<p>I don't know much about engineering, but in life power is usually associated with adaptability. That being said, engineers cannot adapt to crisises or major changes very well (who knows what the hell is going to happen in the next 20, 30, 40 years?). If you only know the tricks of a very narrow field, your adaptability is not that great. Maybe it would be a good idea to have secondary skills to fall back on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That being said, engineers cannot adapt to crisises or major changes very well
[/quote]
</p>
<p>did you jus pull this out of your ass :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It has EVERYTHING to do with what you are talking about. You quoted Samuelson. What Samuelson said, at least in the beginning, is that money that isn't spent "leaks" out of the economy - i.e. that spending creates a multiplier effect in the economy, but saved money does not, as it supposedly drains out of the system. In fact, BOTH create multiplier effects. When you spend money, you develop the economy (because the goods you bought pay the producers, who in turn also buy goods, etc.). But saved money ALSO develops the economy because that saved money gets transformed into investment capital via financial markets </p>
<p>In fact, over the long term, it is actually SAVED money that increases long-term growth rates, primarily by spurring the use of productivity-enhancing investment and capital expenditure. In contrast, spent money provides a short-term boost to the economy but does not develop the capital base over the long term.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) re: "that's pecisely what should happen"- you're right, but that's not necessarily good for the people here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but I would say that that's tough for those people who don't want to work hard and get educated. A lot of Americans simply don't want to work hard, yet still get a good job, and for decades, a lot of lazy Americans got good jobs. No more. Now, you're going to have to work hard if you expect to get a good job, because there are other hard-working people around the globe who want the same job you do. </p>
<p>But the problem isn't going to go away just by protectionism. If the US closes its borders to free trade, then the US will hurt its entire economy over the long term. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, the US has engaged in protectionism many times. But was it good? We still have protectionism today - notably with farm subsidies, corporate welfare, and so forth. Is that good for the economy? </p>
<p>It has been demonstrated repeatedly that open economies tend to grow faster than closed economies. The most closed economies, i.e. the Soviet Union, China before the 1970s', North Korea today, are also some of the worst performers, whereas the economies that opened themselves to international competition, such as Hong Kong or Singapore, developed like gangbusters. The more open your economy is, the greater growth you tend to have. </p>
<p>
[quote]
4) re: they'll buy our products too- I hope so, but I doubt it. I addressed this in my first post
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, if they don't buy our products (and I mean, not ever), then that's actually a great thing! Why? Simple. Because it would mean that these countries would be giving us their goods for free. Think about it - we are buying their goods, and giving them US dollars for those goods. But they can't actually "use" US dollars in their own country. The only thing they can do with it is buy our goods (or invest in the US, with the purpose of generating even more US dollars, but that's for the purpose of buying more US stuff). If they never use those dollars to buy our goods, then that basically means that we've traded their goods for green pieces of paper. </p>
<p>What will actually happen is that foreign countries with which we are running a deficit will eventually buy US goods. They will just do it LATER. After all, nobody accumulates dollars just for the purpose of accumulating dollars. What's the point of that? You accumulate dollars because you intend to eventually USE those dollars. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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">http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-20.htm</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody said that your ideas are unique. In fact, it's the same rehashed paranoia and protectionism that has been tossed around for decades. It took a long time for the ideas of capitalism to decisively defeat the antiquated ideas of mercantilism.</p>
<p>
[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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it should also be pointed out that more US oil imports actually come from Canada and Mexico, and neither of them have spawned any terrorist movement (unless you count Celine Dion). </p>
<p>Look, the fact is, the US has plenty of world trade with plenty of countries, some of which are unsavory. But that doesn't mean that you should just ban world trade. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Huh? How in the world does Chrysler's merger with Diamler bring into question WWII and tanks?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that US companies own plenty of foreign asset and companies. Why is it strategically bad for Chrysler to merge with Daimler, but it is perfectly OK for US companies to snap up assets throughout the rest of the world? For example, when Ford bought LandRover, is that a threat to the strategic interests of the UK? When Ford bought Volvo, does that somehow threaten the national security of Sweden? </p>
