Discussion on:

Sanity check: Is the U.S. losing its role as the world leader in information technology?

This news isn't surprising, as less and less students will want to go into technology (esp. computer science) since the jobs are being outsourced ever increasingly apparently. The "nearsourcing" idea, however, could show some promise. Still, Corporate America has basically wanted to slash the IT costs and this is, imo, an indirect result of the corporate backlash.

The articles quoted in the origional colume are accurate; however, they don't go far enough. First the Flat World operates on intellectual capital. Our country hasn't produced at the world level since 1995. Two, since 2000 there is not one University in the US that is ranked #1 in producing PhDs in any hard science. This includes all catagories of engineering, computer/IT, physics, chemestry and the list goes on. Three, our students in public & private K-12 schools are 25th in the world in language, and 17th in math. Every two years we fall one of two notches in each catagory.
Most depressing is that Chian, India, and now some south asian nations produce 2 to 3 times as many engineers as does the US.
Bottom line not only have we become 2nd or 3rd in IT, but our failed educational systems insure it will only become worse. The crisis is not IT or terrorism, but failed educational institutions.
Just recently Intel said, they did not need to hire another American to retain their dominance and profitability. They have research centers in China along with Microsoft and the students from these nations were better than ours and knew how to work. Bluntly we are getting our buts kicked and lack any plan to change. Rembember is takes 16 years to grow one high quality engineer/scientest.

I'm surprised that only one person mentioned that WW2 was fought with computers in the back rooms.

Military funding to fight the USSR was a pretty big motivator behind IT. The government put a lot of money into researching electronics, the IC, the Internet, crypto, and 3D graphics. Even BSD Unix from peace-and-love Berkeley had war funding. Half our tax money went to war-related uses, and a big chunk of that went into developing technologies. Even the "civilian" space program was just a front for developing war technology.

Without the USSR and its arsenal of nuclear missiles present as a credible global rival, the US has slipped into figuring out how to deal with the threat of homemade explosives. You don't need to be a "rocket scientist" to solve this problem.

You also don't need to be an American rocket scientist anymore, because China, India, and Russia are no longer enemies or potential enemies.

Don't get me wrong - I'm basically a pacifist and into human rights, internationalism, and all that. I don't want a return to the Cold War.

Part of the problem is that nobody thinks ahead as long as the almighty buck keeps rolling in nobody cares. They bother to think of what the consciences might be down the road. Come up with a plan make as cheap as possible (foreign) then swindle as much money as you can out of it while the going is good. Who cares about the future.

signed just an opinion

When I was in high school, my peers thought IT was for "nerd losers". A "nerd loser" myself, I appreciated the ability to get into this field.

However, I agree - management is less than competent if they give existing workers no place to move their careers forward. This is as much a contributor to "complacency" as every other argument presented, some of which are genuinely valid -- the rest of which serve to blame all of America's problems on the working people, which is not entirely accurate.

Most of us are overqualified for lettuce picking jobs, but underqualified for managerial positions. What's left? Pack up and try to move to India, China or any other country prospering right now? Which wouldn't work in the end, those countries are too busy helping their own people to let any foreigners in... it's great to help their economies and people get out of poverty, but why are more Americans heading toward poverty?

I won't deny some of America's youth are the wrong role models or watch the wrong people who sadly happen to be role models (blame the media industry for fostering that problem), but nothing is ever so simple that only one factor can be the cause. As Americans, we all have responsibility to our country. I'll do my part, to the best of my ability, for the causes America and its interests stand for.

Unless all the trends are suggesting a one-world government, in which case nobody can be a leader or follower; we'd all be working for the same common cause. That's fine by me, but has every president/ruler of every nation agreed to that mindset? The last I heard, China is threatening the US for badgering them over their lack of quality control over food exports... all the Indians I've worked with seem haughty, and after a while nobody wants to deal with arrogant people. I've observed that trend regarding arrogance in many locations, and until the boom of H1B temporary citizens, such arrogant people were as white and honky as I am, so this isn't about being "racist".

