How Synopsys could save $$ without offshoring

[Maxim Khesin]

Ok, I (finally) bite this thread.
1) annoyed american (which I am) answer:
Annex India as the 51st state. Professionals can stay (Cow-worshippers
and grass watchers get exported), but they pay American taxes, on the
books. Somehow I think that the large salary differential is somewhat
related to the our taxing system. (wow, 2 pet peeves in one stone!)
2) a more reasonable answer:
People everywhere need jobs and food, they are not per se less entitled
than us. So globalization is fair in theory. But I think the rate should
be very controlled, as no organizm benefits from quick change, even the
apparently benefacted one. As the living standard in India (for
programmers, at least) has gone up a bit the same corporations are
looking for even cheaper labor (e.g. Philippines), as their loyalty to
non-American workforce is close to 0. And from the fairness perspective
this is justified, 'cause if US economy goes into a depression, it's
downhill for everybody. So globalization should continue at a supressed
rate (controlled by taxes/minimal wage/export laws) and serious
resources should be applied to the research of economic and political
impact.

 

[EdwardH]

The issue is not who comes up with the next big thing. The issue is also
not about empires. We have to continue to innovate and create demand for
products.

Are we too focused on the freedom of companies to do as they like? Do
corporations have a responsibility to society? Do engineers need stronger
unions
and become more militant as a profession? We need to pay more attention
to social issues not just focus on technology.


"Tom Joad" <tomjoad_is@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a111d6e2.0312312133.5cf7329f@posting.google.com...

"EdwardH" <edwardh@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3fee19f8@news.comindico.com.au>...
The US Government is the major advocate of Globalisation. Every
government
wants to remove protection and further the cause of free trade.
Exportation
of
jobs is another side of this coin. It started with manufacturing and has
now
moved
up the food chain.

We had a situation a few years back where there wasn't enough design
talent
around and companies looked to other countries for people. With the
collapse of the dot comms and the downturn in the telecomms and computer
industries suddenly there was an excess of people.

Engineers in other countries also need to live. I live in Australia and
worked for a multinational that closed down (and incidently is now
outsourcing
much of its work to India). I have been out of work for a year but will
soon start work for another multinational.

The issue for me is not that jobs go to other countries or that we
should
drop our living standards but rather how we innovate and create new
technologies
so that there is work for everyone.

I've often heard people in the free trade camp say that the US is more
innovative than other places on the globe and that we will come up
with some new idea or product that will save us. Sure, it's happened
in the past so I suppose there is some precedent. But lately when I
hear this it sounds more and more like a matter of religious faith.
Why assume that only US engineers can come up with "The Next Big
Thing"(TNBT)? The fact is that if vast numbers of US engineers no
longer have the opportunity to develop their talents and skills they
won't be able to come up with TNBT.

It appears that the offshoring is just accelerating. Here are a
couple of quotes from an article in EETimes last week:

"Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
as many as two million U.S. white-collar jobs such as programmers,
software engineers and applications designers will shift to low cost
centers by 2014."

"Guyer believes as many as 40,000 of IBM's 160,000 U.S. jobs will be
transferred overseas by 2005, a figure she says was gathered from
phone calls by IBM employees."
http://eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20031223S0008

What good is it if US corporations are wildly profitable but keep
employing fewer and fewer people in the US? Maybe it will look like
GDP is growing at a rapid clip (kind of like it has looked for the
last couple of quarters) while very few in the US have decent jobs
anymore.

Empires rise and fall and I suspect that even while it seems as though
the US is at the top of it's game right now, it's really in the
twilight of empire. When you decide as a culture that it is no longer
important to actually make things or even _design_ things anymore,
what's left? You sell raw materials to other countries and they sell
back the goods made from them. Isn't that a lot like being a colony?

Tom Joad

 

[tbx135]

Exporting tech jobs to India?
Alan Reynolds

January 4, 2004

Those afflicted with an irrational phobia about international trade used to
confine their raving to manufactured goods, not services. But the United
States is now said to be exporting high-paying service jobs to India,
particularly in information technology.

Worrying about U.S. companies importing services from India is a classic
example of the journalistic inclination to ignore the forest and focus on a
few twigs. The United States is by far the world's biggest exporter of
services, just as the United States is by far the leading exporter of goods.

