<p>
[quote]
That assertion falls on it's face when looked at in context of the dotcom boom! It's not just supply and demand- there's a number of components in there that confound the beautifully clean free market argument. Human nature, for example adds two clear confounds: one part squishy, mushy, difficult to understand "feeling" and one part greed.</p>
<p>You're arguing that free markets are accurate and reliable indicators of value, and you're doing so just after using the dotcom boom in an example for a previous argument. The dotcom boom proved that free markets can be unreliable!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no it doesn't. In fact, it actually PROVES my point with regard to salaries (which is what I am talking about). Why were Web engineers so well paid during the dotcom boom? Simple - because there was a great demand for them because lots of companies were building out websites. Hence, that PRECISELY measures supply and demand for that micromarket for labor. There was a lot of demand for web guys, and not much supply. </p>
<p>What YOU may be referring to is the fact that the dotcom boom did not ITSELF have a sustainable market behind it. But I would question that also. The truth is, the dotcom boom, from a historical perspective, is far from unsual. This is the way that the free market has always fostered bursts of technological innovation throughout history. Technology waves have always produced a wave of new startup entrants, most of which go bankrupt,and a few of which become giants, making those particular founders and investors extremely wealthy. For example, at the turn of the century, the US had several hundred car companies in the Detroit area. Most of them went bankrupt. The rest got swallowed up by the Big 3. Similarly, when the telephone was commercialized, hundreds and hundreds of little phone companies sprouted throughout the country. Many went bankrupt, others were acquired into what later became AT&T. When the oil industry was first developed, there were hundreds of oil companies and tens of thousands of individual oil prospectors and wildcatters that fanned out across the world seeking their fortune. Eventually, through the actions of guys like Rockefeller, the oil industry consolidated into a small number of 'majors'. </p>
<p>This is the way that the free market fosters innovation - it has to offer the possibility of huge riches in order to get people to leave safe jobs and take risks. I would therefore hardly say that the dotcom boom was 'irrational'. It it just the way that innovation has always been fostered throughout history. The truth is, without booms and busts like that, you would have less innovation because people would not be willing to 'bet it all' on a risky venture without the possiblity of a huge payoff. Obviously most risky dotcoms did not pay off, just like most of the risky new car companies of the 1900's-1910's did not pay off, but a few did. Google, for example, did pay off, just like Ford Motor Company did pay off. Without a boom/bust cycle, we may not have Google or Ford today. </p>
<p>But all of this is neither here nor there. The point is, if you want more people to become engineers as opposed to bankers or consultants, you have to pay the engineers more. That's the way the free market works - the more you pay, the more people you get. It's simply ludicrous that engineering companies don't understand this. Actually, I think they do understand this point quite well. The problem is that they don't WANT to understand it. They know full well that they could solve all their manpower problems by just paying more. They just don't want to do it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you really going to attempt to make the argument that the reason why finance people make so much is because there is a shortage of people who are capable of doing those sorts of jobs? I don't buy it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not arguing anything. I am simply taking somebody else's logic to its logical conclusion. Consider it the analogue of the mathematics technique of 'proof by absurdity'. If you want to prove a particular mathematical statement is false, what you can do is simply take that statement and process it through various manipulations until you reach a conclusion that is clearly false, and that proves that the initial statement must also be false. For example, if you start with statement A, and with that statement eventually reach 1+1=3, then know that statement A is false. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that I don't believe there is any 'shortage' in engineering in this country, because the word 'shortage' itself is an arbitrary term. Who decides what is a 'shortage'. If there really was a true shortage, then you would expect engineering salaries to rise. That does not happen. That indicates that there probably isn't a shortage. </p>
<p>Obviously economics is not like the world of mathematics where you can prove things unambiguously. It's more like a court trial where you weigh evidence and make a decision, because nothing can be proved with 100% certainty. What I am saying is that if there truly is a 'shortage' of engineering (using classical economics definition of 'shortage'), then you would expect engineering salaries to be increasing greatly. That is not happening, so that's strong evidence against the notion that there is a shortage. Obviously it doesn't "prove" that there is no shortage, but it means that the evidence points against it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why pick on engineering? Because we're in deep doo-doo and great engineers/scientists are going to be needed to find a way to keep the lights on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why are we in deep doo-doo? According to who? The US is still far and away the richest nation in the world. The US still patents more inventions and fosters more technology innovation and more technology companies than any other country. To this day, no country has yet to build a tech dynamo that matches Silicon Valley, even though many have tried.</p>
<p>Let's tick off some of the successes. The US has:</p>
<p>*The world's biggest software company (Microsoft)
*The world's biggest semiconductor company (Intel)
