Re: OT - Re: US losing lead in science & tech?

"Carl A." <chainfl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3p0um9F82ru6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "ElAlumbrado" <elNOSPAMalumbrado@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1f7ec$432b3c89$943f9512$359@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Nonsense. Physics? Take a look at CERN. Electronics? Most of mine come
>> from Japan. Aerospace? Airbus is kicking Boeing's ***. Medicine?
>> Software? Chemistry? Communications? Robotics? Space? Similar stories,
>> all.
>
> Just a minute. CERN is an expensive boondoggle that has contributed
> preciously little to advancing economically-relevant knowledge. Your
> electronics come from Japan? Well, look beyond consumer pruducts and look
> at the stuff being developed by Rockwell-Collins or DRS. Aerospace? The
> Europeans haven't gotten anything worthwhile into space, and they've been
> trying since the sixties. Airbus kicking our butts? Airbus is an
> incredibly inefficient means of employing people, without subsidies and
> state-supported (blackmail) sales, they wouldn't be able to sell the
> equivalant of a Cessna 172.

I was discussing what IS, not what should be. Yes, Airbus is heavily
subsidised, but Airbus products are currently outselling Boeing. Airliner
exports were once the single-biggest contributor to our balance of trade. No
longer.

ESA is as bureaucratically hamstrung as NASA, Chinese and, to some extent
Japanese programs are far more vigorous.

CERN lacks economic relavence? Are you saying that there is no economic
justification for basic research? I'd expect such a stance from some folks,
but not from you.

> I really am beginning to think that people who have been brainwashed by
> the European media for three months ought to be sent to re-education camp
> before being allowed to post on RORT.

Well, I'm back in the Texas bush for a while. I oughta be reeducated pretty
thorouhghly before too long. Knee-jerk patriotism runs deep out here.

>> Wholesale outsourcing of technology and research operations (more than
>> 500,000 jobs in 2004) to developing nations have encouraged students in
>> Europe and Asia to pursue educations in science and technology, while the
>> lack of jobs in the US is discouraging students from pursuing careers in
>> these fields.
>
> Where did you pick up that bit of misinformation? While we can afford to
> outsorce drudge work and low-level development, the Europeans aren't able
> to cope with 12% to 20% unemployment and aren't willing to face up to the
> sad fact that socialism has totally bankrupted their economics. Spend time
> in Silicone Valley, they are screaming for people who have studies science
> and technology. Lack of jos indeed - technology jobs are outsourced en
> masse because we don't have the people here to fill them.

Europe is not and will not be our primary competitor in the coming century,
which I believe will be an economic replay of the previous century, with
China playing the role of the US, and the US playing the role of the UK.

>> Europe is already granting doctoral degrees in science at almost twice
>> the US rate, and since1999 scientists in the EU have been published more
>> papers in leading scientific journals than US scientists. In fact, the US
>> now has only 8% of the worlds scientists.
>
> So what? Getting the "Herr Doktor" degree isn't comparable to earning a
> US PhD, and publishing papers isn't really much of evidence of creative
> innovation - neither in Europe nor in the US.

Actually, publishing is a good indicator of where the action is (and ain't).

>> The number of bachelor's degrees awarded in science and technology by
>> universities in the US (220,000 in 1999) now lags third behind China
>> (322,000) and India (251,000). While the US is still the one to beat (US
>> scientists still garner a major share of Nobel prizes), the writing is on
>> the wall written plainly enough for any literate person to read.
>
> And what specigically is the writing? That in fifty years countries like
> China or India might be able to have a standard of living that is, like,
> 80% of what the US has instead of 20%?

I would argue that our standard of living is declining, while theirs is
increasing. The writing is simple: our standard of living and world
influence will continue to decline, unless we decide to do "something" to
stop it from doing so. I'll leave the definition of "something" as an
exercise for the reader.

>> US government policies are directly to blame. A permissive outsourcing
>> enviroment, a general lack of support for basic research without
>> immediate military or "homeland security" applications, and a decline in
>> appropriations for state universities (down almost 50% since 1980 when
>> measured as percentage of total spending) have lead to a general decline
>> in the appeal of science and technology to new graduates.
>
> The declining appeal of science and technology to our young people may
> have more to do with equal opportunity non-education than funding.
> Familiarize yourself with the budgets of our universities - the envy of
> European universities.

I am well versed and deeply involved in educational budgets and curriculae.
I am not alarmed. I am terribly, terribly afraid. A walk through any
good-sized university bookstore will reveal what is truly important to
modern America. Compare the number of works on African American studies to
the number of titles in Particle Physics. Notice the ratio of Communication
texts to Chemisty books. Observe the rows and rows of sociology books and
contrast with the handful of Astronomy volumes. Draw your own conclusions.

>> We are, after all, a merchant culture and merchants follow the money.
>> Right now, the money for science and technology is all flowing away from
>> the US.
>
> But the profits are flowing back to us.

No, the profits are flowing back to the multinationals and in large part are
being invested elsewhere.

>> The future of this sector in the US is becoming increasingly grim.
>> Technology has been the single most important economic sector for the US
>> for several decades. In the 1990's the country was deindustrialized
>> through the transfer of manufacturing (and manufacturing jobs) to
>> overseas venues. In the early 21'st century, we are rapidly
>> "de-technolizing" the US economy as well. In the 10 years from 1992 to
>> 2002 the US trade surplus in the technology sector of more than $35
>> billion turned into a $54 billion defecit. We are clearly losing our edge
>> in science and technology. Just what industries remain that will result
>> in the US mainataing it's position of economic leadership and resultant
>> influence in world affairs? When our goods and services become
>> irrelavent, so do we.
>
> This is typical of the semi-intellectual gibberish that European half-wits
> like to spew to impress non-critical American minds. Manufacturing
> in-country isn't a worthwhile economic goal per se, and transfering
> routine technical jobs isn't gloing to hurt us, and in no way reduces our
> competitive edge.

It's not the loss of manufacturing jobs that worries me. It's the loss of
intellectual capital which, verifiably, is ocurring.

>> So, yes, if the US were a company and I were a shareholder, I'd be
>> spitting mad. Instead, I'm just a little scared.
>
> Isn't it amusing that European and Asian scientists try real hard to
> emigrate to the US, and - to my knowledge - no American scientist has
> applied to become a citizen of India, China, France, or Germany?

This is not as true as in decades past. Foriegn student registration in
American universities is declining. Countries like China, India, Japan,
Taiwan, and Korea are actively seeking to keep their best minds educated and
employed at home rather than losing them to the US. They are investing
heavily in educational venues and offer very attractive tax breaks to new
technology companies.

I'd like to have this conversation again in 10 or 20 years to see which of
us gets to say "nana-nana boo-boo" to the other.

El Alumbrado
"Civis Texanus Sum"



.