The only thing I would add is that it is undertaken IF profit is possible (in almost all circumstances).
The days of doing big, audacious things with government funding because we can, with the hopes that it might spin off something useful were largely killed, rightly or wrongly, by anti-tax, antigovernment politicians, not by lack of public intrigue or interest.
Engineering per se is still very highly valued.
Agree on funding of the big audacious things. I do thing work continues on such work in Universities. One other thing, though, there are some audacious things coming out of the business world all the time. For instance Googles GPT-3 is awesome, and I doubt that the capabilities of SpaceX (booster self landing, capsule, etc) would have ever come out of todayâs NASA (not anytime soon anyway).
NASA is not the most efficient org on the planet! 
The issue seems to be paying for necessary engineering projects, which do not result in new tech. Fixing a bridge? Boring until there is a major accident. Upgrading a sewage treatment plant that will result in higher costs to users? Put that off as long as possible. People want their street paved, but donât want their taxes to go up to pay for it. Telling people they have to raise their homes by 10 feet to avoid future flooding, nothing people want to hear.
It seems to me that science and knowledge has been devalued. People think they know more than experts. Look at the long-term antivaxers
Thereâs too many subtopics in this post to lump into one. Yes, we underfund infrastructure. Thatâs a political decision because politicians arenât rewarded for long term planning and thinking. Yes, education and science is being marginalized by those who went to YouTube University, to their own detriment, because they donât have the foundation to critically vet what they read. That has largely been driven by tribalism. No, though, science still rules with lots of money and high salaries. The jobs are just in different projects.
There has been intentional downward pressure on engineering pay. We import foreign engineering students and foreign engineers, but we discriminate against foreign medical graduates and I havenât even heard of lawyers with foreign education. Engineering relies on universal principles, so we have no cultural protection, and employers take full advantage.
Engineers are politically stupid and never organize. That gives rise to the condition above. They would almost never unionize and create barriers to entry to their profession.
Lawyers, who run much of government and write laws, have no problems discriminating against engineers, who seem to forget how to read and only solve problems anymore. While the engineers arenât looking, the lawyers write tax laws that allow certain business deductions for every self-employed person except engineers. There is literally an exclusion just for engineers. (I donât recall the details, but that bit me once, it was a real thing 30 years ago at least.)
Basically, engineers are individualists who donât bother looking out for themselves and get the results. And if they start looking out for themselves now, someone more compliant from India will show up.
Still brilliant engineers can make a lot of money. But ordinary doctors can make a lot of money, at least they could before Obamacare. The brilliant outliers are not what to judge by.
Proof, please. This is a HUGE claim, so you need to provide some proof, not just throw it out there and expect us to just take your word for it. Itâs not as though youâre saying âI mowed my lawn this weekâ, or âmy brother-in-law just moved to Floridaâ
Most of the foreign students coming here are paying their own way, and then returning o their own countries. They are also students who have been selected from the top of the applicant list, and very often the best of them stay here and become US citizens.
So to claim that the USA is âimportingâ students is silly. We are âimportingâ foreign tuition dollars, and, when the very best stay, we are importing brains.
Importing money and brains sounds like a good deal to me, donât you think? Thatâs how the USA actually became a world academic power, not by trying to drum up fear of âforeign studentsâ.
Besides, only about 10% of the engineering students are from overseas, and thatâs hardly some huge wave of foreign students, swamping out American students.
The vast majority of Asians, and other non-White engineering students, are American born or immigrants.
A higher percentage of graduate students are foreign born, but they generally stay and become American citizens, so importing the best and brightest from across the world seems like a good way to make our country better, donât you think?
Just how does an engineer be self-employed? Iâm curious. No, seriously. It would seem to me that the tools of engineers are really expensive, and to purchase them for use by oner person is not very cost efficient.
As for âthe lawyersâ, where is the cabal of âanti-engineerâ lawyers, and what are they trying to achieve? Why do you think that lawyers/politicians are out to get engineers in particular?
Besides, the entire set of tax deductions was rewritten by the Trump administration only a couple of years ago, so do you mean those laws? Or do you mean the previous tax deduction laws?
That doesnât make sense. By definition, an individualist only looks out for themselves, so how can they be individualists who donât look out for themselves? Itâs like saying that a person is an agoraphobic who loves high places.
You really have never met an engineer from India, have you?
BTW, the large group of workers from India werenât âengineersâ, they were IT people. There is a difference.
You seem to forget that to become an engineer, one has to go through one of the most difficult undergraduate programs out there. I would think that having the ability to deal with the math that is needed to be an engineer creates one hell of a barrier for anybody to enter into their profession.
However, to be a professional engineer, there are still barriers. for this you need, aside from an engineering degree from an ABET accredited school:
But of course, any Tom, Dick, or Jerry can become an engineer, so there needs to be MORE BARRIERS. Sheesh.
Sorry, but you are wrong, the salaries of doctors today are higher than the were in 2008. For example in 2008 a surgeon made, an average, $86.23 an hour. In todayâs money that would be $108.82. The average hourly salary of a surgeon today is $120.99. Family and general practitioners made $77.95, or $98.37 in 2021 dollars, while today they make $103.06.
So, your attempt to trash Obamacare fell flat.
You are also wrong regarding the amount of money that engineers make.
The average salary of somebody with a bachelorâs degree is somewhat under $60,000 a year.