The United States accounted for 18.1 percent of worldwide service exports in
2001, according to the WTO, up from 17 percent in 1990. India accounts for
only 1.4 percent of world service exports. India is in 21st place among
world exporters of services and in 30th place for goods. India is running a
trade deficit of about $8 billion, and that country's imports rose 20
percent in 2003. China ranks fifth among world exporters of goods (although
China accounts for 11 percent of U.S. imported goods), and it has a small
and dwindling trade surplus. China's imports rose 40 percent in 2003. Hong
Kong is a significant exporter of services, but it has a trade deficit with
the United States.

The United States had a $64.8 billion trade BEG ITAL) surplus in services in
2002, despite economic stagnation in Europe and Japan. Services accounted
for 30 percent of all U.S. exports and 43 percent ($3.1 billion) of U.S.
exports to India.

Worrying about job changes among computer professionals is yet another
example of the journalistic inclination to totally ignore any facts about
the big picture and instead generalize from small and local anecdotes.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics categorizes these allegedly vanishing jobs
among "computer and mathematical science occupations" -- i.e., computer
programmers, software engineers, systems analysts, support specialists,
network administrators, etc. These jobs exploded with the tech boom, rising
11.9 percent in 2000 alone, but such panicky hoarding of computer geeks was
no more sustainable than 5,000 on NASDAQ. Even in 2002, however, employment
in these computer-related occupations was nonetheless higher than in 1999,
and so were salaries.

In 1999, there were 2,620,080 jobs in these computer-related professions at
an average wage of $26.41. In 2002, there were 2,772,620 such jobs at $29.63
an hour ($61,630 a year). Figures on that specific job group are not
available for 2003, but professional business service payrolls were up 2.3
percent by November, when compared with the year 2000, and jobs in
information industries were up 4.9 percent. Jobs in the subgroup of
"computer systems design and related services" are down slightly from last
year but have risen steadily for the past three months.

The notion that service jobs are being lost to India is paradoxical because
similar complaints about China or Japan invariably involved disparaging U.S.
service jobs as "McJobs" -- inferior to working with a sewing machine or
wrench. In the case of India, however, even the most menial computer service
chores -- such as tech support and handling health insurance claims -- are
now being glorified as "high-wage" jobs.

Past stories about "exporting jobs" also assumed those jobs had moved to
countries with trade surpluses, such as Japan and Germany. But India has a
sizable trade deficit, and it even had a deficit in services until 2002.
This is not to suggest, however, that previous stories about trade surpluses
being a sign of economic strength made sense. On the contrary, from 1990 to
2001, employment grew by 1.2 percent a year in the United States, but by
only 0.3 percent in Japan and 0.1 percent in Germany.

Trade phobia has lost any sense of direction. The United States is now said
to lose jobs to countries with trade deficits as well as to countries with
trade surpluses, and to lose jobs in services as well as manufacturing. Some
even suggest the United States will lose most service jobs to India and most
manufacturing jobs to China. But without jobs, how could Americans keep
buying all those imports?

A New York Times report claimed India is attracting a lot of direct
investment from multinational corporations. Yet Morgan Stanley reports:
"Private corporate investment (in India) is estimated to have declined to
4.7 percent of GDP in 2003 from 9.6 percent in 1996. ... In April to
September 2003, FDI investments have declined by 63 percent compared to the
same period last year."

The United States has always imported and exported services as well as
goods. So what? Even if we ignore this country's huge and growing dominance
of world service exports, it would still be delusional to speak of importing
services as equivalent to exporting jobs. The notion that "exports create
jobs" (every commerce secretary's favorite slogan) is neither more nor less
true than the idea that imports create jobs. Work is involved in all
creation and marketing of goods, services and financial assets. Work is also
involved with the extra investment resulting from a net inflow of foreign
capital, otherwise known as a "current account deficit." Growth of
employment is related to growth of the economy, not to imports or exports or
the gap between them.

If the United States was really losing more jobs than it was gaining, then
employment would be falling. But employment is rising. There were 138.6
million civilians with jobs in November, up from 136.5 million a year
earlier. The number of U.S. jobs doubled in fewer than 40 years. If the
rapidly expanding number of jobs were inferior to the ones that preceded
them, then incomes would be falling. But incomes, too, are rising. Real
hourly compensation kept rising even in the recent recession and is now up
more than 26 percent since 1980. Real disposable income (which excludes
stock market gains) rose at a brisk 3.9 percent annual rate cent from April
to November.