<p>To paraphrase what I said before - if foreign companies should not be allowed to buy American assets, then fair enough, then American companies should not be allowed to buy foreign assets. What's fair is fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think outsourcing only applies mostly in software engineering
[/quote]
</p>
<p>False. Outsourcing applies mostly to factory manufacturing work, for the simple fact of the matter is that there are far far more foreigners who know how to operate simple factory machinery than know how to write software. Manufacturing employment outsourcing has been going on for decades. </p>
<p>Note, that's not to see that US manufacturing output has declined. As I stated before, total US manufacturing output is actually at historically high levels. US factories simply produce a tremendous amount of output with fewer and fewer workers. Much of the labor-intensive manufacturing (i.e. textiles) has moved overseas. The US manufacturing industry has moved to higher-end products </p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that just begs the question of what else are your children going to do? Let's keep in mind that outsourcing doesn't affect only engineers. It affects plenty of jobs too. For example, companies have been outsourcing their accounting work, bill collection, human resources, and so forth. Here is an article in the latest Businessweek that talks about how DuPont is outsourcing legal services to Asia. </p>
<p>The point is, any job that just involves shuffling papers around and/or calling people on the phone or answering email can be outsourced. And the truth is, a lot of office jobs involve nothing more than those tasks. </p>
<p>So when you say that you don't recommend engineering as a profession, it just begs the question of what other choice is out there? I'm not saying that engineering is the greatest job in the world. But it's still better than a lot of other professions you could have. Let's face it. Plenty of people end up in crappy professions making crappy salaries with few benefits and little chance for advancement. Engineers may not have it great, but they're still better off than the vast majority of Americans. Engineers still make about double the national average in salary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think outsourcing only applies mostly in software engineering
[/quote]
</p>
<p>False. Outsourcing applies mostly to factory manufacturing work, for the simple fact of the matter is that there are far far more foreigners who know how to operate simple factory machinery than know how to write software. Manufacturing employment outsourcing has been going on for decades. </p>
<p>Note, that's not to see that US manufacturing output has declined. As I stated before, total US manufacturing output is actually at historically high levels. US factories simply produce a tremendous amount of output with fewer and fewer workers. Much of the labor-intensive manufacturing (i.e. textiles) has moved overseas. The US manufacturing industry has moved to higher-end products </p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that just begs the question of what else are your children going to do? Let's keep in mind that outsourcing doesn't affect only engineers. It affects plenty of jobs too. For example, companies have been outsourcing their accounting work, bill collection, human resources, and so forth. Here is an article in the latest Businessweek that talks about how DuPont is outsourcing legal services to Asia. </p>
<p>The point is, any job that just involves shuffling papers around and/or calling people on the phone or answering email can be outsourced. And the truth is, a lot of office jobs involve nothing more than those tasks. </p>
<p>So when you say that you don't recommend engineering as a profession, it just begs the question of what other choice is out there? I'm not saying that engineering is the greatest job in the world. But it's still better than a lot of other professions you could have. Let's face it. Plenty of people end up in crappy professions making crappy salaries with few benefits and little chance for advancement. Engineers may not have it great, but they're still better off than the vast majority of Americans. Engineers still make about double the national average in salary.</p>
<p>Sorry I was not referring to any differential of multiplier impacts of savings vs. investment. Just that the multiplier $$, if directed to someone outside US, will likely accrue and be spent outside the US. And benefit those other economies. Whereas if spent domestically, the collateral consumption spending will be domestic US to a larger extent. Tech call center in Detroit, employee buys a hamburger in Detroit. tech center in India, employee buys (whatever) in India. Taxes and additional spending occurs in US, vs taxes and additional spending occurs mostly oversees.That's all. It was in response to what do we care whether the guy is here or in India. When I invoked Samuelson I was just referring to my intro textbook.</p>
<p>As for the article, I just Googled and found it. I agree some of it is over the top. But the first part mirrors some of my concerns.</p>
<p>As to what to do: I wasn't there when the prior tarrif system, which protected american wages. labor benefits, etc, was eliminated; but I would have thought long and hard about the implications of doing that. At this point, it seems like that ship has sailed. What I would do now is increasingly invest overseas. If I were a kid planning a career, I think it's very reasonable to consider the potential impacts of globalization as I make choices. YMMV.</p>