You are right. You cant pin it down to one factor. You dont have to look into a crystal ball to know where the US is heading. Schools and colleges are turning out more "aliens" than Americans. American influence around the world is on the wane. If we extrapolate all this, we'll realize that US cannot survive very long as the leader it is today. God forbid if the bottom falls off the mighty dollar !!(The signs are already there now.) The ramifications can be pretty ugly.

You claim that "Schools and colleges are turning out more 'aliens' than Americans." According to the Department of Education, however, about 2/3 of degrees are earned in the US by White, non-Hispanic students; 22 percent by members of groups other than Whites (includes Black, non-Hispanics, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaska Natives); and the remainder by nonresident aliens (5 percent) or individuals whose race/ethnicity was unknown (5 percent).

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan often liked to say, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Sorry. I meant to say masters level and beyond. At Austin, there were certainly not too many true-blue Americans in my class. It was more like the UN General Assembly. You are probably referring to under-graduate studies. I had a bookmark to support my case. I'll try and post that as soon as I find it.

As far as I am aware, those figures referred to all degrees, not just undergraduate. As for the specifics, once again from the US Department of Education:

Nonresident aliens received 13 percent of all master?s degrees and 27 percent of all doctor?s degrees, much higher proportions than of any group other than White, non-Hispanics.

Advancement occurs when people and companies can develop a product, bring it to market and can make money out of it. That is not the case in the USA at the moment. If you come up with a good idea for the computer industry, one of three things happens at the moment:

1) You can't get venture capital for a software product, because it is clear that once you have created the market Microsoft will muscle in and take that market from you. They have the money to give the product away for free, a la Netscape, if it means removing competition.

2) You manage to pass under the radar and build your market only to have some patent troll sue you for billions because you have tripped over some trivial patent.

3) If your product has anything to do with hardware, the Chinese will copy it and push you out of most markets.

Given these circumstances, most just don't try. It is therefore clear that the USA is slipping behind and there doesn't seem to be the political will to do anything about it.

Ian

dear sir,
leading of IT is not a product or specific scince.
it is a mission need a nations to be completed.
so nations need leader and u.s has the experiencs to lead the world.
other nations may have the ability to play good role
toward the goal but u.s has to be the goalmaker.
from this vision u.s will be the leader forever.

eng. ahmad hadi
IT manager.
m.o.h
saudia arabia

I believe the same thing is happening in information tech today that happened in manufacturing 30 years ago; the rest of the world is catching up. After WW2, the US led by default because it was the only team on the field. As other nations recovered from the ravages of war and built their economies, they began to compete with the US economy.

The same is happening now as the technology "bulge" resulting from the push to space starts to subside. The US was the only team on the field and is now being joined by many others and having to actually compete.

In the 60s and 70s, the generals of American industry sat fat, dumb, and happy in their corner offices until it was too late. IBM did essentially the same thing in the 80s and 90s as it refused to believe the PC was other than a fad. Who's next?

Not when corporations hand out discounted or free training to foreign countries ("investing") - the lower cost of living in those countries is why offshoring occurs. It literally makes America impossible to compete.

If we are to be globalized, the entire world needs to be ran as one government, and on a level playing field in terms of the cost of living (to make 'developed' nations competitive again, before it's too late), and maybe even workers allowed to work or move anywhere they choose. Now that is not family-friendly, having to uproot all the time, but if it has to be done, it has to be done.

Guess what's probably not going to happen?

Now I do agree with the positives to offshoring - developing these nations, pulling people out of poverty, and the world needs all the scientists and engineers it can get. But why Americans are appearingly being tossed aside in the process, and makes no sense. We can't be a nation solely of supervisors, nurses, and CIOs. Unless we become a one-government world, then it makes sense.

...a level playing field in terms of the cost of living is not possible, not even under your proposed world government. Living costs will vary based on the desirability of the location and on other local economic conditions. The EU has been discovering this for the last decade or two.

Edit: The US has known this for years. Compare the cost of living in the greater New York, Atlanta or San Francisco areas with that same cost in almost any rural area.

Why would anyone live in a run down slum, when for the same cost of living they could be in a beach fronted palace?

Supply and demand. This works with people too. 10% of the world's population is Indian and under 25 years old!

It should be noted though that under the Big Brother single governement it would be less likely that the senior positions would be US based. India and China have 3 Billion people between them - if we are all the same then influence becomes a matter of numbers. Even if we were allowed to vote in this single government the UK and US would have minimal influence.

