3 ms·

Many of them shifted into fields that didn't exist in 1900 because in 1900, food and shelter were the majority of what people in the US worked for. Exactly --

Many of them shifted into fields that didn't exist in 1900 because in 1900, food and shelter were the majority of what people in the US worked for. Exactly -- science led to technology which led to job creation. That's the whole story of the 20th century, with a couple of wars tossed in to keep things moving. Meanwhile, in 2010, science and technology are just two more things most Americans take for granted. We still have to fight the Scopes monkey trial every few years, we couldn't get back to the Moon with any less time and money than it took the first time, and especially since 9/11, we're no longer a place where the world's STEM students come to study and live. That farmer from 1900 would say we're "eating our seed corn."

timr 16y ago
"Meanwhile, in 2010, science and technology are just two more things most Americans take for granted. We still have to fight the Scopes monkey trial every few years, we couldn't get back to the Moon with any less time and money than it took the first time, and especially since 9/11, we're no longer a place where the world's STEM students come to study and live." You're actually very wrong about foreign STEM students (every US graduate school is filled with Chinese grad students and post-docs), but that's neither here nor there. One of the main points of the article was that it gets harder to educate a new generation of high-tech workers when the industries that have all of the institutional knowledge out-source that knowledge to China. Middle-achieving Chinese students have an incentive to come to the US for higher education -- it helps them get jobs back home. What incentive to middle-achieving American kids have, when the bottom 95% of high-tech jobs are sent to China? The unspoken Myth of economics is that just because we've transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the past, we'll be forever able to use efficiency improvements to drive employment in the future. In real life, it's just plainly, obviously untrue. If nothing else, the simple fact that human intelligence follows a bell-curve should tell us that there's always going to be a large class of people who cannot function at the highest level of production. Those people need factory jobs, or farming jobs, or other lower-skill industries that pay a decent salary.
- AlisdairO 16y ago
  "If nothing else, the simple fact that human intelligence follows a bell-curve should tell us that there's always going to be a large class of people who cannot function at the highest level of production. Those people need factory jobs, or farming jobs, or other lower-skill industries that pay a decent salary." Well said. The jobs we're creating are achievable to a progressively smaller segment of the population, and that's a huge problem. I wonder if as we run out of easily-mineable resources, we'll start creating low-skilled jobs again, in the recycling of the already-mined resources - garbage mining, effectively. If China's hold on rare earth metals, for example, continues to increase, I can imagine this being an important job area.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  You're actually very wrong about foreign STEM students Am I? (every US graduate school is filled with Chinese grad students and post-docs), but that's neither here nor there What happens immediately after they graduate?
  - timr 16y ago
    "Am I?" Yes. "What happens immediately after they graduate?" It depends greatly on where they're from, and what they've been studying. A lot of my Chinese colleagues have gone back to China...because there are jobs there, and not here.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      A lot of my Chinese colleagues have gone back to China...because there are jobs there, and not here. Which I think you'll find was my exact point. We may still be the world's standard in STEM education, but we aren't necessarily benefiting from that position. The world's best students come here to study, but not to live.
      - timr 16y ago
        "we're no longer a place where the world's STEM students come to study and live" That's the quote from your original comment -- the one to which I was replying. So, while you may have meant to say something else, I don't see that in the text. If anything, now you seem to be contradicting your earlier remark. Also, re-reading the original comment, I get the impression that you're arguing that we're falling behind in science and tech because of a cultural failure -- a lack of societal focus on science and technology. I don't think that's true for a variety of reasons, but the big one is the same argument raised by the article: we've out-sourced generations of technical expertise. There's little incentive for the foreign grad student to stay here, when the jobs are over there. The jobs are there because we sent them there, not because we've stopped educating American students.

timr 16y ago

"Meanwhile, in 2010, science and technology are just two more things most Americans take for granted. We still have to fight the Scopes monkey trial every few years, we couldn't get back to the Moon with any less time and money than it took the first time, and especially since 9/11, we're no longer a place where the world's STEM students come to study and live." You're actually very wrong about foreign STEM students (every US graduate school is filled with Chinese grad students and post-docs), but that's neither here nor there. One of the main points of the article was that it gets harder to educate a new generation of high-tech workers when the industries that have all of the institutional knowledge out-source that knowledge to China. Middle-achieving Chinese students have an incentive to come to the US for higher education -- it helps them get jobs back home. What incentive to middle-achieving American kids have, when the bottom 95% of high-tech jobs are sent to China? The unspoken Myth of economics is that just because we've transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the past, we'll be forever able to use efficiency improvements to drive employment in the future. In real life, it's just plainly, obviously untrue. If nothing else, the simple fact that human intelligence follows a bell-curve should tell us that there's always going to be a large class of people who cannot function at the highest level of production. Those people need factory jobs, or farming jobs, or other lower-skill industries that pay a decent salary.

AlisdairO 16y ago
"If nothing else, the simple fact that human intelligence follows a bell-curve should tell us that there's always going to be a large class of people who cannot function at the highest level of production. Those people need factory jobs, or farming jobs, or other lower-skill industries that pay a decent salary." Well said. The jobs we're creating are achievable to a progressively smaller segment of the population, and that's a huge problem. I wonder if as we run out of easily-mineable resources, we'll start creating low-skilled jobs again, in the recycling of the already-mined resources - garbage mining, effectively. If China's hold on rare earth metals, for example, continues to increase, I can imagine this being an important job area.
CamperBob 16y ago
You're actually very wrong about foreign STEM students Am I? (every US graduate school is filled with Chinese grad students and post-docs), but that's neither here nor there What happens immediately after they graduate?
- timr 16y ago
  "Am I?" Yes. "What happens immediately after they graduate?" It depends greatly on where they're from, and what they've been studying. A lot of my Chinese colleagues have gone back to China...because there are jobs there, and not here.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    A lot of my Chinese colleagues have gone back to China...because there are jobs there, and not here. Which I think you'll find was my exact point. We may still be the world's standard in STEM education, but we aren't necessarily benefiting from that position. The world's best students come here to study, but not to live.
    - timr 16y ago
      "we're no longer a place where the world's STEM students come to study and live" That's the quote from your original comment -- the one to which I was replying. So, while you may have meant to say something else, I don't see that in the text. If anything, now you seem to be contradicting your earlier remark. Also, re-reading the original comment, I get the impression that you're arguing that we're falling behind in science and tech because of a cultural failure -- a lack of societal focus on science and technology. I don't think that's true for a variety of reasons, but the big one is the same argument raised by the article: we've out-sourced generations of technical expertise. There's little incentive for the foreign grad student to stay here, when the jobs are over there. The jobs are there because we sent them there, not because we've stopped educating American students.