Don't Major in Engineering!!

College Search & Selection
81

<p>
[quote]
It's bad because the cash doesn't stay here. Multiplier effect. Micro. Samuelson.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice try. Even Samuelson has repudiated his own work regarding capital 'leaking'. What you are quoting is Samuelson of the 1940's to 50's. What you should be quoting is the later Samuelson, where he acknowledges that capital doesn't "leak". Instead, it just gets reinvested.</p>

<p>But first off, I would heavily dispute the notion that capital doesn't stay here. Who says it doesn't? When people can evidently afford $200 haircuts or $500 bottles of wine, or $5000 nights in lodges in Aspen, I think that's pretty clear evidence that quite a bit of capital is staying here. </p>

<p>But secondly, let's talk about the capital that is going to foreign investment. First off, that capital doesn't "disappear". People invest in foreign countries for the same reason they invest in anything - to make more money. Hence, that capital is supposed to ultimately return, with a return on that investment. {Now, you can talk about bad investments that return nothing, but there are plenty of bad investments that happen in the US too - take a look at the dotcom bubble}. </p>

<p>Secondly, investing doesn't mean that the capital is 'leaving' for the purpose of the multiplier effect. If I have a million dollars and I invest it in Chinese stocks, I don't feel poor. I still behave as if I have a million dollars. So I'm still going out to nights on the town, I'm still buying fancy dinners, I'm still living life as normal. Hence, I'm still SPENDING the way I always have been. You don't increase your spending habits just because you have a million dollars in cash in your pocket as opposed to if you have a million dollars in investments. </p>

<p>The point is, even Samuelson agreed in his later texts that investment is not leakage, but is rather a reinvestment into factors of production. Nobody takes a million dollars and just stuffs it under their mattress. They always put it somewhere, whether it's in the bank, or in investments, or whatever. But that means that that money is reinvested. </p>

<p>Now, you may have a point in saying that perhaps the US doesn't offer the most attractive terms on capital relative to other countries, and perhaps the US should enact reforms to increase the attractiveness of the country to investment. But that's a FAR FAR different thing from saying that foreign investment is a bad thing.</p>

82

<p>"But that would mean that all those Americans who are involved with the Ipod, including all the Ipod designers, marketers, and operations/supply-chain managers (like my friend) wouldn't have a job at all. "</p>

<p>Eventually they won't. IMO. All their jobs can eventually go overseas too. Nothin g is keeping them here. Multinational companies are not owned by the US government. THey can move their offices if that's where the brainpower is. And eventually that's where it will be. In contrast, foreign companies that are being created must explicitly be majority-owned by their own nationals. Their companies, hence workers, will be protected in a way that the currently US-based ones aren't.</p>

83

<p>Furthermore, it's the worst kept secret in Washington that the Pentagon's 21st century enemy is unofficially China not terrorists.</p>

<p>Why? Because fighting terrorism doesn't require the kind of heavy machinery which fuels the military-industrial complex (things like new generation aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, etc.) as much as it requires "soft" assets - things such as intel, operatives, etc.</p>

<p>No, the Pentagon (and lawmakers on Capital Hill) have been pushing to make China the next enemy - in order to justify continued massive defense expenditures for next generation weapons... do you realize how much a a B-2 stealth bomber costs? about $2+ billion per bomber - a fleet of 21 B-2 bombers costs almost $50 billion. That's a lot of "shock and awe" folks....</p>

<p>With one less B-2 bomber, the US could save about ~$2 billion - and think about what we could do with that money: train CIA operatives, build up our softer assets, more intel gathering assets - things that we are sorely lacking in the "field".... at any rate, I digress.</p>

<p>The point is, there is a reason why China and India (China in particular) is squarely in the crosshairs of US congressmen nowadays....</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
When you only have a 10 second soundbite on CNN, you local or state legislator isn't going to blame an amorphous entity like the "Internet" as the enemy who stole local jobs when China and India are tangible poster children that people can readily identify.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am quite certain that's what it is, and in some ways, it's incipient racism. I am convinced that there are some Americans who just don't want Asians to get jobs. They don't want them to improve their life. I think some of them actually enjoy seeing Asians as poor and weak, because it makes them feel superior. </p>

<p>Now certainly I don't think all of even most Americans think this way. But I have detected a strong element of callousness involved whenever I discuss this subject. Some Americans seem to subscribe to the Genghis Khan philosophy that it is not enough for them to win (economically) - everybody else must lose. Some Americans seem to want Asians to always lose. They actually liked it when billions of Asians were in abject poverty, because that meant that they were losing. But now that they see some Asians actually emerging from poverty, they don't like it.</p>

