their environmental laws because as near I could tell then, they have none. But over thirty years ago our laws were so ridiculous that if you took a pail of water out of the Sacramento River you were not allowed to return it because it was too polluted. Of course the only people really affected by this regulation were the industrial companies that had located on the river to be able to use the water from the river. I have no problem with regulations that require one to return the water in the same state it was received, but those requirements drove industry away. To my knowledge things have only gotten worse in the last thirty years.

I have a theory about why people from China remove their shoes when they enter a home; it is a tradition from their homeland where you never know what you will step in. One reason most Americans only stay at five star hotels in China the want to be assured of the availability of a “western” toilet. Many of the “upscale” shops have their own generators because electricity from the local supplier is so unreliable.

So my recommendation that laws be reviewed and adjusted based on a cost benefit analysis still stands. Yes, we will lose some jobs, but we do have one big advantage that would keep industry here IF we corrected the major flaws in our environmental, and employee related rules and regulations. We have a stable government in a country with the best “infrastructure” for business, manufacturing, and lifestyle on the planet. Water, Electricity, Sewage, Roads, Communications, WHAT ELSE? Oh YES, EDUCATION SYSTEM and Freedom to work as hard as we want.

 

[havesealwilltravel]

A major item that makes the United States uncompetitive is the cost of health care. The United States has no national health care system, whereas, all other industrialized countries do. I’m surprised that this has not yet been mentioned in this forum.

A large portion of labor costs is health care costs and they are rising rapidly. This explains the automobile assembly plants in Windsor, Canada (across the river from Detroit).

Health care is a larger cost factor than environmental regulations. As health care costs soar, the “playing field” will become more and more out of level. United States production costs are high and rising faster than the costs of other nations.

Since the health care industry has a stranglehold on the politicians, I don’t see a solution.

 

[GregLocock]

ietech wrote "I think it is a "No Brainer" that regional cost of living is a major factor in the determination of fair wages."

Hmm. You really don't 'get' globalisation, do you?

If I need a widget designed, and it can be treated as a black box design, then frankly does it make any difference to me which country it is designed in? All I see is spec+money=design. The cost of living of the designer does not enter into the equation.

If I were running a publicly listed company I am duty bound to use the shareholder's funds as efficiently as possible. Otherwise I can and should be sued.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[QCE]

IETECH,

"the phrase "Level Playing Field" is used. The phrase is directed to the issue of fair business and employment practices of competing industrialized nations."

Since your arguement is everyone should have the same rules, is it your arguement that USA has the highest standard of rules. Most European countries have higher environmental rules than the USA. So are you willing to raise the cost even higher for US companies so it is fair for companies in Europe?

 

[EddyC]

I've yet to hear a proper explanation of how globalization of the economy is going to help the US worker (blue collar and white collar). Until it is explained to me in an understandable format, I will continue to be against outsourcing of jobs to other countries. The workers in other countries are not US citizens and do not vote in US elections. The people in the US (workers) should be the ones who count to the leaders of the US government. Perhaps the best solution to the plight of the US worker is to eliminate soft money given to politicians and parties by corporations.

 

[ietech]

EddyC:

Excellent --- I must give a star for that. The U.S. gov’t should take care of the homeland first and foremost. All soft money from special interest groups should be outlawed.

Scorpio7:
I noticed your reference to the Sacramento River. Do you live in Sac. CA?

Greg:
Hmmm --- Yes I do “get” globalization --- it’s very hard to miss it since it’s being shoved down our throats. Admittedly, I am an isolationist (maybe that’s too extreme) but it really bothers me that we spend U.S. taxpayer’s dollars to assist others to grow while our own home is slowly crumbling around us in every aspect of a successful society.

I’m not sure if you grew up in America --- but to some one who has grown here since 1943, watching this happen is disheartening to say the least. It’s much like seeing vandals destroy a brand new car with a sledge hammer and the cops (our gov’t) turns their head or worse assists in the destruction.

DannyM:

Healthcare costs are a major contributor, a very good point that I certainly agree with.

This is but another example of special interest groups contributing to the demise of a great nation for the sake of shareholders; the same shareholders that Greg Locock would be duty bound to protect. Greg's position is certainly reasonable from a businessman’s perspective, but as a nation we are not obligated to shield shareholders from any risk that they voluntarily take.

