America's Tech Decline: a Reading Guide 611
ErichTheRed writes "Computerworld has put together an interesting collection of links to various sources detailing the decline of US R&D/innovation in technology. The cross section of sources is interesting — everything from government to private industry. It's interesting to see that some people are actually concerned about this...even though all the US does is argue internally while rewarding the behaviour that hastens the decline."
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
And unlike many other historical world power, we actively encourage people to come here, learn, and go back home and create. There are those that argue that's bad for us. In the short term, perhaps it is, but as more of the world achieves our standard of living, there are more consumers for our goods as well. Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair. I know this is slashdot where kicking America it the thing to do, but when we move everything overseas from meat head jobs to now engineering what do you expect? What we need are patriotic (a dirty word here) business people. But forget it most have been brainwashed into the fair and open market, which in reality does not exist.
You can keep on hating America and believe in fairness eventually it will catch us all and you'll learn the hard way that hating ones country and globalism leads to no good ends.
Buy them off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be forgetting that the USSR bore the brunt of Germany's aggression and still managed to rebuild, just as it had rebuilt in the wake of its civil war. The USSR (and the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia, and Albania) rebuilt with a command economy and Europe (and Japan) rebuilt with heavy state investment and trade protectionism (and the USA continued to build with state investment without worrying about destruction back home).
The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.
Re:Next revolutions will be social (Score:2, Insightful)
As the world runs out of cheap chemical energy, the social model of continuous growth, suburbanisation, car culture and "jobs" requiring no more than typing away at a computer will have to change.
We'll start seeing innovations in how people will live.
I hate to break it to you but I have heard the same tripe for over 30 years. When the cheap gas runs out we will all change the way we live. I hate to break it to you but the way it works is that as gas prices go up, so does inflation. As inflation goes up, so do wages.
As oil prices go up, the incentive to find new and inventive ways to get at the remaining oil, goes up. This means that new methods enter the market and lower the price on the oil. With them comes new lower cost "Chemical energy" sources!
And lets not forget that Titan has whole oceans of "Chemical energy" just waiting for us, if the cost of local energy gets to the right point it will be economical to strip mine titan and ship it here. LOL "Earth first, well strip mine the other planets later"
The social change you are expecting will never happen. At least not in my lifetime or yours and probably never.
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tyler Cowan wrote an interesting hyopthesis called "The Great Stagnation" (available only as an e-book on Amazon). Basically, there were easy pickings for growth: revolutionary technologies like electricity, lots of land, lots of opportunity. Now, there are no low-hanging fruit to get high growth again. Everyone else is simply playing catch-up.
For America, the problem is that for the last 20 years, being a lawyer or Wall Street-type manager or financial manager was where the money was. Unfortunately, those types don't actually create anything. They are, at best, enablers of the people who do and make things. In most cases, though, they are simply fat parasites on the free market draining our best & brightest into pointless careers making derivatives, etc.
America's decline isn't from government, or even necessarily the Rich and Powerful, but from her people. They've turned their back on getting rich by working hard (understandable because of above) or inventing & discovering things. They've turned their back on learning and education (See for example, TLC's transformation from a science/learning channel to reality TV channel). They've also begun turning their back on science and logic in favor of "gut feelings" (Thanks, Glen Beck and Fox News!).
Unless America opens up its borders again, I'd say: get used to it.
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Second Wind (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to see the future - look at education (Score:4, Insightful)
Innovation and discovery comes from people with inquisitive minds - minds that have been nurtured by a well rounded education system; one that encourages critical thinking, experimentation, and a good understanding of what scientific knowledge we have already. Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education, "teaching to the test", and in many areas, official dismissal of science and scientific discoveries. Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.
I was once told "If you think the cost of education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance."
Andy Grove's comment on offshoring (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wrote Grove: "You could say, as many do, that shipping jobs overseas is no big deal because the high-value work -- and much of the profits -- remain in the U.S. That may well be so. But what kind of a society are we going to have if it consists of highly paid people doing high-value-added work -- and masses of unemployed?""
Nailed it. Offshoring makes companies and their management richer. It saves a little for consumers of the relevant product, if the savings are passed on to them rather than simply taken as profits ... but those consumers have fewer and fewer jobs from which to get income to buy the products.
The endgame here is for the local market for consumer goods to dwindle, and then for the company to move it's main office to a tax haven and/or somewhere with a population that still has money to spend. They've basically mined the consumer market until it's depleted, and then they move on. This is what happens when you consistently underpay your regular workers and/or ship their jobs elsewhere: you undermine the entire economy. Apparently modern industries have forgotten basic lessons from way back in the days of Henry Ford: pay your workers reasonably well, and they will ultimately help your community and business thrive.