85

<p>I don't see this at all. I think Americans would be very happy to have Asians have good jobs. </p>

<p>The problem only comes about when those good jobs would otherwise be, or in fact were, jobs taken away from those Americans. Very obviously and explicitly, in some cases.</p>

<p>Otherwise, hey, come join the party.</p>

<p>Also when everyone is pumping free trade, but the trade only goes one way, and is only free in one direction.</p>

86

<p>Monydad, what are you suggesting exactly?</p>

<p>Protectionism? That worked wonderfully for the US auto companies in the 80s didn't it? Basically, Reagan, under pressure from US auto makers facing stiff competition from the Big Three Japanese auto companies (remember that US consumers flocked to the fuel efficient Japanese cars like moths to a flame after the 70s oil embargo shocked gas prices):</p>

<ul>
<li>Toyota</li>
<li>Honda</li>
<li>Nissan</li>
</ul>

<p>Reagan introduced and passed into legislation restrictions on the number of cars the Japanese could sell in the US before massive tax disincentives kicked in... so what did they do?</p>

<p>The said, "ok, fark you" - they decided if the US was going to restrict the number of cars they could sell, they might as well make as much $$$ as possible, which led to the following:</p>

<ul>
<li>Toyota created -> LEXUS</li>
<li>Honda created -> ACURA</li>
<li>Nissan created -> INFINITI</li>
</ul>

<p>So, fast forward 25 years later, not only are the Japanese auto companies stronger than ever, they also have a stranglehold on mid level-luxury cars (i.e. below the European luxury cars) that the US auto companies used to compete in as well... and what has happened since then to the US auto makers? Chrysler sold out to Diamler -> leaving two major auto makers, Ford and GM which are financial basketcases.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
Eventually they won't. IMO. All their jobs can eventually go overseas too. Nothin g is keeping them here. Multinational companies are not owned by the US government. THey can move their offices if that's where the brainpower is. And eventually that's where it will be. In contrast, foreign companies that are being created must explicitly be majority-owned by their own nationals. Their companies, hence workers, will be protected in a way that the currently US-based ones aren't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you just hit upon the heart of the matter. I agree with you that if all of the talent is in a foreign country, then jobs should move to that country. And you know what - ** that's exactly what should happen. ** Look, if Americans are untalented, then why exactly should anybody hire them? The key is then to boost your talent level, which means good schooling and hard work. If Americans don't want to build good schools, and they don't want to study hard, then, yes, I agree, they will lose jobs. And they will DESERVE to lose jobs. </p>

<p>Look, you're not entitled to a good job just because you're an American. If you don't have talent, you're not going to get a job, and you shouldn't get a job. The sad truth is that a lot of Americans want to have good jobs, but aren't willing to work hard to get them. That's not going to fly.</p>

<p>I also don't see the connection between 'ownership' of a company and 'protection of workers'. Most stock of US companies are still owned by Americans. Yet that's never prevented American companies from laying off thousands of Americans. For example, I seem to recall that IBM of the early 90's was at least 75% owned by American stockholders, yet IBM still laid off over 100,000 people (the vast majority of whom were Americans). So why exactly would majority foreign ownership of a foreign company protect foreign workers? </p>

<p>Heck, take a look at China. Most people don't realize that China actually has FEWER manufacturing jobs today than it did 10 or 20 years ago. Amazing? Not really. That's because while the influx of Western companies into China gets a lot of press, what is rarely discussed is that Chinese state-owned companies have been shedding tens of millions of workers for decades. These state-owned companies are 100% owned by the Chinese government, yet that hasn't prevented them from eliminating millions of Chinese jobs. In fact, this is actually one of the great challenges to the government - how to increase the efficiency of the economy by moving millions of workers from unproductive (and often times financially bankrupt) state-owned companies to efficient foreign companies. </p>

<p>The reason why you never hear about them is simple. Westerners understand Western brand names. So it's easy to understand a story about how Motorola or General Motors has created a new plant in China. But when you're talking about companies like BaoSteel or Anshan Iron or China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), or Ningxia Coal Group - Westerners have never heard of any of these companies. Not to mention that China heavily censors the press anyway. So when one of these companies enacts huge layoffs, first off, you probably won't hear about it, and even if you do, if you're a Westerner, you don't care because you've never heard of these companies.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
The problem only comes about when those good jobs would otherwise be, or in fact were, jobs taken away from those Americans. Very obviously and explicitly, in some cases.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, why are you using rhetoric such as "taking away"? That implies that those jobs "belonged" to Americans. Why are Americans automatically more deserving of jobs than the people who replaced them? This all gets back to the central attitude that I'm talking about, which is that a lot of Americans feel that they are automatically entitled to good jobs just because they are Americans, and if they don't get it, it's because some foreigners "took" those jobs away from them. They didn't "take" anything because those jobs never "belonged" to you in the first place. </p>