QCE:

I’m not sure you’re correct regarding environmental laws being stricter in Europe than in the U.S., but it is irrelevant since we are not losing too many jobs to European countries. Most of our jobs are scooting off to Asian and Middle Eastern nations. To make matters worse, immigrants from these same countries fill good positions within our own borders.
Are they more qualified than Americans???--- I really don’t know. If they are so good at what they do why don’t they stay at home and help develop their own country.

As far as costs rising due to additional or stricter environmental laws -- that will happen anyway if the Greenies have their way.

Have a Great Day folks

ietech

 

[QCE]

"To make matters worse, immigrants from these same countries fill good positions within our own borders. Are they more qualified than Americans???---"

Actually if they immigrate to the US they are Americans. Aren't 99% of the people in America immigrants??

 

[ietech]

QCE

No, not all immigrants in the U.S. are citizens. Yes America was started on the backs of immigrants, and the following generations developed and helped her continue to grow as america grew so did the culture here and thus you started getting what we call Americans now. Probably unknown to you but there are many natural born American Citizens (probably uot number the immigrants) who know nothing of the previous cultures that helped create the successes and failures of this country. Do those who are natural citizens deserve no voice from your point of view?

I expressed many things in my previous post -- is this the only thing you could find wrong with it? Please disect the previous posts statements thoroughly. I really would be interested to see how you respond to all of the issues.

Do you have any suggestions for improving the way we do things here so we can keep our jobs.

I'm not surprised by your limited and flippant response to the issues raised in this thread --- it kinda fits with your other comments.

"In reality if everyone was even we would have the "world-average" type of standard of living. I'm thinking mud hut with a bowl of rice a day for food."

"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


Have a Great Day

ietech

 

[QCE]

Ietech,

I'm not trying to pick on you, I was replying to the quotes you directed at me.

This thread is based on losses in engineering jobs. I believe the job losses you refer to are a bit exaggerated and job losses are a weak excuse for removing environmental standards that are in place. These laws are not just in place because of small interest groups, many are in place because they improve the quality of the environment and are backed by top scientists not just uneducated "greenies". Are you trying to suggest that the Bush admin is munipulated by the "greenies" and not by big business and industry?

I also disagree with the idea that it is okay for Europeans to come to America and work but not for Asians. The immigrantion rules make it easy for engineers to come to America. These people are just following the same dreams as my ancestered followed when they can to America.

I don't see such a bleak view for engineering jobs in America and I don't like it being used as an excuse to step back in development.

 

[QCE]

Congrats Greg on being tipster of the week.

 

[jmw]

While there is no shortage of engineers wanting to work, all too often they are qualified in the wrong disciplines. For example, in Europe there is an alarming gap in computer programming skills. This is a failure of government in providing and encouraging the right sort of education. SO while many engineers are looking for work you will see governments seriously considering special arrangements to allow in people with the necessary skills. India is particulary well suited to fill this need, for example. Now you have to make a choice. If you don't invite these skills in, then the industry that needs them will go to where they are. This is happening all the time. Next time you ring directory enquiries you may think that it is still your local exchange but you could be talking to someone in Romania who speaks english and has a directory. Some things are all too easy to shift. Don't make it easier by only looking at it from one side. Think about the downside. This brings me back to a previous comment, when you have engineers with no work and industries looking for skills, what is needed is a better way to retrain exisiting people. It also helps if governments have crystal balls (or just ...no, better not say that) and could forecast education needs more accurately and do something about it.
To me it is quite immoral when the UK Government recruits nurses from the philipines, for example, because the Philipine community invested in training nurses, not so they could go and enjoy a better life elsewhere but so they could improve their own lot. Does any one ask what they do when all their nurses go off to the UK?
So there are many moral issues around every question. I asked before, are we lumping engineers together in one pot or should we be looking to see which are the jobs at risk?
An earlier commment on child labour struck me as a bit simplistic also. We have to beware of imposing our own moral standards on others. I have no problems with buying some products from countries where they use child labour if i know that the alternative for the chilid is that his family has no income at all. What is better? learn a trade and a skill that helps him to live and his family and know that he can help build a better future for his decendents, or stop buying sneakers when i have no idea what he will do instead?