The media blitz about imported goods or services resulting in the best jobs
being relocated to some variable list of countries -- first Japan and
Germany, now India and China -- has never been anything more than
unadulterated hogwash.



Š2003 Creators Syndicate

 

[Frank A. Adrian]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:46:55 +0000, EdwardH wrote:

Do corporations have a responsibility to society?

They should. Corporations are chartered by the state, their investors
granted sanction from liability by the state and, for these privileges,
they should have some responsibility to the guarantors of the state, i.e.,
the populace. Many currently believe that the granting of jobs for people
and the paying of taxes is a sufficiently heavy burden. Now that
businesses are trying to escape these minimal responsibilities by
offshoring work and by moving corporate headquarters to various tax
havens, I wonder what benefit our society is getting from these legal
dinosaurs. Certainly, the state has a right to ask for something in
return for its largess.

--
Frank A. Adrian
Blue Roof Associates
fadrian@blueroofassociates.com
http://www.blueroofassociates.com

 

[EdwardH]

An interesting article but is it relevant to the current discussion?

ASIC/FPGA Engineers represent a very specific area of the market. If by some
magical
phenomenon we could change trade then the picture might be different e.g.
"x" ASIC design jobs might have been lost overseas but if "x" Project
Management jobs were created and displaced ASIC designers could all
be absorbed in those jobs then all might be good.

An example: In the state of Australia in which I live, a multinational
closed
down at the end of 2002 and a dozen ASIC designers lost their jobs.
(Development responsibility for the products those designers worked on is
being
transferred to India but I mention this as a sideline). There is only one
other
company left here that does ASIC design. They hired 3 ASIC designers in
2003.
According to the recruitment companies there are hundreds of applications
for every electronic hardware design position advertised. Since the ASIC
designers
don't have recent skills relevant to the rest of the industry here, they are
at the
bottom of the heap. Those that have been able to find alternate work have
ended up with very much lower salaries and job status.

Unemployment has dropped to record low levels here as well. The Australian
economy
is booming but this is of no consolation to the ASIC/FPGA designers here
that
have no jobs and no prospects in the next few years of working in this area.

"tbx135" <tbx135@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OhYJb.49508$tp2.4898@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

Exporting tech jobs to India?
Alan Reynolds

January 4, 2004

Those afflicted with an irrational phobia about international trade used
to
confine their raving to manufactured goods, not services. But the United
States is now said to be exporting high-paying service jobs to India,
particularly in information technology.

Worrying about U.S. companies importing services from India is a classic
example of the journalistic inclination to ignore the forest and focus on
a
few twigs. The United States is by far the world's biggest exporter of
services, just as the United States is by far the leading exporter of
goods.

The United States accounted for 18.1 percent of worldwide service exports
in
2001, according to the WTO, up from 17 percent in 1990. India accounts for
only 1.4 percent of world service exports. India is in 21st place among
world exporters of services and in 30th place for goods. India is running
a
trade deficit of about $8 billion, and that country's imports rose 20
percent in 2003. China ranks fifth among world exporters of goods
(although
China accounts for 11 percent of U.S. imported goods), and it has a small
and dwindling trade surplus. China's imports rose 40 percent in 2003. Hong
Kong is a significant exporter of services, but it has a trade deficit
with
the United States.

The United States had a $64.8 billion trade BEG ITAL) surplus in services
in
2002, despite economic stagnation in Europe and Japan. Services accounted
for 30 percent of all U.S. exports and 43 percent ($3.1 billion) of U.S.
exports to India.

Worrying about job changes among computer professionals is yet another
example of the journalistic inclination to totally ignore any facts about
the big picture and instead generalize from small and local anecdotes.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics categorizes these allegedly vanishing jobs
among "computer and mathematical science occupations" -- i.e., computer
programmers, software engineers, systems analysts, support specialists,
network administrators, etc. These jobs exploded with the tech boom,
rising
11.9 percent in 2000 alone, but such panicky hoarding of computer geeks
was
no more sustainable than 5,000 on NASDAQ. Even in 2002, however,
employment
in these computer-related occupations was nonetheless higher than in 1999,
and so were salaries.