<p>Secondly, let's talk about the other aspects. If foreigners should not be allowed to "take" American jobs, then fine, Americans should not be allowed to "take" foreign jobs. What's fair is fair. For example, right after college, I worked for a French company. So I could say that I, effectively, "took" a job away from a French guy. I know several people in my graduating class who got hired at Shell. But that means they are "taking" jobs from Brits, right? I know quite a few Americans who are working at Nokia. But that's not fair, because they are evidently "taking" jobs from Finns, right? </p>

<p>If foriegners should not be allowed to work for American companies, then Americans should not be allowed to work for foreign companies, and all the Americans who are currently working for foreign firms should immediately be fired. After all, what's fair is fair. Siemens employs over 70,000 Americans - but that's 70,000 "stolen" jobs from Germany, right? So Siemens should fire all of these Americans immediately and replace them all with Germans.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050725/25eesiemens.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050725/25eesiemens.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

89

<p>
[quote]
The problem only comes about when those good jobs would otherwise be, or in fact were, jobs taken away from those Americans. Very obviously and explicitly, in some cases.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But the outsourcing of labor is as old as business itself.</p>

<p>If you are in it for profit, when you find someone who can do a quality job for cheaper -> that job is going to get outsourced to the person willing to do it cheaper. As sakky pointed out, this may seem like a cruel "zero sum" outcome for the person who lost his/her job, but the larger picture is, when that company can save money and redirect that cash to better his product/service, reduce price, expand -> it may just give that company the competitive edge necessary to survive. put another way, what if that company just stuck its head in the sand and then all of the sudden woke up one day to find that its just out of business because its way uncompetitive? and EVERYONE in that company loses his/her job, would that be better? </p>

<p>Free trade is extremely important, and not just on an economic level IMO. If the US can export one thing - even above and beyond democratic principles such as "freedom" (which can be very hard to measure), i'd point to free trade as a potentially powerful weapon against tyranny and injustice (breeding grounds for future terrorists) wielded in the form of economic freedom. On a macro level, history has shown that when two nations are engaged extensively in trade, they are less likely to quarrel and less likely to go to war with one another. On a micro level, if free trade can lead to the betterment of society in another country, if it can help lift large sections of a country from suffering from abject poverty, etc. then its worth it in the long run -- even if its "uneven" trade from a strictly US perspective. Give someone a living, give someone hope, give someone the dignity to provide for their family and the prospects of strapping oneself with a bomb may seem less inviting. Idealistic? Naive? Perhaps, but is it any more idealistic or naive than what we are doing now?</p>

<p>Even from a purely selfish US perspective, its better to develop more potential overseas markets in the form of a larger consumer base to "sell" to in the long run - if that means that we are exporting low wage jobs overseas in the short run, so be it.</p>

90

<p>I'm thoroughly confused.</p>

91

<p>what are you confused about?</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
As sakky pointed out, this may seem like a cruel "zero sum" outcome for the person who lost his/her job, but the larger picture is, when that company can save money and redirect that cash to better his product/service, reduce price, expand -> it may just give that company the competitive edge necessary to survive. put another way, what if that company just stuck its head in the sand and then all of the sudden woke up one day to find that its just out of business because its way uncompetitive? and EVERYONE in that company loses his/her job, would that be better?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nowadays, those kinds of companies are generally called "General Motors", although "Ford Motor Company" has lately become another popular description of companies like that.</p>

93

<p>1) re: multiplier effect: I don't know what you're talking about, but it doesn't seem to bear any connection to what I was talking about. If what I was talking about was wrong in the early '80s, then I should be asking for my money back from an expensive school.</p>

<p>2) re: "that's pecisely what should happen"- you're right, but that's not necessarily good for the people here.</p>

<p>3) re: it's always been this way, etc. No, we changed laws, with respect to import tarrifs, that protected us previously. That's the point. Laws were deliberately changed that had this result. Otherwise it wouldn't be happening to the same extent.</p>

<p>4) re: they'll buy our products too- I hope so, but I doubt it. I addressed this in my first post</p>

<p>5) Just stumbled on this; I guess I'm not such a unique thinker after all.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-20.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-20.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Same idea, though it's couched in political rhetoric that's a little over the top IMO.</p>

<p>Have fun guys, I'm out.</p>

94

<p>Engineering students generally need talent, and that is the primary difference</p>