<p>Really out this time, not helping anyone here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry I was not referring to any differential of multiplier impacts of savings vs. investment. Just that the multiplier $$, if directed to someone outside US, will likely accrue and be spent outside the US. And benefit those other economies. Whereas if spent domestically, the collateral consumption spending will be domestic US to a larger extent. Tech call center in Detroit, employee buys a hamburger in Detroit. tech center in India, employee buys (whatever) in India. Taxes and additional spending occurs in US, vs taxes and additional spending occurs mostly oversees.That's all. It was in response to what do we care whether the guy is here or in India. When I invoked Samuelson I was just referring to my intro textbook.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The first thing I would say to this is to once again invoke fairness. If Americans cannot invest in foreign countries, then fine, foreigners should not be allowed to invest in America. The US is still by far the largest importer of foreign investment in the world.</p>
<p>As a case in point, the US is full of tech centers run by foreign companies. For example, I know Americans who work in Silicon Valley for Hitachi, Siemens, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, and so forth. These are all foreign companies. What about the multiplier effect of these foreign tech centers? These companies are hiring plenty of Americans who are creating multiiplier effects in the US. If American companies should not be allowed to create tech centers in foreign countries, then foreign companies should not be allowed to create tech centers in the US, and all of the Americans who work there should immediately be fired because they are evidently "stealing" the multiplier effect from their home countries, right? </p>
<p>{What many protectionists seem to want is for EVERYTHING to always happen in the US, and nothing to ever happen anywhere else. For example, they want foreign companies to be able to hire Americans, but American companies should never hire foreigners. They want foreign consumers to buy American goods, but they never want Americans to buy foreign goods. They want foreigners to invest in the US, but they don't want Americans to invest in foreign countries. Basically, they want everything for themselves. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Now, to their credit, some of them even freely admit that that's what they want and they're not trying to be fair. }</p>
<p>Furthermore, if you want to stop Americans from investing in foreign companies, why stop there? Maybe each state's citizens should only invest in its own state? For example, why should some guy in Idaho invest in New York companies? After all, that money that he invests is supposedly going to "disappear" from Idaho. So maybe Idaho should pass a law saying that the people of Idaho are only allowed to invest in companies in Idaho. Maybe we should do it for each town - hence town residents should only be allowed to invest within the town . The logical conclusion is that everybody should only transact with their own family and friends, and never perform economic transactions with anybody else, because that would mean that the multiplier effect would disappear.</p>
<p>But even these are just quibbles, because there are 2 far more powerful rejoinders when you're talking about foreign investment. Firstly, international capital flows must always balance. When a US firm invests in a foreign country, that country accumulates dollars. But that foreign country can't really do anything with dollars. That country eventually has to spend those dollars, or has to convert them to local currency. If those dollars are eventually spent, then that means that those dollars will eventually flow back to the US in the form of goods purchases. Hence, you haven't "lost" the multiplier effect, you have only delayed it. Or, if dollars are converted, then this will affect the exchange rate and that will eventually make the dollar weaker which will make US exports cheaper and imports more expensive. Hence, this is an inherently self-correcting mechanism. Like I said, if a country really were to stupidly accumulate US dollars without ever spending them (or converting them), then that would basically mean that they would be trading their goods for useless green pieces of paper. No foreigners accumulate dollars because they think it's "fun" to collect green pieces of paper. They accumulate dollars because they intend to eventually use it. </p>
<p>But secondly and far more importantly, foreign competition for capital creates healthy competition, and that ultimately increases economic growth. For example, imagine a world where Americans really could only invest in US companies. We both know what would happen. American companies would start to get lazy and inefficient. That's because they know that they would always be able to access cheap captive capital. So they have less reason to become efficient, and they can simply invest in unproductive ventures, engage in wasteful empire-building, and so forth. However, when foreign locations compete for capital, that means that US companies have to provide investors with better returns, which means they have to become more efficient.</p>
<p>
[quotE]
6) mostly foreigners -- out here in CA I'd say the hi-tech workforce is 1/3 chinese, 1/3 indian, 1/3 white. If you've ever wanted to feel like a minority in your own country, engineering is the job for you.