In 1999, there were 2,620,080 jobs in these computer-related professions
at
an average wage of $26.41. In 2002, there were 2,772,620 such jobs at
$29.63
an hour ($61,630 a year). Figures on that specific job group are not
available for 2003, but professional business service payrolls were up 2.3
percent by November, when compared with the year 2000, and jobs in
information industries were up 4.9 percent. Jobs in the subgroup of
"computer systems design and related services" are down slightly from last
year but have risen steadily for the past three months.

The notion that service jobs are being lost to India is paradoxical
because
similar complaints about China or Japan invariably involved disparaging
U.S.
service jobs as "McJobs" -- inferior to working with a sewing machine or
wrench. In the case of India, however, even the most menial computer
service
chores -- such as tech support and handling health insurance claims -- are
now being glorified as "high-wage" jobs.

Past stories about "exporting jobs" also assumed those jobs had moved to
countries with trade surpluses, such as Japan and Germany. But India has a
sizable trade deficit, and it even had a deficit in services until 2002.
This is not to suggest, however, that previous stories about trade
surpluses
being a sign of economic strength made sense. On the contrary, from 1990
to
2001, employment grew by 1.2 percent a year in the United States, but by
only 0.3 percent in Japan and 0.1 percent in Germany.

Trade phobia has lost any sense of direction. The United States is now
said
to lose jobs to countries with trade deficits as well as to countries with
trade surpluses, and to lose jobs in services as well as manufacturing.
Some
even suggest the United States will lose most service jobs to India and
most
manufacturing jobs to China. But without jobs, how could Americans keep
buying all those imports?

A New York Times report claimed India is attracting a lot of direct
investment from multinational corporations. Yet Morgan Stanley reports:
"Private corporate investment (in India) is estimated to have declined to
4.7 percent of GDP in 2003 from 9.6 percent in 1996. ... In April to
September 2003, FDI investments have declined by 63 percent compared to
the
same period last year."

The United States has always imported and exported services as well as
goods. So what? Even if we ignore this country's huge and growing
dominance
of world service exports, it would still be delusional to speak of
importing
services as equivalent to exporting jobs. The notion that "exports create
jobs" (every commerce secretary's favorite slogan) is neither more nor
less
true than the idea that imports create jobs. Work is involved in all
creation and marketing of goods, services and financial assets. Work is
also
involved with the extra investment resulting from a net inflow of foreign
capital, otherwise known as a "current account deficit." Growth of
employment is related to growth of the economy, not to imports or exports
or
the gap between them.

If the United States was really losing more jobs than it was gaining, then
employment would be falling. But employment is rising. There were 138.6
million civilians with jobs in November, up from 136.5 million a year
earlier. The number of U.S. jobs doubled in fewer than 40 years. If the
rapidly expanding number of jobs were inferior to the ones that preceded
them, then incomes would be falling. But incomes, too, are rising. Real
hourly compensation kept rising even in the recent recession and is now up
more than 26 percent since 1980. Real disposable income (which excludes
stock market gains) rose at a brisk 3.9 percent annual rate cent from
April
to November.

The media blitz about imported goods or services resulting in the best
jobs
being relocated to some variable list of countries -- first Japan and
Germany, now India and China -- has never been anything more than
unadulterated hogwash.



Š2003 Creators Syndicate

 

[tbx135]

In the US we saw a hiring "frenzy" for technical workers up until about
2001. It was not uncommon to see 20-30% salary adjustments job to job or
even year to year. ASIC designers were asking over $100K and in many cases
and getting it, plus sign-on bonus. Life was good.

Then the telecomm bubble popped but many people still used the "roaring
90's" as the standard for what was normal. Historically it wasn't. Tech
salaries in the US had then worked up to an all time high. That labor market
was largely driven by investment money pouring into the tech sector.

Outsourcing all kinds of technical work to Asia was done all through the
90's, the infrastructure was there already. Labor savings for US vs Asia was
over 50% in some cases. ASIC talent, being the most costly (here in the US),
got hit severely.

I think the story is right-on. Politicians are going to look at gross
numbers. They see increasing salaries and jobs. That doesn't mean evenly and
across the board though. Many would just say you have to be flexible until
you can find the job you want. I don't like doing crummy work but I would
have to live with facts. The facts are that it's an employers market and the
supply of engineers exceeds the demand. It's going to take time to correct
itself.