I prefer (Score:4, Insightful)
to think of all of this as, the world is catching up with the US (and in general, the rest of the world is catching up to Western Civilization). Yeah the US certainly has its problems, but like the article stated, comparing it to four countries who added together don't have half the population of the US, let alone the land area, is no different than having your answer before your facts to support it.
Saying the China is moving to a digital economy faster than the US is odd, but then again the favorite thing to do among such people is to ignore all those China doesn't count when it wants to look good, who happen to be the same people it counts when it wants to look good in other areas. Let alone, moving from where they were to anywhere would show more progress than most countries can make. After seeing the real estate situation in China I figure it is just a few years before they have similar problems. They are just better at hiding the problems they have, from practice and intimidation.
The only problem the US faces that is has not tried to fix is Washington DC. Entitlement spending will cripple this country. The discretionary spending (where those mythical 39 billion dollars from recent cuts came out of) is less than a third of the budget. The rest is guaranteed spending. Meaning we could cut everything but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, and still be spending negatively.
So, the threat is real, but it is from the leadership of the country, not some foreign bogeyman. As with all power structures that have crumbling support they need external bogeymen. Hence through their sycophants in the media they create them on demand.
Re:Want to see the future - look at education (Score:5, Insightful)
1960's: "Little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?" "An engineer for NASA, helping build the craft that will take us to Mars!"
2010's: "Little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?" "A rapper who brags about his bling and his bitches!"
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
The wealthy have killed off the middle class. A strong middle class is what made America great.
Re:Want to see the future - look at education (Score:2, Insightful)
I watched many smart people fail out of my alma mater because they stuck their heads in the sand and did raids in WoW instead of going to class and facing that competitive, time-consuming course load.
A former roommate, who would have other wise easily made it through the engineering curriculum, is now working for Colonel Sanders.
We're in the information age, not the relevant information age. The classroom environment is quickly becoming outmoded and irrelevant. Things like Facebook and WoW simply serve to further enforce conformance to a moronic social averages.
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor
Oh of course it is fair and of course you can! You just got so used to be so unfairly rich that whenever someone (someone=brutal reality and/or the invisible hand of markets) reminds you about it You all start dragging your feet yelling and screaming.
You want to help it return? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to help it return, kill all patent trolls.
Re:TFA is way off the mark (Score:3, Insightful)
You're swinging in anger and missing the mark.
1) You know what the S in STEM stands for and you say what we need is critical thinking? You know what scientific enquiry is entirely based upon? Critical thinking. Fostering an advance of scientific teaching will give you that critical thinking, and also some really good thoughts for your knowledge-based economy (3)
2) A good point, but it may be that the big money in parasitic jobs has passed its heyday already. Surely there's plenty of bad blood between the government/people and the vast money-siphoning corporations.
3) A knowledge-based economy is by necessity only possible atop a manufacturing economy. It cannot replace it in whole or even in part, because no matter how cool Dak'kon made it sound, there is no way to *know* your way to a plate full of food. A progression to a knowledge-based economy is another short-term approach to making the ledger look good for shareholders. You must produce if you wish to consume, and only if wishes were like horses would all beggars ride.
4) A good idea put forward by the government can remain a good idea. Just because you're sick of The Man and have all the answers doesn't mean the behemoth you hate can't cough up a good idea from time to time. Green energy isn't just important - it's non-negotiable. We will run out of cheap consumable energy as we currently know it. Renewables are necessary for us to continue to have modern civilization. Let me tell you a few government initiatives that you probably don't hate much: interstates. Railroads. There are a couple others, too.
Your ideas aren't bad, and you probably have a lot of support in what you offer in the last paragraph, but the first one seemed way off.
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple tends to be good at this and they are an American company. Sure the manufacture and such is done overseas, but I'd say they bring in a fair amount of money to the US wouldn't you?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Win the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe. The space program might be a counter-example. When the USSR was in the lead, America pushed hard to keep up and "win the race". These are two very different strategies. The USSR was much more into conquering and exploiting the new frontier and had developed technology with that in mind. Arguably it's a damn good thing they didn't win (from any kind of ethical standpoint) for that very reason. The US got bored silly after "winning" and essentially dismantled all of NASA's projects on getting people to Mars (which they actually could have done by the mid 80s). They won the race, they got the prize, contest over. And when a contest is over, the normal thing is to go home and that is exactly what happened.
It has been argued that had Russia actually got men on the moon first, both Russia and the US would have active space colonies by now, not just a crudely-assembled and much-reduced space station that's too damn small for the kind of science needed to continue justifying it.