[/quote]
Is this country only for the whites?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is this country only for the whites?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>this country is a "melting pot" as long as it doesn't hurt the whites' long-held priviledge...:rolleyes:</p>
<p>the current trend of blaming outsourcing, Indians and Chinese for the employment problems facing America reminds me of the antagonism displayed towards the Japanese car companies during the 70s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How things have changed. In the mid-1970s, anybody found driving a Japanese car in Michigan was in danger of ending up with a tire slashed or a door keyed. Today, mention one of the Big Three U.S. auto-makers -- GM, Ford or DaimlerChrysler -- at a blue-collar Midwestern honky-tonk and you'll hear groans. Everybody in the Midwest these days is begging Honda to come into their hometown. It is no longer viewed as a "Japanese" company, but a "pro-American-worker" corporation flush with jobs, jobs, jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is this country only for the whites?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a separate but important point. European immigrants have always had a distinct cultural assimilation advantage into the American mainstream for purely superficial reasons - simply put - they didn't necessarily "look" like a "foreigner". Compare that to non-caucasians (whether African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, etc.) - it doesn't matter if they happen to be immigrants or 1st generation or 3rd generation - people don't necessarily "assume" that they are "Americans".</p>
<p>I can't begin to tell you how many of my Asian-American friends get asked "where are you from?" (and we aren't talking about, "where's your hometown" kind of "from" - it's more like "what country are you from" as if the default answer is some far off land - no way that they could actually be red-blooded Americans) - when many of them are in fact 2nd or 3rd generation Americans. For instance, one of my very best friends (from prep school) is a Korean-American (also one of the smartest guys I know and also a Tae Kwon Do black belt - he made the Jr. Olympic squad and is also a damn good boxer) he graduated from West Point (after serving honorably in the military went on to Top 3 law school), his two brothers also served in the US military, his father also served honorably in the US Army - but just because he "looks" Asian, he gets comments like, "hey rice boy, go back to the paddy fields where you came from" - this guy and his family have done more than their fair share to serve our country than any average "American", but ignorance and flat out racism still abounds to this very day. He takes it in stride (even though he could totally kick the living crap out of anyone save a professional boxer) he never gets physical and takes the high road, but whenever I hear these things it gets my blood to boil.</p>
<p>Sakky I keep trying to get out of this thread.</p>
<p>All I said was that I fear this will not work out too well. I hope I'm wrong, obviously.</p>
<p>I am not trying to be fair. I am a one-sided advocate for American domestic workers. I fear the "fair" result will not work out well for many people here, I think we had more than our fair share to start with, so a "fair" result will involve a re-allocation that will not necessarily be favorable to a lot of the people here. Looking at our comparative national test results, and the extra benefits and working conditions our workers have traditionally enjoyed vs. those in third world countries, I personally might have wanted to look closely at the tradeoffs involved in preserving our "unfair advantage" in labor & working conditions, trading off some investment returns for this. It worked well for the US for a large number of years.Clearly in unfettered free trade there is net benefit to investors and multinationals, who can and will ultimately live and reside anywhere. But not necessarily more benefit to US workers, assuming they had a better deal starting out than they were entitled to in a "fair" competitive environment. </p>
<p>There's a lot of people here who I don't think can compete with third world labor. And I don't necessarily prefer to live in a place with a level of income inequality, and working conditions, resembling Dickensian England.</p>
<p>The "fair" result may be that, down the road, a number of workers with low-level skills here should be looking to certain currently third-world countries to find work. And,eventually, the same may be true for workers with high-levl skills.But there may be cultural barriers that interfere with this migration. I don't know what the future will look like for these people.</p>
<p>And this ignores the fact that these other countries will not themselves play "fair". Only to the extent that there is net benefit to them.</p>
<p>That's how I see it. I hope I'm wrong. YMMV.</p>
<p>If all these jobs were going to Russia we would be saying the same things about Russia. They just happen to be going (mostly) to certain other countries instead. So, for this particular issue, I don't see race as the issue personally, it's an issue of trade practices.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky I keep trying to get out of this thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, monydad, if you want out, you just get out. I'm not holding you here. I'm not holding a gun to your head. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not trying to be fair. I am a one-sided advocate for American domestic workers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that you're not being fair. Many partial protectionists won't even admit THAT much. So not only are their selfish, they're dishonest. </p>
<p>
[quote]