 

[Tom Joad]

"Jonathan Bromley" <jonathan.bromley@doulos.com> wrote in message news:<bvals6$195$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>...

"Abhijit" <chakrabarty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f42ec3b1.0401290121.4d725835@posting.google.com...

I have been reading all the messages and I would like to add my 2
paisa (since I live in India) worth to this discussion.
[...]

The world moves this way: If any third world country take over 'high
tech silicon valley work' from USA then it will be their
responsibility to create new higher tech work and contribute to the
world. This is how the world has worked.

If you don't like jobs being send over to other countries (very small
%age though) then you should first stop hiring foreign engineers for
whom you did not spend a single penny on education. Alternatively you
should take 100 poor people for every engineer you take from a third
world country, you can not just take the best people from the poor
countries and continue to be the best. Pretty soon the poor country
will not have any money to produce good engineers to serve you.
Everything can not go your way, there are laws of nature.
[...]

Well said, Abhijit.

It's interesting that the people who whinge loudest about
leakage of jobs to the developing world, thanks to
free-market forces, seem mostly to be inhabitants of the
nation that has most vigorously embraced free-market
economics when it suited them. Those of us who feel
uncomfortable with the unfettered free market can sit
back smugly and say "I told you so", whilst goggling
open-mouthed at the protectionism that is sometimes
applied by supposedly free-market economies throughout
the developed world.

The developing world can offer us (and by "us" here I mean
the whole world's economy, not just the West) a well-trained,
highly motivated workforce that can mobilise very large
numbers of employees at comparatively low cost. Those costs
will, of course, increase as nations such as India become
more prosperous overall, but that will take some considerable
time. If the economies of the West wish to compete
effectively without significantly impacting Western lifestyle,
they must find ways of working that *cannot* be made better
or cheaper by the application of lots of skilled, cheap people.

Who says that only the West is capable of working smarter and being
creative?

That last observation has dramatic conclusions for the
electronics design community. It means that we cannot and
must not go on using low-level design techniques; 30 Verilog
RTL-cutters in the US are unlikely to be competitive with 100
Verilog RTL-cutters in Bangalore at the same price. Instead
we must find ways to use the West's traditional skills,
including aggressive and creative application of the latest
academic developments to industrial problems, to make small
numbers of people much more productive. For people in our
field, that means embracing the highest-level design and
validation techniques at our disposal, instead of remaining
dedicated to the nuts/bolts/wires/registers vision of chip
design that's left over from fifteen years ago.

But the implication of your statment is that only Westerners can be
creative and only Westerners will try new things.

At this point we're already seeing a contraction in the number of jobs
available for engineers in the US. You can only develop these new,
higher powered, more creative skills if you are employed in the field.
If you have had to move on to working at Barnes&Noble or the like
just to eat, you are not likely to have the time or energy left over
to develop these great new creative skills. I know several people who
have now been out of engineering work for six months to two years.
How employable is a chip designer after not working for a year or two?

I can anticipate your next suggestion: "Why don't you start your own
companies?" Well, if I could afford to go six months to a year or
longer without an income, that would be a great idea, but
realistically when you start a company it takes about that long to
generate any income and that's assuming that the company succeeds. In
the meantime people have to pay their mortgages and eat.

Perhaps if the US government weren't spending $87Billion to rebuild
Iraq (plus whatever it cost to destroy Iraq), it could afford to give
business development grants and loans to displaced workers so that we
could effectively harness that creativity, but that doesn't appear to
be in the cards. See, I am trying to think of constructive solutions,
not just 'complaining and whining'.

I recently heard a venture capitalist give a talk and one thing he
said was that unless a startup explicity says in their business plan
that engineering will be outsourced outside of the US, they will not
get VC funding anymore. Well, how about that...

I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings here...

Perceptive *and* courteous. It's a powerful combination.
Thanks for your insights.

Indeed. But certainly you can excuse a lot of unemployed US engineers
for being angry about all of this, can't you? On one hand it's great
that people are getting jobs in India, but on the other hand it sucks
for a lot of Americans are losing theirs and it will only serve to
further erode the middle-class in the US. At this point, I'm
beginning to become resigned to this outcome: we just won't be having
as many good-paying, engineering (and other white collar ) jobs in the
US. We need to figure out how to live on less and how to make the
transition to a lower standard of living. This might be something
that takes 20 years to correct so in the meantime we better get used
to getting by on a lot less.

