<p>
[quote]
I always read the Time magazine, which keeps saying India and China are taking a lot of technological jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree with the implication that Indians and Chinese are "taking" jobs. Maybe this is just a semantic point, but the word "taking" implies that these jobs somehow "belonged" to Americans and then some foreigners came along and snatched those jobs away. The fact is, these jobs never "belonged" to Americans in the first place. They don't "own" these jobs. Jobs are going to go to the people who are most economically efficient at filling them, and that's exactly the way it ought to be. You're not entitled to a tech job just because you're an American. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. I know a bunch of Americans working for Nortel, Siemens, Shell Oil, Alcatel, and Sony. Does that means these Americans are "taking" jobs from Canadians, Germans, Brits, French, and Japanese? Like I've always said, if it's bad for foreigners to "take" jobs from Americans, then it's equally bad for Americans to "take" jobs from foreigners. </p>
<p>But more importantly, the whole notion of "taking" jobs is fatally wrong, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. The number of jobs in the world is not fixed. Economic growth and economic activity creates jobs and wealth for Americans and for foreigners at the same time. After all, that's what economic growth is all about. The average person today lives far better than the average person of hundreds of years ago because of economic growth. If the wealth of the world is fixed, then how can there even be a concept as economic growth? </p>
<p>I'll give you a modern example. Take the Ipod. Most of the components of the Ipod are manufactured in Asia, particularly in China and Taiwan. So that obviously creates jobs for Chinese. However, the design work of the Ipod was all performed in the US, and specifically at the Apple headquarters at Cupertino, California. So that means that all of those American design engineers have a job, along with all of those Apple American supply chain managers/industrial engineers whose job is to efficiently coordinate the procurement of those components from Asia so that Apple has the correct number of components necessary for each Ipod (not too many, not too few). Now, think about what would have happened if all of the components of the Ipod were to have been manufactured in the US. That would have vastly increased the cost of the Ipod, which would have then vastly increased the price - probably to the point where it would have been too expensive to buy. Hence, the Ipod can exist as a profitable business venture is because of cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, and therefore all of those American Ipod design engineers and industrial engineers wouldn't have jobs if Apple didn't have access to that cheap Chinese labor, because the Ipod wouldn't be a successful product and so they would have nothing to sell (and thus nothing to design). Hence, one could say that those American design engineering jobs actually DEPEND on access to Chinese labor. The Ipod has therefore created jobs for both Chinese AND Americans. With no Ipod, there would be no jobs for anybody. If all component manufacturing had to be done in the US, there might be no Ipod at all. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, don't you have to work as an engineer with an engineering degree?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why, is that a law? Do you think somebody will arrest you and throw you in jail if you have an engineering degree but don't actually work as an engineer? </p>
<p>What it comes down to is dynamic typing, my friend, dynamic typing. You don't need to work in the specific field that your degree is in. Think of it this way. How many Sociology graduates actually work as professional sociologists? How many Art History graduates actually work as art historians? How many Women's Studies majors actually become professional "studiers of women" (whatever that means)? In fact, I would say that the vast majority of college graduates in general do not have a career that is strictly defined by their college major. Why would engineers be any different? </p>
<p>This makes a nice segue to the following topic:</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of companies are outsourcing these days, and I'm scared that in the future my degree won't mean anything. I told my parents I want to go into Engineering because I love math and science, but they want me to go into pharmacy because they think that there is much more demand for them than Engineering
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you can still become a pharmacist after you get an engineering degree. As has been said on this thread, just because you have an engineering degree doesn't mean that you have to work as an engineer. Plenty don't. Plenty of engineers go to law school, med school, business school (especially business school), o become bankers or consultants. In your case, you can get an engineering degree and still go to pharmacy school. </p>
<p>What an engineering degree will give you is a very nice backup career. After all, what if you can't get into pharmacy school? There is no guarantee that you'll get in. Plenty of people don't. </p>
<p>I will also say that engineering is one of the few professions in which you can get truly truly filthy rich. This is most true of EECS, but is also somewhat true of fields like ChemE, MatSci, and BioE (but probably not so much for ME, CivE, and AA). What I mean is that if you can hook on to the right tech startup company, or found your own tech startup, and it blows up, you really can become rich beyond your wildest dreams. Take a look at the guys from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel - not only are the founders obviously extremely wealthy, but all of the early employees of these companies are also extremely wealthy. MySpace got bought for $580 million last year. Facebook is reportedly being shopped around for up to $2 billion. Not bad for a company that is only 2 years old, founded within a Harvard dorm room. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2006/tc20060327_215976.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2006/tc20060327_215976.htm</a></p>
<p>Now, let's be clear. Obviously only a tiny tiny fraction of people in the tech industry will ever become filthy rich. But at least there's the chance. It's similar to how so many people flock to Hollywood to try to become movie stars, even though only a small fraction actually will. It's that hope that keeps the dream alive, and without hope, you can't live happily. Pharmacy will give you a steady job with a good income. But let's face it, as a pharmacist, you're not going to be able to create a $2 billion company in 2 years. Or, in the case of Google, a $110 billion company in 8 years (for a ridiculous rate of $13.75 billion of created market value per year).</p>
</p>