7 ms·

The US is lagging by every reasonable measure. What has changed is primarily 2 things: 1) People in positions of authority are now openly anti-progress in an

The US is lagging by every reasonable measure. What has changed is primarily 2 things: 1) People in positions of authority are now openly anti-progress in an effort to pacify entrenched interests. 2) These same people are also openly anti-immigrant. In the past, a lot of science in the USA has been imported from other countries by way of immigration. Less science equals less/inferior technology which equals smaller economy and weaker USA.

yoyohello13 10mo ago
The US is destroying it's own advantage. For decades the US was pulling the best and brightest from all over the world into its Universities and companies. Why would anybody think stopping that would lead to a 'Golden Age'.
- jqpabc123 10mo ago
  Ignorance, incompetence, indifference --- it's how empires end.
- gadders 10mo ago
  Unfortunately it changed from "best and brightest" to "whoever could make it over the border" and "whoever would do the same job for less money".
  - yoyohello13 10mo ago
    Pretty sure "whoever could make it over the border" are not getting admitted to Harvard.
    - gadders 10mo ago
      Agreed - so why admit the rest?
      - ceejayoz 10mo ago
        Because it turns out we need lettuce, too?
        gadders 10mo ago
        Maybe Walmart etc would have to take a few less billion for shareholders and pay people properly if they want them harvested.
  - cmtm4 10mo ago
    When was it ever substantially not "whoever could make it over the border"? That only stopped being (mostly—see the Chinese Exclusion Act) our actual policy in what, the 1950s? And after that, much to the relief of the agriculture industry that sharply opposed the change, we de facto barely enforced the new policy.
    - gadders 10mo ago
      Thank God big ag managed to keep the profits flowing
- programjames 10mo ago
  Seems like an arrogant American take. The United States primary and secondary schools are middling at best, and that has been showing through to its universities. Foreigners were already choosing Chinese universities. It's not like the recent administration could just "keep pulling", what do they have to appeal with? Obviously shutting off the flow of any and all talent is stupid, but it's a little arrogant to pretend it was not already diverting to better systems.
  - munk-a 10mo ago
    Most schools are middling - but the US was willing to give generous scholarships and post-graduation grants to smart immigrants to build it here. There was a long entrenched culture that in the US you could turn your intelligence into positive change and get rich doing it. We've been slipping into rent seeking at least since the eighties though - so the share that actual researchers get has been shrinking while the culture has become much more hostile to immigration. It is a situation built on momentum though - so while the tools supporting it have been torn down we still do have a lot of people who moved here with the hope of leveraging it.
    - programjames 10mo ago
      > There was a long entrenched culture that in the US you could turn your intelligence into positive change and get rich doing it. Yes, this is still true, and why immigration to America maintained its previous momentum. It was often easier to get a student visa than a different immigration visa, so for the past 30 years or so that has been the primary route, and in turn has raised the prestige of American universities. However, if you look at the American-born population, their students are not impressive. Quite the opposite, for how much funding their education gets. And—by federal interest—only ~10% of the undergraduate student body can be foreigners. Professors at American universities routinely complain about their students' low standards. Things are not the same as they were ten years ago, let alone thirty or fifty years ago. I think international sentiment has not shifted to the point that this is common knowledge—that if people want to go international, they better attend a school in China or Switzerland—but it would have happened in a few years with or without Trump, and the decline would be as apparent as the primary and secondary school decline has been.
mmmBacon 10mo ago
By what metric is the US lagging? By any objective measure we can see the dominance of US technology. I think it’s most of the rest of the world that’s being left behind; Europe in particular. If what you’re saying is true the US economy would also be flagging but it’s not. If what you’re saying is true, you’d see the list of the world’s most valuable companies dominated by non-US firms. I think you are confusing the current climate of immigration enforcement and reform with being anti-immigration. The US will continue to draw top talent because the US is where the bulk of the opportunities are and will be for at least the next 5 years. It’s been widely discussed that the immigration system has been abused, especially by the tech industry. This reform started under Obama. The current outcry is a reaction to the most recent federal election. Reform does not mean the US is anti-immigrant. It may mean lower levels of immigration that’s more selective for talent.
- pdabbadabba 10mo ago
  Here’s one: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking-chinese-universities-trump-cuts.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElA.aFJj.U2w0llbEiL0T&smid=nytcore-ios-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking...
- lotsofpulp 10mo ago
  > think you are confusing the current climate of immigration enforcement and reform with being anti-immigration. If this was true, Repubs would be handing out green cards at graduation ceremonies, at least for STEM fields. Instead, they are rolling out more pay to play schemes.
- orev 10mo ago
  Science creates the seeds, and what you’re citing are the fruits of seeds that were planted decades ago. Big tech only exists because of random science investments that were made long ago. The metric isn’t how much fruit you have now, but how well you’re preparing the soil and planting the seeds for the next generation.
- beej71 10mo ago
  > at least the next 5 years That's not much of a flex. The people who are worried about China taking the lead are looking at velocity and acceleration, not position.
cogman10 10mo ago
3) We've exported scientific talent. 4) We've destroyed the public scientific job sector. If your field of science isn't related to something the US military is interested in, you better have a degree in something directly related to pharmaceuticals. A lot of the US's leadership in science was based purely on the momentum it gained from the progressive era and the cheap education we used to have. Ever since roughly Reagan, it's been slowly eroded to today's sorry state. When I went to school, the promise was "get a degree in anything, it'll pay for itself". Now, gen z is actively choosing to avoid college because the ROI is horrendous.