The question now is, what can governments in the West do to soften the
effects of such a large exodus of good paying jobs? The problem is
that in the US at least, this issue isn't even on the politician's
radar screen yet, and I
suspect that by the time it is it could be too late for a lot of
people.

Tom Joad

> --

 

[Jonathan Bromley]

"Tom Joad" <tomjoad_is@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a111d6e2.0402022250.180fb8aa@posting.google.com...

The developing world can offer us (and by "us" here I mean
the whole world's economy, not just the West) a well-trained,
highly motivated workforce that can mobilise very large
numbers of employees at comparatively low cost. Those costs
will, of course, increase as nations such as India become
more prosperous overall, but that will take some considerable
time. If the economies of the West wish to compete
effectively without significantly impacting Western lifestyle,
they must find ways of working that *cannot* be made better
or cheaper by the application of lots of skilled, cheap people.

Who says that only the West is capable of working smarter and being
creative?

I don't think I did say that. I just said that that's what it
will take. If we can't rise to the challenge, our present leadership
position (real or imagined) will leak away over time.

[...]

But the implication of your statment is that only Westerners can be
creative and only Westerners will try new things.

I really don't think that my statement implied that, although
it's certainly true that Western technology has a good track
record of radical (as opposed to incremental) innovation and
improvement. Not good enough, though.

At this point we're already seeing a contraction in the number of jobs
available for engineers in the US. You can only develop these new,
higher powered, more creative skills if you are employed in the field.
If you have had to move on to working at Barnes&Noble or the like
just to eat, you are not likely to have the time or energy left over
to develop these great new creative skills. I know several people who
have now been out of engineering work for six months to two years.
How employable is a chip designer after not working for a year or two?

I can anticipate your next suggestion: "Why don't you start your own
companies?" Well, if I could afford to go six months to a year or
longer without an income, that would be a great idea, but
realistically when you start a company it takes about that long to
generate any income and that's assuming that the company succeeds. In
the meantime people have to pay their mortgages and eat.

Your frustration is evident, and easy to understand. It's fairly
clear that individuals acting alone cannot do very much about this
sort of thing, except by being as flexible as they know how.
On the other hand, individuals can and must play their part in
encouraging governments and industry to make investments in
education and infrastructure. It may not benefit us as individuals
directly, because the lead time for these things to take effect
is so long; but if we don't take these steps as a collection
of individuals, our collective future looks grim.

Perhaps if the US government weren't spending $87Billion to rebuild
Iraq (plus whatever it cost to destroy Iraq), it could afford to give
business development grants and loans to displaced workers so that we
could effectively harness that creativity, but that doesn't appear to
be in the cards.

Although I take your point, I would like to see the investment
even earlier in the chain - young people, education. Nevertheless,
even 5% of your $87bn would go quite a long way towards
medium-term regeneration.

Depressingly, quite a lot of people voted for the present
US government, and even now quite a lot of people support its
policies. We've had our fair share of democratically elected
governments doing crazy things in the UK, too.

See, I am trying to think of constructive solutions,
not just 'complaining and whining'.

Indeed, but there has been a fair amount of C&W not necessarily
illuminated by discussion as reasonable as yours.

I recently heard a venture capitalist give a talk and one thing he
said was that unless a startup explicity says in their business plan
that engineering will be outsourced outside of the US, they will not
get VC funding anymore. Well, how about that...

Don't ask me to defend the indefensible.

Indeed. But certainly you can excuse a lot of unemployed US engineers
for being angry about all of this, can't you?

Absolutely.

[...]

it could be too late for a lot of people.

Governments seem to be quite good at that kind of
didn't-see-it-coming thing.

--

Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Verification * Project Services

Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 mail: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

 

[fabbl]

I agree. Kids in the US are interested in being MBA's , lawyers and pop
stars.

At this point if you met an American high school student that might be
inclined toward going into engineering, would you recommend it to
them? I certainly wouldn't. I would recommend that they get into a
field that cannot be outsourced if they want stability. If they don't
care about stability, they may was well get an art degree as get an
engineering degree.