Mechanical Engineers make, on average, $95,560, or 50% more, and they are among the lowest paid engineers. Electrical engineers make, on average, $105,990, chemical engineers make $114,820, and Computer hardware engineers make $126,140, or more than twice the average for people with a bachelorâs degree.
These are the averages, that means that older, more experienced engineers are making more and younger ones are making less. However, that is true for the average of all occupations as well - the average starting salary for all people with bachelorâs degrees is closer to $40,000 than to $60,000, while the starting engineering is mostly close to, or over $60,000 a year.
This is a lot of money, all of these salaries are in the top quintile by income.
So no, you donât have to be âbrilliantâ to make a very good living as an engineer, you just need an engineering degree from an ABET-accredited college, and later, to pass the tests to be a professional engineer.
Oniongrass, the biggest downward income pressure faced by engineers comes from other engineers. I canât think of another profession with so many possible entry points. Can you become a lawyer with a two-year associates degree? A doctor? Even a public school teacher realistically needs a masters degree these days. Engineering is the single most popular undergraduate major among young American males and therein lies the problem - if there is a problem. Iâm still not convinced there is a problem here.
That seems to be more about the increased valuation of Wall Street finance over everything else.
Wall Street doesnât really hire many engineers. Some in majors like Operations Research are hired as financial âengineersâ, but theyâre very different from traditional engineers. They arenât even the real âquantsâ of Wall Street, who typically have PhDs in math or physics (and now in CS), but not engineering.
You canât really work as an engineer per se with a 2 year associates degree either. You can be a tech, and make decent money, but now days even most tech degrees are 4 years. Thatâs equivalent to calling a PA a doctor.
The problem is, the terms tech, techie, etc. have been appropriated by CS. Meanwhile, there are thousands of people all over the country in all sorts of appliance manufacturing companies who have no problem calling themselves engineers. Hereâs what they say at the ABET:
Graduates of four-year engineering technology programs are most likely to enter positions in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, product design, testing, or technical services and sales. Those who pursue further study often consider engineering, facilities management or business administration. Graduates from ABET-accredited bachelor level engineering technology degree programs are also eligible to become registered professional engineers by the same process in many (but not all) states. Graduates of two-year engineering technology programs likely assume engineering technician positions in maintenance, production or product development. The requirements for graduates of two-year programs to be eligible for professional licensure vary by state.In general, engineering programs offer more foundational analysis of problems while engineering technology programs stress current industrial design practices that allow students to start developing practical workplace skills.<
https://www.abet.org/accreditation/what-is-accreditation/what-programs-does-abet-accredit/
This appears to be a hit-and-run posting given that the OP has never returned. Based on the responses generated, Iâm filing under âNo constructive purpose to the thread other than creating dissent within the community.â
Since the topic has devolved into a back-and-forth amongst a handful of users, Iâm setting an autoclose for later today to allow users to get in their last words.
Lots of people call themselves engineers. They arenât displacing engineers with BS and higher from ABET accredited programs though. Again, not demeaning tech work. Itâs important and pays well. Itâs a different job though.
In the small R & D lab where son works, he and another colleague have chemical engineering degrees from ABET accredited programs. There are also techs who have anything from AA degrees to HS degrees but lots of experience at the company. Last year the head office decided that everyone in the lab will carry the title âengineerâ and be put on the same pay range. Son and colleague feel like this de-values all the hard work and effort they put in to become true engineers. Also, it is clear that there are certain projects that are trusted only to the 2 real engineers, while those who are engineers in name only are given much simpler tasks.
Itâs not enough to make him want to find another job elsewhere, but he and his colleague feel somewhat disrespected by upper management. Again, their immediate supervisors know who the real scientists are, and who is a technician.
PSâthe 2 true engineers assume they are being paid more than the faux engineers, but of course cannot verify that assumption.
In the last company I worked for, engineers were required to have as BS or higher degree (ABET was not a thing). Techs on the other hand had 2 yr associate degrees or less. Engineers were classified as exempt. They were on salary, not eligible for over time and managed their own time off. Techs were classified as non exempt, were paid hourly, were eligible fro approved overtime only, and accrued vacation time over the year. Techs never did anything close to engineering work. So, pretty big differences.
Our S is in and engineering role right now, and from what I can tell, the engineer to tech role differences are the same as what I experienced.
As I said, engineers donât do enough (or anything) to protect entry to the profession. One cannot become an engineer with just a 2 year associates degree though.
âNot sure itâs a problem.â My solution to the problem was to get out. Boeing can hire foreign engineers and foreign technical management and end up with ridiculous things like the 737 MAX, something that would have been laughed out at the concept stage a while ago. But not my problem anymore! Engineering was a good thing to do as a young adult for a while, and itâs a foundation from which one can do other things.
Iâm pretty sure that 40 years ago, an engineering technology graduate was not eligible to take the EIT exam, the first of the two-exam sequence which, plus experience, leads to license eligibility. Iâd consider this yet another example of how engineers failed to protect entry to their profession. Some politician, or engineering technologist with political leanings, decided to make a push to change the PE qualifications across the country. Engineers didnât put a stop to it, and here we are. If it had been doctors or lawyers, it would have been shut down right quick.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, I guess itâs right about now that someone usually brings up the sad history of engineers who have run for POTUS: Hoover and Carter who were both defeated after one term. 