yoyohello13 10mo ago

The US is destroying it's own advantage. For decades the US was pulling the best and brightest from all over the world into its Universities and companies. Why would anybody think stopping that would lead to a 'Golden Age'.

jqpabc123 10mo ago
Ignorance, incompetence, indifference --- it's how empires end.
gadders 10mo ago
Unfortunately it changed from "best and brightest" to "whoever could make it over the border" and "whoever would do the same job for less money".
- yoyohello13 10mo ago
  Pretty sure "whoever could make it over the border" are not getting admitted to Harvard.
  - gadders 10mo ago
    Agreed - so why admit the rest?
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      Because it turns out we need lettuce, too?
      - gadders 10mo ago
        Maybe Walmart etc would have to take a few less billion for shareholders and pay people properly if they want them harvested.
- cmtm4 10mo ago
  When was it ever substantially not "whoever could make it over the border"? That only stopped being (mostly—see the Chinese Exclusion Act) our actual policy in what, the 1950s? And after that, much to the relief of the agriculture industry that sharply opposed the change, we de facto barely enforced the new policy.
  - gadders 10mo ago
    Thank God big ag managed to keep the profits flowing
programjames 10mo ago
Seems like an arrogant American take. The United States primary and secondary schools are middling at best, and that has been showing through to its universities. Foreigners were already choosing Chinese universities. It's not like the recent administration could just "keep pulling", what do they have to appeal with? Obviously shutting off the flow of any and all talent is stupid, but it's a little arrogant to pretend it was not already diverting to better systems.
- munk-a 10mo ago
  Most schools are middling - but the US was willing to give generous scholarships and post-graduation grants to smart immigrants to build it here. There was a long entrenched culture that in the US you could turn your intelligence into positive change and get rich doing it. We've been slipping into rent seeking at least since the eighties though - so the share that actual researchers get has been shrinking while the culture has become much more hostile to immigration. It is a situation built on momentum though - so while the tools supporting it have been torn down we still do have a lot of people who moved here with the hope of leveraging it.
  - programjames 10mo ago
    > There was a long entrenched culture that in the US you could turn your intelligence into positive change and get rich doing it. Yes, this is still true, and why immigration to America maintained its previous momentum. It was often easier to get a student visa than a different immigration visa, so for the past 30 years or so that has been the primary route, and in turn has raised the prestige of American universities. However, if you look at the American-born population, their students are not impressive. Quite the opposite, for how much funding their education gets. And—by federal interest—only ~10% of the undergraduate student body can be foreigners. Professors at American universities routinely complain about their students' low standards. Things are not the same as they were ten years ago, let alone thirty or fifty years ago. I think international sentiment has not shifted to the point that this is common knowledge—that if people want to go international, they better attend a school in China or Switzerland—but it would have happened in a few years with or without Trump, and the decline would be as apparent as the primary and secondary school decline has been.

mmmBacon 10mo ago

By what metric is the US lagging? By any objective measure we can see the dominance of US technology. I think it’s most of the rest of the world that’s being left behind; Europe in particular. If what you’re saying is true the US economy would also be flagging but it’s not. If what you’re saying is true, you’d see the list of the world’s most valuable companies dominated by non-US firms. I think you are confusing the current climate of immigration enforcement and reform with being anti-immigration. The US will continue to draw top talent because the US is where the bulk of the opportunities are and will be for at least the next 5 years. It’s been widely discussed that the immigration system has been abused, especially by the tech industry. This reform started under Obama. The current outcry is a reaction to the most recent federal election. Reform does not mean the US is anti-immigrant. It may mean lower levels of immigration that’s more selective for talent.

pdabbadabba 10mo ago
Here’s one: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking-chinese-universities-trump-cuts.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElA.aFJj.U2w0llbEiL0T&smid=nytcore-ios-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking...
lotsofpulp 10mo ago
> think you are confusing the current climate of immigration enforcement and reform with being anti-immigration. If this was true, Repubs would be handing out green cards at graduation ceremonies, at least for STEM fields. Instead, they are rolling out more pay to play schemes.
orev 10mo ago
Science creates the seeds, and what you’re citing are the fruits of seeds that were planted decades ago. Big tech only exists because of random science investments that were made long ago. The metric isn’t how much fruit you have now, but how well you’re preparing the soil and planting the seeds for the next generation.
beej71 10mo ago
> at least the next 5 years That's not much of a flex. The people who are worried about China taking the lead are looking at velocity and acceleration, not position.

cogman10 10mo ago

3) We've exported scientific talent. 4) We've destroyed the public scientific job sector. If your field of science isn't related to something the US military is interested in, you better have a degree in something directly related to pharmaceuticals. A lot of the US's leadership in science was based purely on the momentum it gained from the progressive era and the cheap education we used to have. Ever since roughly Reagan, it's been slowly eroded to today's sorry state. When I went to school, the promise was "get a degree in anything, it'll pay for itself". Now, gen z is actively choosing to avoid college because the ROI is horrendous.