I still don't think the outsourcing that people have been complaining about has been about people in various so-called "first-world" countries working in each other's countries. It's unreasonable to expect to be immune from any sort of competition. Someone from Sweden is more or less as much a threat to my livelihood as someone from another state in the US or from another company in my very town, and vice versa. It's the "vice versa" that makes it not as big a deal.
That's different from largescale moving of operations to countries where costs are significantly less than in my country. If the manufacturing, the detailing of drawings, the design, etc. can all be done at significantly less (apparent) cost in country X than in country Y, people in country Y are going to lose their jobs.
I'm not necessarily saying that kind of fuction exportation shouldn't happen; I'm just pointing out why it's a source of complaint when other cross-border work isn't.
The concept and rules of the PE is what prevents it for the most part. The PE is something we American engineers created, and it is something all engineers around the world should follow in my opinion.
I am all for a global engineering community, but lets at least agree that we have to agree on the defination of "Engineer." The PE is a process that allows that and the process excludes a whole bunch of engineers from practicing here in the States because of how engineer is defined.
1. The current form of "Global Trade" is not equal. Considering only the US's largest trading partner; China's policy of a pegged currency, import tariffs, and price dumping all contribute to a heavily stacked deck against the US.
2. My concern about the current situation does not revolve around the preservation of my job. It is survival of the fittest, and if I am not fit I do not deserve a job.
My concern lies in the issues of the continuation of sovereignty for my country: If the US middle class evaporates into a lower class, if the dependency of my national security lies in the manufacturing ability of a potential enemy or ally of an enemy, and if the economy of my country continues to depend on a continuous influx of foreign investment when the dollar remains globally weak, then my attitude of the future is certainly pessimistic.
After all, would you invest in something offering an average 2% ROI (US GDP growth rate 2003), or something offering an average 8.5% ROI (Chinese GDP growth rate 2003)?
Remember: only 3 economic sources create wealth, Agriculture, Mining, and Manufacturing. All the other garbage in a service economy just shuffles dollars around.
3. It is a much larger problem than just "Will I lose my job!?!" Everyone deserves a fair shake at things, but the form that "Globalization" has taken in the US leaves far more negatives than positives.
I didn't say anything was good or bad. This thread is ABOUT whether "offshoring" creates job loss. I'm talking about *net* engineering job loss, not you take my job in the US and I go take someone's job in Sweden, and the Swede takes what your job would have been in Canada had you not already taken mine...
I quite explicitly said I was not discussing whether the pattern of job exportation from the US is a bad thing. There are plenty of other threads about that.
BobPE: are you aware of Ahrtered Engineer in the the UK and the commonwealth? Or professional engineering qualifications (Dottor Ingineur) in other countries in Europe? For heaven's sake, most PE exmas in the US seem to be multiple choise- on another board here there's a question form the PE Civil engineering exam, where without any knowledge of the civil engineering, you can reduce the answers to a 50-50 guess......does that kind of thing really gaurantee US PEs are educated to a higher standerd than Engineers from other countries?
I think engineers with an American education set the bar, and I am proud to say that. It is a good bar for others to reach for.
As for the PE being a joke, this just shows your ignorance, sorry for being so frank. It is sad to see in my opinion.
DrillerNic:
I am aware of other countries attempts to license engineers and I hold this qualification in high esteem no matter the origin. I would argue that we as engineers need to standardize on some licensure process so that those engineers in the common pool that QCE refers to can be understood for their position and those that choose the licensure path can go on to lead them.
Licensure gurantees my job here in the states, say what you will about that. I know it would give other engineers security as well, hence my preaching all the time. Engineers should not be reduced to a commodity to be offshored for cost. If that is an ignorant opinion, well, I don't apologize. I personally think we engineers are the leaders of the world and we need to step up and let others know this.
Go forward and seek licensure no matter what country you are in. If you think licensure is worthless, then please stay away from licensure, we don't need you.