so a "fair" result will involve a re-allocation that will not necessarily be favorable to a lot of the people here. Looking at our comparative national test results, and the extra benefits and working conditions our workers have traditionally enjoyed vs. those in third world countries, I personally might have wanted to look closely at the tradeoffs involved in preserving our "unfair advantage" in labor & working conditions, trading off some investment returns for this. It worked well for the US for a large number of years.Clearly in unfettered free trade there is net benefit to investors and multinationals, who can and will ultimately live and reside anywhere. But not necessarily more benefit to US workers, assuming they had a better deal starting out than they were entitled to in a "fair" competitive environment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The first thing I would say is that, again, I think you are romanticizing the past. Things didn't really work out well for all American workers in the past. They worked well for SOME American workers, namely white Protestant males. Ethnic/religious minorities and women basically got the shaft. I'm quite certain none of them would like to go back to the "good old days" when racism and sexism were endemic features in the landscape - i.e. when the Ivy League explicitly restricted the number of Jews who were admitted, when many universities, especially in the South, refused to admit blacks, when labor unions and nonprofits barred minorities and women from joining, and so forth. Let's keep in mind that minorities and women comprise the majority of the country. Hence, in the "good old days", the majority of the country was getting shafted.</p>
<p>Nor is this a tangential point, because the worker protections of the old days to which you are referring protected American workers not just from foreign workers, but also served to protect them from other American workers, namely minorities and women. Labor unions of the old days served not only to shield their own workers from cheap foreign competition, but also served to shield their own workers from cheap domestic competition in the form of minorities (especially blacks) who were willing to work for less. </p>
<p>But even putting that aside, there is a larger issue which is that you are presuming that the amount of investment in the country is declining. I see no indication of such a thing. Total investment activity in the country (from domestic and foreign sources), as measured as a portion of the GDP, is about as high as it ever was. US consumer spending levels are about as high as ever, and the total net worth of all Americans is either at or near an all-time record. </p>
<p>"The Federal Reserve reported in recent weeks that U.S. household net worth at the end of 2005's third quarter was $51,100,000,000,000. This is the highest total on record. It was also the 12th consecutive quarter where a new record was set. The $51.1 trillion net worth total is more than three times the $16 trillion total of 18 years ago, or 1987 "</p>
<p><a href="http://www.zionsbancorporation.com/zionsbank/tl/tl20060308.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.zionsbancorporation.com/zionsbank/tl/tl20060308.html</a> </p>
<p>
[quote]
It worked well for the US for a large number of years.Clearly in unfettered free trade there is net benefit to investors and multinationals, who can and will ultimately live and reside anywhere. But not necessarily more benefit to US workers, assuming they had a better deal starting out than they were entitled to in a "fair" competitive environment. </p>
<p>There's a lot of people here who I don't think can compete with third world labor. And I don't necessarily prefer to live in a place with a level of income inequality, and working conditions, resembling Dickensian England.</p>
<p>The "fair" result may be that, down the road, a number of workers with low-level skills here should be looking to certain currently third-world countries to find work. But there may be cultural barriers that interfere with this migration. I don't know what the future will look like for these people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now here's something I can agree with partially. I agree that globalization reforms will hurt some Americans. </p>
<p>But I think you discount the ability of people to adapt to new conditions. For example, I am convinced that education is becoming an increasingly valuable asset in this new knowledge-based world economy. The fact is, a lot of Americans aren't very interested in getting educated, because, frankly, in the past, you didn't really need to be educated to have a decent life. For example, in the old days, you really did have plenty of workers barely graduate from high school where they lolly-gagged around and cared more about dating hot girls than about their classes, and then upon graduation joined the local union and took a high-paying job in the local factory where they could get a cushy middle-class lifestyle without ever having to bother to get educated. Now, you can't really do that. If you're not educated, you're going to be stuck stocking shelves at the mall. </p>
<p>But that's a static way of looking at the economy, because people will respond. The truth is, people will tend to improve only when they must. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to live a decent life without a decent education, more Americans will start to value education. Globalization will therefore force a sea change in American culture. American kids will increasingly get the message that if you lolly-gag your way through school, you're going to end up with a crappy job. Right now, a lot of Americans can still see people around town with no education still making a lot of money, and so these kids are still thinking "Well, if he can make a lot of money with no education, then I don't really need education." Take those people away, and American kids will value education. </p>
<p>But think about what would happen if we were to 'protect' workers. By doing so, we would be impeding this shift in attitudes regarding education. Many Americans would continue to see school as just some time-wasting rite of passage they have to endure rather than a place to prepare them for the future.</p>
<p>The point is, protectionism inevitably breeds complacency and laziness. I can agree that the government should help its citizens to prepare themselves for competition. But it doesn't help to shield people from that competition. The government should therefore be reforming K-12 education, making community colleges cheap and easily available, increasing the availability of student loans, and increasing worker retraining budgets. But I don't think it's healthy in the long run to shield workers from competition, as that would just impede the necessary shift in attitudes regarding the importance of education and training.</p>
<p>Ford Slashes 10,000 Jobs, $1.44 billion 1st Half Loss</p>
<p>... and the hits just keep on coming for Ford and GM ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Citan writes: 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.
