4 ms·

The superior engineering talent is simply a result of a small educational lead we had in the US because we birthed the PC industry. The rest of the world is cat

The superior engineering talent is simply a result of a small educational lead we had in the US because we birthed the PC industry. The rest of the world is catching up, and software engineering work is shifting overseas. If we continue with a shareholder only focus those jobs will go overseas as soon as the cost-benefit ratio flips. If this is a strategic industry where innovations can still potentially reshape the economic landscape, then we should make efforts to keep the talent onshore, so that we can mine the industry for those innovations ourselves.

chillacy 10y ago
If I interview at a job and I'm not the best candidate, why should the company hire me instead of someone else? I should deserve things that I earn. And if that point occurs and the best software engineers are working elsewhere for cheaper, US companies are going to be disadvantaged if they have to pay more for similar work. They'll find it tough to compete with the likes of Baidu or VK. The only way I can see this working is if the US goes full isolation and both prevents its companies from hiring externally and prevents other companies from entering its market.
- riazrizvi 10y ago
  In a Western market economy, we encourage the outcomes we want through regulation and policy. For example the High Tech industry is propped up in the US through fat government contracts for defense related companies (eg Palantir, Google), strategic venture funds (CIA's In-Q-Tel), government innovation efforts that are given away (Darpa, Arpanet), government funding to universities to teach certain course or research certain fields. Since farming, manufacturing, infrastructure and energy could also be supported in this way, we should give them the same love that Silicon Valley gets from the Government. Particularly because they would help the other half of America get back to work. Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    The US government already props up many of these industries too, like corn farmers and green energy. If you're in the corn business or making solar panels, you can bet you're gonna lobby for continued support. Tech certainly started from a government investment, but at this point much of it is probably self sustaining. In-Q-Tel makes up a small % of venture investments (mostly in defense-useful areas), and most of the money stems from B2C or B2B. > Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business Agreed. I'd also argue we shouldn't be imposing regulations to play favorites, because that has the side effect of hurting other businesses. Should the government help taxi cab companies or uber? Greater regulation favors the cab companies, which powers lobbyists to keep things the way they are. Part of this digresses into what you think the role of government should be. Personally I don't think government should try to be our parents: it should level the playing field, try to stay out of the way, and let market forces shape most of the economy, intervening only for the important stuff like environment. The reasons are varied and some philosophical, but if you're starting from different beliefs you'll see things differently.
    - riazrizvi 10y ago
      "Government should try to stay out of the way, let market forces shape most of the economy". Of course, we already know that excessively planned economies cannot compete with market economies. I'm simply saying, we lose our chance to innovate wherever we allow investors to fully outsource industries - it sells off our future potential unless we replace it with some other human endeavor. What's the goal of humanity? To reach a GDP high score? I hope not.
      - eru 10y ago
        GDP is just easy to measure, but tends to correlate well with almost everything we care about in an economy (in the long run). There's nothing too magical about it. I don't see why you want government fat cats and lobbyist deciding about innovation? Why are they better placed than the people who risk their money?

chillacy 10y ago

If I interview at a job and I'm not the best candidate, why should the company hire me instead of someone else? I should deserve things that I earn. And if that point occurs and the best software engineers are working elsewhere for cheaper, US companies are going to be disadvantaged if they have to pay more for similar work. They'll find it tough to compete with the likes of Baidu or VK. The only way I can see this working is if the US goes full isolation and both prevents its companies from hiring externally and prevents other companies from entering its market.

riazrizvi 10y ago
In a Western market economy, we encourage the outcomes we want through regulation and policy. For example the High Tech industry is propped up in the US through fat government contracts for defense related companies (eg Palantir, Google), strategic venture funds (CIA's In-Q-Tel), government innovation efforts that are given away (Darpa, Arpanet), government funding to universities to teach certain course or research certain fields. Since farming, manufacturing, infrastructure and energy could also be supported in this way, we should give them the same love that Silicon Valley gets from the Government. Particularly because they would help the other half of America get back to work. Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business.
- chillacy 10y ago
  The US government already props up many of these industries too, like corn farmers and green energy. If you're in the corn business or making solar panels, you can bet you're gonna lobby for continued support. Tech certainly started from a government investment, but at this point much of it is probably self sustaining. In-Q-Tel makes up a small % of venture investments (mostly in defense-useful areas), and most of the money stems from B2C or B2B. > Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business Agreed. I'd also argue we shouldn't be imposing regulations to play favorites, because that has the side effect of hurting other businesses. Should the government help taxi cab companies or uber? Greater regulation favors the cab companies, which powers lobbyists to keep things the way they are. Part of this digresses into what you think the role of government should be. Personally I don't think government should try to be our parents: it should level the playing field, try to stay out of the way, and let market forces shape most of the economy, intervening only for the important stuff like environment. The reasons are varied and some philosophical, but if you're starting from different beliefs you'll see things differently.
  - riazrizvi 10y ago
    "Government should try to stay out of the way, let market forces shape most of the economy". Of course, we already know that excessively planned economies cannot compete with market economies. I'm simply saying, we lose our chance to innovate wherever we allow investors to fully outsource industries - it sells off our future potential unless we replace it with some other human endeavor. What's the goal of humanity? To reach a GDP high score? I hope not.
    - eru 10y ago
      GDP is just easy to measure, but tends to correlate well with almost everything we care about in an economy (in the long run). There's nothing too magical about it. I don't see why you want government fat cats and lobbyist deciding about innovation? Why are they better placed than the people who risk their money?