Not now, why bust your ass in college like a slave? Then have the asshole
who partied every week-end and got an MBA be your boss??? I thought we were
working
harder than pre-med students in my school. Every night of the week was a
marathon of
Calculus, physics, statics, dynamics, programming languages and later
electro-magnetics
(remember how "fun" that was?), materials and passive and active circuit
theory.

In a pop culture that celebrates losers and degenerates this isn't going to
be very
appealing.

I've been out of work for a year now. I started back for my Ph.D last year
after I was laid off
and found that an EE Ph.D. is a waste of time and actually hurts your
marketability. The word
"over-qualified" is now a favorite among employers which means "drop your
price", you'll hear this one a lot
with a ph.d. - they've also wised up to the fact that people with advanced
degrees are not necessarily
going to fill the bill better for lesser jobs. If you feel bad now with a
BSEE or MSEE, try to find a Ph.D. EE job
(Hint: you need an 800 GRE score, no attachment to where you presently live,
good connections
and lots of luck).

There is definitely no glamour being an engineer. Nor is it going to
make you rich.

Perhaps not, but it used to provide a very solid living. And some of
it was very interesting, creative and intellectually stimulating work.

Most companies, in our prostitute work culture, want to put ZERO into
employee development. I
bought, paid and studied for an MSEE because that was all the training I
*would* get that mattered. The
rest was experience.

Many masters and Ph.d. programs are filled with Asian students. Your
lucky
to see one or two Americans in any advanced technology degree programs.

I've been one of those. Was it worthwhile getting a Masters degree?
At this point it seems like it was a huge waste of time and $$$. Even
prior to the downturn it seemed like a waste primarily because
academia was so far behind industry. I came to the conclusion that in
this field you learn a lot more by working in it than by getting an
advanced degree. Most of the professors had no idea what was going on
in industry. They tended to have quaint notions about what industry
must need. I was very disappointed with the whole graduate degree
thing; I thought it was supposed to be about pushing the envelope and
researching new ideas, but it wasn't that way at all. I really can't
see why someone with a new Masters degree would be more desirable to a
company than an engineer with a Bachelors degree who had been working
in the field for a long time, and yet you would see it all the time
back when jobs were posted "Masters degree required". So I decided to
get one just to jump through the hoops. But that's a different
topic...

I got my MSEE at Rensselaer Polytech - great school, the professors were
some of the most awarded and acknowledged people in their fields. Also many
of them hadn't
worked for private industry in years. Sure, they worked under grants and
many worked at
IBM or Bell Labs (their only private sector job) for 15 years before getting
into academia.
But none of them could ever answer the question "How do I design, build and
test something with
almost no resources?" or "How do I judge reasonable cost and resource
targets?"

Equally unimpressed with higher education are recruiters and personnel
people. Many
programmers I have met have little or no college background. Indeed many are
the
product of Microsoft training courses and making lots of $$$ with no
calculus or
physics course. Don't be to alarmed with the "MSEE Preferred" garbage, if
anything
it usually means the recruiter doesn't know what they are talking about with
regards to
the position. The same is to be said about EIT or PE - what a scam that is.

The
whole overseas/foreign out-source phenomena is due in large part to
talent
shortages. I say the market will correct itself in time, but the India
as a
major source of technical talent is here to stay.

Granted, three or four years ago during the boom there was a talent
shortage in the US and we did need to import workers. Now there is a
talent surplus. If things get better again, how exactly are we
supposed to address the so-called talent shortage? Are we supposed to
go into the highschools and encourage more students to become
engineers when they see that lots of engineers were recently
unemployed? It's not going to give them a lot of confidence that
they'll find work after they graduate.

At this point I agree. I've been at a string of unstable companies with
little
to offer but a pay-check. Many run by people obsessed with money and view of
employees as little better than day-laborers. It's not unique - I've been in
the
industry since 1983, I couldn't count the number of people who have "Gotten
out of engineering" or had career changes...

The less engineers in the market the better. The stupid, self-serving job
projections
made in the late 80's were probably based on having 100 resumes for every
job.
Industry drove this and the schools jumped right on board.

If your a kid reading this - change your major if you can. There are guys
with 10+ years
experience looking for work and the economics of doing business in the US
are driving many
opportunities over-seas. Engineering is fast becoming a commodity job. If
you really love
engineering and don't want to change majors, get a passport and learn Hindi.