[/quote]
If that was all Citan could comprehend from what I wrote then obviously it was wasted on him. But this isn't really a surprise, it's psychology at work. More specifically, cognitive dissonance. I'd bet Citan is currently a engineering student and has made a huge committment in time and effort to engineering. Cognitive dissonance blinds us to facts & opinions that oppose our beliefs; I'd bet that Citan literally did not see* the parts of my post where I discussed salaries leveling off early, the nature of the working environment for engineers, and the future of the industry. His eyes may have covered the woirds on the screen, but they didn't even register.</p>
<p>And that's exactly why I post this in the fall. So that kids that are still exploring their options, such as CollegeBound2007, can hear something other than the enthusiastic chorus for engineering from teachers and GCs, while they're at a distance from the subject that lets them hear 2 sides of the debate. </p>
<p>Isn't it curious that many of the posts from those actually working in the field express overall agreement with what I wrote? That when kids with a parent in engineering ask their dad he more or less says it's right? The posts from Citan and his ilk are just smoke-and-mirrors.</p>
<p>So basically if I major in engineering I'm unlikely to have a fulfilling life, enjoyable college time, a girlfriend, and a stable job? Can't I just change majors (I'm not applying to any strictly math-science schools) if I don't like it? Surely some people can manage it, or there would be no engineers. What about schools like Stanford with more 'laid back' engineering curriculum (relative, of course). I was really interested in engineering and it'd suck if it was really this bad. I'm also confused because several members of my family pursued careers in engineering but had fulfilling social lives (including boy/girlfriends), a few are in grad school (one of which is pursuing an MBA), and others are already hitting six figures. Are these all huge exceptions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't it curious that many of the posts from those actually working in the field express overall agreement with what I wrote?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And many others who are also working in the field deeply oppose your position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That when kids with a parent in engineering ask their dad he more or less says it's right? The posts from Citan and his ilk are just smoke-and-mirrors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Marleysghost, the problem with your post is that it contains no perspective. You talk about all the problems with engineering. Nobody disputes that engineering has problems. But, get this, SO DO MOST OTHER CAREERS. Why don't you talk to some of the humanities majors that I know, and ask them how their careers are going? Trust me, most of them only WISH they could have an engineering job. </p>
<p>Look, nobody is saying that engineering is problem-free. But engineers still have things far far better than the vast majority of people in the country. Let's face it. The sad truth is that the majority of Americans work in dead-end, boring jobs making little money and having little prospect for advancement. Sad but true. Just go to your local Walmart or your local McDonalds and look at all the workers there. I bet that most of them wish they could be engineers instead.</p>
<p>This is a minor point in this larger debate about engineering as a major and career, on which I express no opinion. However</p>
<p>
[quote]
Firstly, international capital flows must always balance. When a US firm invests in a foreign country, that country accumulates dollars. But that foreign country can't really do anything with dollars. That country eventually has to spend those dollars, or has to convert them to local currency. If those dollars are eventually spent, then that means that those dollars will eventually flow back to the US in the form of goods purchases.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This assumes that only the US accepts dollars as payment. For most currencies this would be a valid assumption, but not for dollars. They are an international currency that are used around the world in transactions that do not involve the US at all. This money need never be repatriated. That is globalization.</p>
<p>I know I read somewhere that Engineering is the highest paying job you can get just with a Bachelors.</p>
<p>Yeah, engineering is whoring out YOUR LIFE for money.
When are you going to enjoy that money? YOU WORK OVER 40 HOURS A WEEK!!! Then again, though, you'll probably remain single, or married to a fugly (since your career is uninteresting; being a lab rat typing keys on a computer in solitude... whoa what a life I really want to read your biography buddy.. oh wait its a carbon copy of all other engineers)</p>
<p>Money (and sometimes stay-inside-your-comfort-zone routine) is the ONLY incentive to go into engineering. Along with the fear of the unpredictable; some college students fear that they haven't mapped out their entire lives yet, so just arbitrarily picking 'engineering' essentially determining their future let's them rest a little easier.</p>
<p>Then again, I don't even know why I'm arguing on this thread. I didn't pick engineering, so why should I care who else does. I mean, it's like being the lunch lady at the cafeteria, SOMEONE has to do it. So, by all means, go ahead.</p>