I would alter the argument a little, as I don't think the Cold War in Space would have been pretty: I think the US is fundamentally incapable of generating momentum in and of itself but is extremely capable of very efficiently tapping into the momentum of others and developing it in new and highly creative ways. In other words, the highly compete-till-you-die aggression of the US is only good if there's a competitor to compete against, that the US has less of a "work ethic" and more of a "win ethic". That other nations have a responsibility, particularly supernations like the EU, to be that competition and not defer a damn thing.
Re:Next revolutions will be social (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
i've lived in the US since 1981 and it's always been like this. in the 1980's it was Japan was going to rule us. now it's china. PBS even has the transcript of a 1989 Frontline program about how Japan is going to rule the US and we're going to be just an economic colony.
yes a lot of stuff is made in china, but if you look closely most of the money stays in the US. we pay the chinese very little for menial assembly work. all the real expensive work is done in the US. the net profit margins of foxconn are something like 4%. food companies make more than that. apple pays more out in patent royalties on the iphone than they pay the chinese to build it.
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd probably pin the decline of the US on a number of factors:
1: The view that engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are "nerds" and deserve contempt, while someone who might kick around a ball for 5-10 minutes is considered a superhero. China and Russia value their scientists, like how we in the US did in the 1950s-1960s. Now since science is considered "beneath" most Americans, compared to business or law, not sowing out seeds in the field means a crappy harvest. You are right, we had a long while where attorney was the meal ticket. Now, there isn't much they can parasite off of, so those fields are drying up. Until people in the US as a whole start valuing the people that innovate, as opposed to a sports hero, or Justin Beiber, the economy will remain stagnant, and the jobs that don't move overseas will be taken by H-1Bs.
2: Lack of interest in R&D. Companies here either license new stuff, buy the company that has it, or litigate the company that has something they want out of existence. Actual old school R&D like PARC or Bell Labs isn't done anymore, and it is blamed on "product liability". Even the government isn't that interested in keeping innovation. So, obviously (OB car example), when the gas is turned off to the engine, it stops moving. No seed funding == no cool new things coming from labs.
3: Espionage. To a PHB, security has no ROI. They really don't give a shit if their corporate trade secrets mysteriously appear in Beijing or Tehran as long as they have good sales numbers for this quarter. So, even with innovation, it is stolen by other nations that actually value security. Until companies actually give a shit about keeping their stuff secure, any research done in the US is a freebie given to BRIC.
4: Lack of education in the US. Other countries value education, and help fund it for their citizens. For an American to get to a similar education level as an average French or German adult at the age of 25-30, it will take $20,000 to $50,000 worth of tuition. For an average American to get to the level of education of a German cop (not a lawyer, a street policeman) it would take over six digits of tuition spent.
Until these are addressed, the slide will continue.
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting thing about that that refutes your point
And the even more interesting thing about that chart is they choose when the Great Society programs started to hit full stride as when to notice low income earners stopped improving. No longer do the poor in America see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires but instead as deserving something for nothing. Thanks Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon/Ford!
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
That went away with the middle class too. Two sides of the same coin. The rich want control and the poor want big brother to tend to them (generally speaking). A strong middle class is necessary for a free society.
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
" the banks were given all sorts of cash, but they didn't "buy" anything with it (no increase in loans offered)."
Of course they didn't. It was better investment to buy up small banks that didn't get TARP money.
" You can't force people to buy more than they want; even if you give them cash they may just sit on it ... Note that this is different from things like slavery which artificially hold prices low (or its complement, forcing prices to be high); this is just the natural willingness to be content with less."
Boy, you're so full of shit! They're not content.
1, They're living in a dictatorship, where they don't have the right to strike
2, They can't legally immigrate to US or Western Europe. Hell, even an Eastern European EU citizen can't migrate to Western-Europe*. Even though goods and services can go through borders.
*UK is an exception in this regard
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you can't compete then the free market is working.
you can't be capitalistic and complain about cheap foriegn labor. that's is being a hypocrite
Re:is it just me? (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words: "I agree with all of the leftists (nice name calling: fuck you too), I just disagree about the specific numbers used."
$250k/year is certainly well off enough to be paying a little more in taxes than someone living at the poverty level. None of the "leftists" you seem to despise so much lump them in with people making $10m/year. The problem with spending all of your time arguing about what number qualifies someone as "rich" means that nothing will ever be done, because there's always going to be *someone* stupid enough to say, "well that's not really rich!" (remember the Valenti quote about "The working stiffs"?)
That's where a progressive (ooh, another bad word!), graduated taxing scheme works. Earnings in a higher income brackets simply get taxed at a slightly higher rate than earnings in a lower bracket. So increasing taxes on those earning over $250k does not mean that those making $250k (actually, making exactly $250k would mean you pay the same tax rate as making $249k) would be taxed at the same rate as those making $10m/year. If you don't understand this, please shut the fuck up about taxes. Please.
--Jeremy