You would have your wish and US programmers would rule once more, except that Chinese and Indian managers would be telling you what to write.

US offshoring - developing these nations, pulling people out of poverty

Dont know when you guys will wake-up from your dreams.

Please give me a break

Companies don't outsource out of the
kindness of their hearts. They are driven
only by opportunities to increase proffits
get work done at lowest possible cost. Do
the work for same price or cheaper and it
won't be outsourced but your standard of
living will have take a dive to be
competitive.

>> US offshoring - developing these nations, pulling people out of poverty

Dont know when you guys will wake-up from your dreams.

Please give me a break


You don't understand Economics, do you?

>> US offshoring - developing these nations, pulling people out of poverty

Dont know when you guys will wake-up from your dreams.

Please give me a break You don't understand Economics, do you?

...not so sure that you do though.
(equally crass responses r us)

It's not about this nation or that nation, it's not about developing Third World countries, or any of that White Man's Burden stuff -- it's about big blocks of capital trying to make zillions of dollars' worth of ROI, without having to pay for the labor required to turn those dollars into products anyone wants to buy.

Any corporation that doesn't act that way can be sued by its shareholders. The trouble comes when your laborless economy turns into a consumerless economy because nobody can afford to buy the stuff the corporate machine is pounding out.

Some people believe that America is god's gift to the universe. The great white hand that feeds the world, frees the slaves and liberates the opressed... (Just ask them!

In other countries, the people are perhaps less well brainwashed or medicated.

While globalization sounds like a communist?s dream, remember that ?leveling the playing field? in terms of cost of living also entails leveling the playing field in terms of standards of living. And I?d hazard to guess that richer nations (like the U.S.) would end up with lower (worse) standards of living.

The irony is that the very capitalistic system that made the U.S. powerful is the same capitalistic system that?s sending it towards a decline via globalization. Perhaps it?s time for more protectionist/isolationist laws to at least slow the bleeding while the U.S. tries to adjust to the increased competition.

One side issue of all this globalization
and rapid developing Chinese and Indian
economies is that as they get richer they
are chasing the good life as is in the US.
And as they start consuming and wasting the
planets resources at the same rate as the
US, we will all be screwed. Oil is
disappearing from the planet at a rate much
faster than previously predicted industrial
pollution an increasing problem. Leadership
in IT will not be so important. In a fair
world we would all only use our own share
of the resources but when has that ever
happend before

Globalization has increased inequality, and it's not a "Communist's dream" but a capitalist's reality. America's standard of living has increased relative to the misery of the poor around the world, who find themselves homeless and dispossessed.

It only feels like it's getting worse because you're not a member of the top tiers of American society. Under globalization, American workers have suffered, too.

Isn't it obvious that following modern economic practices ultimately means raising every country on the planet to the same standard of living?

Given that, why, or how, on earth would any country think they can remain on top, or have some automatic right to do so? Seems pretty obvious that ultimately the largest countries will have the greatest power.

Or, is there some hidden bias here that says Americans are somehow intrinsically superior to other people, and so deserve more than the rest of us.

Bizarre!

Or, is there some hidden bias here that says Americans are somehow intrinsically superior to other people, and so deserve more than the rest of us.

It's called arrogance. Given what the average American knows about the rest of the world, it is most likely based on the same Northern European superiority that created the British empire, and manifests itself as "We know what is best for you."

They may have started in the US, but the idea that they are in some way interested in the US doing better than the Indians or the Chinese is ridiculous. The most obvious example of this is Halliburton moving to Dubai, but most large corp.'s have been offshoring jobs for years, and don't give a tinker's cuss for their fellow Americans.

Corporations are legally persons, but if you had a neighbor who acted with the same kind of callous disregard for you, that neighbor would be a pariah.

It's not nation vs. nation, it's class vs. class. It's class warfare, and as Warren Buffett said, his class is winning.

Because we can't/won't set aside our race/gender/nationality/etc... differences, and focus on the ways in which we are alike.

insofar as the US is an established customer base with a large amount of disposable income. Individuals running these companies concentrate on their (and their stockholders') return to the exclusion of all else. I've heard horror stories where suggestions are evaluated based solely on ROI. No tangible ROI, no approval.