*The world's biggest consolidated computer company (IBM)
*The world's biggest pure computer services company (EDS)
*The world's biggest PC manufacturer (HP)
*The world's biggest datacom vendor (Cisco)
*The world's biggest Internet company (Google)
*The world's largest biotech company (either Amgen or Genentech, depending on how you count)
*The world's biggest pharmaceutical company (Pfizer)
*The world's biggest aerospace company (Boeing)</p>
<p>Now, granted, other regions of the world lead in other areas. For example, Japan and Europe lead in mobile phone technology. Japan leads in cars, video games, consumer electronics, and memory chips. Germany leads in certain high-end heavy engineering fields, i.e. Siemens in electrical equipment. So I agree that the US doesn't lead in all areas. </p>
<p>But the point is, I would hardly characterize the situation as 'deep doo-doo'. Far from it, in fact. In fact, if any region could be characterized as being in 'deep doo-doo' from a tech standpoint, it's Europe. Think about it. Europe produces MORE engineers than the US does. But, other than cellphones, honestly when was the last time Europe produced any tech innovation that swept the world? I don't want to be overly harsh and nationalistic, but come on, you know it's true. Except for Philips, the European consumer electronics industry is basically dead. And except for some exceptions in software (notably SAP of Germany), the European computer industry is REALLY dead. Think about it - when was the last time you bought a European computer? In fact, when was the last time you even SAW a European computer? In fact, you can't, because all of the European computer hardware manufacturers are dead. Those computer companies used to have names like ICL (British), Groupe Bull (France), Olivetti (Italy), and Siemens-Nixdorf (Germany). When was the last time you saw a computer from one of these companies? </p>
<p>What makes it sad is that Europe has a long-standing tradition of excellent science and engineering. Modern science and engineering was basically invented in Europe. Even to this day, Europeans win a large share of Nobel Prizes - certainly more than any Asia does. And Europe produces a higher percentage of scientists and engineers - something like 15% of all bachelor's degrees conferred in Europe are engineering degees, compared to about 5% in the US. But do you think Europe is garnering the benefits from having all of these engineers? Again, how many big tech companies or big tech innovations come out of Europe these days, compared to the US? In fact,Europe seems to have the worst of all worlds - lots of engineers, and not that much innovation.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3797/is_199704/ai_n8769038%5B/url%5D">http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3797/is_199704/ai_n8769038</a></p>
<p>Look, the point is, you don't need to have lots of employees in a particular field in order to remain strong in that field. Europe has proved that you can have lots of engineers and not have that much innovation. Conversely, in the US, we have an ever-shrinking number of farmers and yet greater and greater food production. 150 years ago, half of the US population were farmers. Now it's less than 2%. Are we in deep doo-doo when it comes to food? I don't think so. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why pick on MIT? It's part of the price of prestige, I guess...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think it's MIT's job to steer students one way or another. MIT's job is to adapt with the times. That's why MIT has created other non-tech programs. Back in the early days, MIT really was just strictly a trade school. A very good trade school, but a trade school nonetheless. It was only later on that MIT began to do other things. For example, didn't always have an economics department, and even when it did, it was for many years considered an unimportant backwater. Now, the MIT Economics department is arguably the best in the world, arguably better than even Harvard's. MIT didn't teach industrial management until 1914, and didnt' even establish the Sloan School until the 1950's. Now the Sloan School is one of the best business schools in the world. Similarly, the Media Lab wasn't founded until 21 years ago. MIT's political science department wasn't founded until the 1960's and is now a top 10 program according to USNews Graduate edition, which I think is darn impressive given how young it is. </p>
<p>I don't think it's MIT "job" to always create engineers. I think it's MIT's job to adapt with the times. Otherwise, you might argue that MIT should not have created the economics department, should not have created the Sloan School, should not have created Media Lab. </p>
<p>All schools adapt with the times. It wasn't that long ago that Harvard and Yale were little more than elite gentlemen's finishing schools with few research facilities. Their research capabilities were built out during the world wars. And it wasn't that long ago when MIT was just a trade school that was in such financial distress that it almost merged with Harvard. I don't think it's the job of MIT, or any school, to always do what it has always done. Rather, it's their job to remain flexible and provide what the market demands.</p>
<p>To give you another example, the College of Engineering at UCBerkeley was founded largely as a mining school. In fact, the Hearst Mining Building is still a prominent building on campus, and the rotary in front of it is still called the Hearst Mining Circle. Berkeley used to grant lots of degrees in mining engineering - at one time, 1 in 5 male students at Berkeley were studying mining engineering. </p>
<p>"When Hearst Mining was completed, one in five male students at Cal studied mining engineering," "</p>
<p><a href="http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/hearstopening/matrix98.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/hearstopening/matrix98.html</a></p>
<p>Now, Berkeley doesn't even offer a mining engineering program. Berkeley has adapted with the times. I see nothing wrong with that. Just because a school is good at something in the past doesn't mean that the school is obligated to do that forever.</p>