Well, it doesn't really matter what we think of ourselves, or of other countries' engineers. The decision to outsource is a purely economic decision made by business managers, following the implied requirements of our economic system. Outsourcing is now technically feasible due to improvements in communications and uniformity in standards and computor programs.
One can dampen the rate of transfer of jobs to overseas by impementing a VAT (value added tax) on all items and services purchased in the USA. In this way, US manufactured goods and services would not be as severely penalized for incorporating in there costs the full tax burden of the US tax system ( thru payroll taxes, etc).
I think that a form of license is a great idea, then may be we could control the current inappropriate use of the term engineer and start building some credibility. We do have Institutes here in the UK but not every industry sets membership as a norm, Oil and Gas being one. I am not saying that you are not an engineer if you don't go for membership , what I would like to say is that you can not use the title unless you are. It would be even better if they were standardise and globally recognised.
Second point, I think most people would find it hard to distinguish between qualified / expereinced engineers, what ever the location. I still think quality is the key and that does vary significantly. Steel bought from the UK or US does not machine the same as that made in China. Same spec allegedly. Drills or cutting tools bought from the far east do not compete with those from Sweden Germany. They never have. The same with consumable goods, I have noticed a real difference in the quality of stuff on sale, it really is cr*p and at not so cheap prices in real terms. We need to rethink, rebrand and re-sell
My parents came to the USA to have the good life. I intend to vote for political candidates that promise to preserve that good life for me and my decendents. I'm all for the rest of the folks in the world to have fruitful lives, but not at the expense of my job. Does anyone on this forum honestly wish to be out of a job due to offshoring? Are some of you folks that altruistic? Or are you brainwashed? Does anyone honestly think that the folks in the business world know the difference between a good engineer and a bad one? Engineering procured on the basis of low first cost will be shoddy engineering, subject to catastrophic failure. Our business leaders are offshoring jobs so that they can show a quick profit and get themselves a big raise, while leaving behind a mess for those that follow. Osma Bin Laden or Offshoring, whats the difference?
I just ran into something that I thought would be very appropriate to add in this thread.
As many of us (US Citizens) are getting our taxes ready for the big day, I had to clarify a question from a very large tax software supplier, which many of us probably use.
Interesting to find out that they outside their customer service to India.
In the UK, restricting the term 'Engineer' to professionally qualified engineers (as is the norm in some other European countries) is a lost battle. In the Oil & Gas Industry, insisting on Chartered status for all engineers would be a problem as there isn't really an engineering institute focused on the Oil & Gas industry in the same way as the SPE is: believe me, I've looked!
It would be hard to standardise licensing globally: how do you compare the UK engneering education system with specialisation in school at 16 followed by 3-4 years of sudying only engineering, with the US or European model of later specialisation through school and university? What about the German model that doesn't have professional qualifications, but a different enginering degree (Dr-Ing), gained at specialised universities for those that want it? What could be done (and in many ways is being done now) is saying that a Chartered engineer from the UK or Commonwealth country is equivalent to a PE in the US and a Dr-Ing from Germany and so on.
But this still wouldn't stop jobs going to lower cost centres: a Polish or Indian engineer with a professional qualification is still cheaper than a UK CEng or a US PE, and that has nothing to do with the quality of the Polish or Indian qualification and everything to do with the cost of living in Poland or India....saying otherwise is chauvanism at best and racism at worst. I've received unbelievably shite work from PE Engineers in the US and really awful steel from the US Steel mill in Baytown Tx, but I'm not saying that all US goods are shoddy!
Gloabalisation is a fact, accept it and live with it; both the good points: food available out of season, a wider range of manufactured items for you to buy (some cheaper, some better than home produced stuff, some cheaper and better!) and the bad points: jobs moving to lower cost areas. Your response should be to either move to the lower cost areas yourself, or offer higher quality, value added services where you are, not throwing the rattle out of your pram and arguing for a moat to be made around your country to keep the rest of the world out!
