Where have all the engineers gone?? 17

[izax1]

I just found the following on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/12/30/cb.popular.graduate.degrees/index.html?iref=obinsite

And I wonder: Why has the demand for engineers declined??

And I wonder because everymans demand for engineering gadgets are still present in an ever increasing complexity. (Computers, Kitchen utilities, TV and Home video etc) but I think the most demanding and most complex engineered utilities must be the "tools" we use to get as far as possible and as fast as possible from A to B. And at the same time without failure and accidents. We still need ever more advanced cars, trains, aeroplanes and ships. Wher to they come from if not from clever engineers? And you dont get from A to B with a computer if you do not have the car with and engine.
I am a mechanical (aerospace) engineer myself from Europe and love my job, and have been privileged with working with advanced automobiles, aeroplanes and spacecrafts. This survey from CNN is not unique, and not specific for the US. What will transport the dentists, the doctors, the accountants, the teachers, the politicians from A to B if there are no engineers to design and develop the transporters.

I just wonder?

 

[moltenmetal]

From where I sit, it seems to me that most engineers have removed themselves from the value chain in an effort to avoid the risk involved in what they do.

Many who find themselves completely outside the value chain except for the value of their fees (a commodity for which supply and demand sets the price), tend to look with disdain upon engineers who remain involved in that value chain, calling our participation in it as somehow a conflict of interest.

Engineers who wish to be compensated properly should put their money where their mouths are. If they feel that their solutions will give lower installed costs over the service life of what they're designing, they should find a way to be paid on that basis rather than merely for fees provided for "advice", or to prepare drawings and specifications.

Engineers need to be involved in the game on the financial side, such that there is a motivation for them to take technical risk in return for financial reward, and to invest in engineering solutions as a means to improve financial performance rather than merely to solve interesting problems. Otherwise, excessive conservatism to protect reputation, or an avoidance of engineering altogether in favour of a reliance on the rote following of codes and standards, is a natural and expected result.

Is the participation of engineers in the value chain in this way somehow at odds with their responsibility to hold the public safety as paramount? No, I'm not convinced of that at all.

 

[cranky108]

I don't hold my breath of recieving a bonis for my work. It's to political from my stand point. And managment also isen't interested in offering it for the same reason.

 

[lacajun]

Quality depends on your customer's specifications and your ability to hit them. I've had to measure how good processes perform to ensure customer's weren't going to gritch about our products. Management doesn't like rework, downgraded products, or rejects either.

I wish I had negotiated bonuses better with employers. I've made employers a heap of money because they had no idea how much they wasted. I didn't either but I knew it had to be a lot just through observation and I was right. I've also increased throughput a few times, which is another biggie for ROI.

 

[cranky108]

Not being in manufacturing, we live in a different world. Our customers believe we should work for peanuts, and we should give our products away.

The truth is the customers are getting a very good deal, but they have been given the idea they should get everything for free.

 

[SNORGY]

I have always said that the most dangerous thing in this business is the client.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[SNORGY]

But...that's not really true.

The client is the second most dangerous thing in this business.

Right behind...

Not that I am in any way bitter.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[Stoker]

Another issue with the engineering world is that the career progression path in many companies is simply not there. In many cases the people who make it into engineering management get there because they don't make good engineers. In my experience, good engineers remain engineers while mediocre engineers get management roles and ironically end up making more money than those who actually excel at this profession.

 

[GregLocock]

Why on earth do you equate management skills with engineering skills?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[KENAT]

In fairness to Stoker, some of the folks that seem to find their way from Engineering to Management seem to lack either set of skills in significant quantities.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[cranky108]

Why would any one in there right mind want to be in middle managment? Just look at the history. If there is a layoff, it isen't the guy mowing the grass. It is middle managment.

Besides, why not promote bad engineers to the land of layoff fodder?

I've heard it said many times that "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in a way that they look forward to the trip".

 

[KENAT]

cranky, don't be so sure about middle management always being the first to go. My experience doesn't back that up.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[HornTootinEE]

We had a round of lay-offs a few years ago, and middle management just got bigger, it was the grunts that got let go. The next round that is rumored based on company direction will also include grunts but not middle-management.

I will say it seems to me middle management may suck a lot. Stuck between Company and your employees, powerless to get anything done for either side.

 

[lacajun]

I've seen very few middle managers laid off and lots of grunts laid off or fired. I've seen some pretty unusual tactics by management to fire people, in my day. It's hard to respect managers for "going along" with some of those tactics, i.e., gestapo tactics.

 

[cranky108]

Not being in manufacturing, but more of a service area, which dosen't have sales people (I know unusual). They usually looked to consilidate managment.

Now I'm with a company that prides itself in not having layoff's.

And even with the down turn, we cut back on projects, and contractors, but no layoffs.

Maybe the grunts are just so much harder to find in the utility business.

 

[Stoker]

I don't equate management skills with engineering skills, but I do equate management roles with increased pay, status and perks. In many industries, middle management roles are better paying than the vast majority of even senior engineering roles.

Part of the answer to the question "where have all the engineers gone" could be that they have realized that there simply aren't a lot of opportunities to get upper tier jobs strictly within an engineering role. Although many people are drawn to engineering because it can be a very rewarding career, the reality is that most of the people who are smart enough and hard working enough to get into the engineering field also have the skillset to make more money elsewhere. Young people today are evaluating careers more closely than kids did in the past and with so much information available, especially in forums such as this, it is pretty easy for kids to find out what they can expect from a career in this field.

 

[GregLocock]

Perhaps management actually deserve the higher salaries than engineers? Perhaps we're the silly ones who the grown-ups let play in the sand pit while they do the tricky stuff.

Incidentally if you really want to know why your boss is paid more than you for less work, check out 'tournament theory'.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SnTMan]

GregLocock has a strong point. The reason I avoid going into management is so I don't have to MANAGE the DAMN PEOPLE

Regards,

Mike

 

[lacajun]

Regarding tournament theory,

employees discover that the most efficient way of winning a promotion is by sabotaging the efforts of their rivals. You don't need economic theory to spot that risk.

Sabotage does occur and management often does not see it or do anything about it, if they do see it.

tournament theory also helps to explain why insiders, not outsiders, get cushy jobs. You thought it was all about the old-boy network, but in fact, the logical reason for promoting insiders is clear: These jobs are designed to keep your workforce motivated.

The Good Ol' Boy is alive and well and often does not keep the Ol' Boys motivated. I've watched this for years. Men have bragged about how little they have to do to move ahead.

From my observations, I don't think tournament theory works as good as they think.

I took the above quotes from Why Your Boss Is Overpaid. Tournament theory is a new term for me but I've always known I was in competition with others. It is one reason I volunteered for jobs others wouldn't touch, i.e., to gain the experience.

Many men will not take assignments they know have a high probability of making them look bad. It significantly reduces their promotability. I have heard this from more than one man. For me, looking bad took a back seat to gaining the knowledge to do my job better and be a stronger competitor. Gaining knowledge was worth the risk and I thought I would succeed. As a woman, that was viewed as being too aggressive by the men. I have been told that more than once.

Some of you are probably thinking I rag on men a lot and must hate them. That is far from the truth. I love men and what they have done, are doing, and will do. At least, the good guys and there are plenty of them around.