95

<p>Monydad,</p>

<p>That article was a nice mix of paranoia, knee-jerk rhetoric and not a lot of substance... here are some choice quotes from that article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Our oil comes from a country that birthed a Wahabist movement... led to 14 Saudi citizens... WTC... Pentagon

[/quote]

First, we've been getting oil from the Middle East for decades. Next, how did this paper that started to discuss US ownership morph into the painfully obvious statement that US imports oil from the Middle East and then goes on to point out that the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia... huh?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Germans now own Chrysler assembly lines ... turned... tanks against WWII

[/quote]

Huh? How in the world does Chrysler's merger with Diamler bring into question WWII and tanks? </p>

<p>Then you get to the end of the article and realize that it's a thinly disguised Bush-bashing article, which comes as no surprise when it states that the author hosts a nationally syndicated radio program for the ultra-liberal Air America Radio.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I'm surprised that you would advocate much of this monydad, particularly as a former investment banker, that section on cross-border M&A made it seem like the modern version of "prima nocte". You of all people know that cross-border M&A works both ways - and while the paper did a nice job detailing some famous US asset sales, there have been plenty more US asset purchases to even any of those out... But that is not even the point. Again, when you sell something, you get something in return -> you don't sell something for nothing.</p>

<p>Finally, monydad, you never did respond to my previous question (see below) about whether you are advocating protectionism (which by the sounds of it you are):</p>

<p>Post #86
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2940507#post2940507%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2940507#post2940507&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

96

<p>also, it's funny that the article mentioned Deutsche Telekom's purchase of VoiceStream (now T-Mobile) - because I actually worked on that deal. As I recall, VSTR (VoiceStream) shareholders and Powertel shareholders (which was also owned by VSTR) received 1 DT share PLUS $33 per share for every VSTR share that they owned. Therefore, VSTR shareholders had the option of either: 1) becoming a bonafide DT shareholder or 2) make more cash by selling their DT share in the market (on top of the extra $33 bucks per share that they received as part of the purchase agreeement). Furthermore, this deal wasn't some kind of hostile takeover, the VSTR board and shareholders had plenty of opportunity to reject the deal.</p>

<p>Not to mention all of the US bankers, lawyers and accountants who profited from this transaction.</p>

<p>This article also doesn't mention the fact that T-Mobile has played an important role in fostering and increasing competition in the mobile sector in the US which has been a net positive for mobile consumers in the US in the form of lowered costs, increased coast to coast network coverage and more choice.</p>

97

<p>So do I understand that American engineers are competing with Asian engineers for jobs and pay? </p>

<p>That is why I wouldn't recommend engineering to my children (as a profession - not necessarily as a degree). I don't know how many Asian engineers own a home or take vacations or have the medical care (and expenses) or have the lifestyle that I would hope for my children. I would think only a small percent. I hope the Asian engineers get there. But until they do, wouldn't my children need to have their expectations for compensation equal or lower than the Asian engineers to compete? </p>

<p>For the number of hours that engineers put in each week (easily as many as lawyers or doctors), I would think that they would want better compensation.</p>

98

<p>No wonder American companies need Indian and Chinese engineers/computer scientists to come in and fill in the jobs here in America. It seems to me that most of the OP's arguments are along the lines of "if you major in Engineering you won't have fun" Since when is college about having fun, going to parties and getting drunk? You go to college to study and the rest of the stuff should come after. There's a reason why Engineers are in demand and occupy some of the top posts in corporations in the US and the world. The field of study requires dedication and hard work. If you are afraid to put in the time required then don't major in Engineering. If "having fun" is your primary reason in going to college, then major in business.</p>

<p>As for outsourcing, I believe the problem is inflated. First, to talk about "American jobs" in a globalized world is ridiculous. Let's face it, the world is changing and to survive and exist in such a world new rules have to come into play. Competition will only get fiercer and accordingly Engineering and other occupations will have to try to adapt. Second, the US will always need Engineers. Chinese and Indian Engineers will continue to come here, but that doesn't mean that the demand of American-trained Engineers will decrease. Also, in the future that influx may actually decrease as standard of living and salaries increase in those countries. Furthermore, there are other countries, beside the US, which are opening up to these people. An article I read recently mentioned Australia being the hot destination for Indian techies. As I said earlier, in today's world the rules have changed and accordingly we have to adopt. To say that because of this students shouldn't major in Engineering is absurd.</p>

99

<p>I'm just confused about the evolution of this thread -- from a gripe about engineering (which I still hope to major in) to what seems to be a very thorough discussion/argument on job prospects.</p>

100

<p>i think outsourcing only applies mostly in software engineering</p>