Eddy C,
I am not sure if Bin Laden even compares (even though he was CIA-trained).
Generally, you can't believe what any politician promises. In the recent debates, Kerry claimed to be against out-sourcing, however, he voted for NAFTA, years ago. As i said in another thread, the govmint generally listens to its biggest campaign contributors, and not the American public as a whole (we have too many dissenting opinions).
Globalisation might be here to stay but it threatens most of us as well. Thats the point. Anything that involves human input can be challenged. Can we all re-invent ourselves in time? Just how many jobs are there out there that will allow us to do that and support us once we've done it? Its not throwing the rattle from the pram, this is really effecting people. Just upping sticks and following the job is not an option for most and this too can really challenge the foundations of family life. Look at the performance of the O&G industry. I do agree with adding value and accepting change but we all need some kind of stability at some point. And we are losing that. Rapid change gives no time to think, plan or embed. Is it more the case that we should let engineering go, as we did with cave painting, roof thatching and should we add looking after each other to this list?
I guess what we have to do is sit back and wait for our country to have its foundations ripped apart, wait for the population to realise that cheap is not always best, become a third world country itself and then start all ovcer again.
The whole reason that engineers try to restrict who does engineering is to ensure that there is some level of minimum quality. Quality of engineering work (and public safety) cannot be assured if engineers in the USA are unemployed and willing to do substandard (read cheaper) work in order to survive. Offshoring will end up with engineering being done by anyone (engineer or not) at any price. This work will end up being turned over to a stateside PE for review and approval. The PE will essentially be "rubber stamping" the work since he/she is struggling to survive and can offer services only at the lowest possible price. Engineering work will go to "the lowest bidder" rather than "the lowest RESPONSIBLE bidder". When the results of "engineering by the lowest bidder" makes itself know, the effect will be no different than a terrorist attack.
Is there a way to stop this offshoring without political intervention?
Would political intervention work in this day with organisation like the WTO?
Lately most of the US trade restrictions that have been brought in to protect US jobs have been shot down and the ones that are remaining are starting to cause trade restrictions on the US by ally countries.
EU to slap extra 15% duty on range of US goods
BRUSSELS: The European Union plans to slap an extra 15 percent import duty on a range of US goods over Washington’s failure to apply an international trade ruling against an anti-dumping law, the EU executive said on Thursday.
The duty would hit imports including paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products from May 1, and affect slightly less than $28 million in trade, the European Commission said.
“The Commission took this latest step in the dispute over the Byrd Amendment in light of the continuing failure of the United States to bring its legislation in conformity with its international obligations,” it said in a statement.
The level of EU retaliation would be revised annually to adjust to the level of damage caused to EU companies, it said. While the Commission’s plan needed the formal approval of EU ministers, this was expected to be a formality, officials said, adding there were no plans to meet US officials before the additional duty came into force.
Neither was there a meeting planned between EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick — until recently US trade representative — who is scheduled to be in Brussels early next week, they said.
In November, the World Trade Organisation gave approval to the EU, Japan and others to apply an initial $150 million in trade sanctions after Washington failed to conform with a WTO ruling to repeal a subsidy programme for US companies.
Known as the Byrd Amendment, the programme distributes funds raised by anti-dumping duties on imports to the companies that initially requested government anti-dumping protection.
More than $1 billion has been doled out to US ball bearing, steel, seafood, candle and other companies under the Byrd Amendment over the past four years. Canada is expected to announce similar measures against the United States, its top trading partner, later on Thursday.
Mostly textiles: Most of the products to be hit with the EU’s extra duty relate to textiles — trousers and overalls made of synthetic fibres, for example. The only agricultural item is sweetcorn.
Five areas of stationery are also targeted, while in the machinery sector the products listed are crane lorries, along with spectacle frames and mountings.
The WTO gave Canada and the other co-complainants the authority to retaliate. The other countries involved include Mexico, Japan, India and Brazil.