The bottom line is the fact that an unemployed customer base has NO income.

Ah, the corporation - soulless but hungry. The corporation is not (as I understand it) directly owned by any individual in the way a sole proprietorship is. It has a board of directors - very often quite greedy - who are always asking the question, "How can we make more, more, MORE?" The ways Corporate America have answered that question have led to many of our economic and social problems. Why, for example, should oil companies be raking in obscene profits when some folks are paying three bucks a gallon for gasoline? Shouldn't the oil companies be suffering too, if supplies are as tight as they claim? Their collective profits are ALL OF OUR MONEY, from the suburbanite driving the SUV right "down" (in quotes because everyone has value but it helps the illustration) to the working-class urbanite driving a beat-up Nova. The soulless corporation is out of control.

I'll admit that sometimes it seems oil companies are involved in a monopolistic collusion, but people continue to drive cars. Capitalism at work. Apparently gas prices in the U.S. have not gotten to a point where consumers are unwilling to pay ? nor to a point where a new player can undercut the oil companies due to their ?extravagant? profit margins.

Once we do reach that point, it?ll become profitable to research and develop oil alternatives. Until the price hits that tipping point, the U.S. won?t do anything about fuel alternatives (nor about public transportation). I fear it?s all about money.

Public transportation is not an option in many places because of the distances involved, not to mention that the American car culture is too well developed. Our American push toward centralizing such activities as shopping, entertainment, etc. has made it essentially impossible to do more than survive without a car.

Myself, I laugh when I hear the Stupid Useless Vehicle drivers bitch about the cost of gas. I even asked one who held the gun to his head to force him to buy his 12 mpg Excursion.

Why has IT lost some of its sexiness with the younger generation? Look around. As fast as we develop technology, we offshore the work. Why pick a career with no job future? Just this week where I work, 15 more IBM project manager jobs were moved to Brazil. And our software application development teams are 80% Indian. Want a career with a future? Try selling insurance or working at Wal-Mart.

Gave us living in countries that were part
of it, cricket so it was not all bad, and
most of the time the rest of us are better
at cricket than the English

the rest of us, or have you forgotten all those food shipments - exactly how many tonnes of Long Pork did your let get from the Brits? lol.


NB: For those not familiar with New Zealand history, during the Maori wars, they used to cook the defeated English and have them for dinner, calling the meat Long Pork.

at cricket, a game much too deep and
intelligent for the yanks to get the hang
of. Best they can do is a variation of the
English girls game of rounders

us Aussies have been giving the Poms a good hit wiht the cricket bat for centuries now.

However, on a personal point - I'd rather be playing rounders with some English girls than playing cricket with some Indian men. Mind you, there's nothing personal about this; it's just the English girls have a better appeal.

Judus, j-mart, just where does your obvious hatred of the United States come from? Were you wronged in a previous life by an American, or is this just jealousy on your part. Not one of your posts actually addresses the initial question of this thread; all you've done is post insults; which reminds me of a quote my mother always said, "Small things amuse small minds."

BTW, when New Zealand accomplishes the things the United States has in our short (historically speaking) time in existence, then you can have bragging rights too. What other nation has accomplished what we have in such a short time, and what country is always the first to help other countries out after disasters, even those we consider "enemies".

The United States is not perfect, and we have much to answer for; however, there are more people trying to get IN than OUT, which speaks volumes to the freedom and opportunities available here to anyone with the hutzpuh to try and better themselves.

I second that. Who is employing and bringing the standard of living up for all these Indian Engineers? The hated Microsoft has a campus and is spending BILLIONS of dollars in India. I guess we have earned our status, lately, on the international scene. BUT WHY SO MUCH HATE? I would hope it is directed at our administration, but the comments are so petty and irrelevant, in so many ways, that this whole thread has become meaningless. It is a forum for nationalist chest beating. Let's all get on board the HATE train. There's one leaving the station every two minutes. I'm out.

"Isn't it obvious that following modern economic practices ultimately means raising every country on the planet to the same standard of living?"

No, while it is obvious that modern economic practices ultimately leads (in theory) to a similar standard of living globally, it does not follow that everyone else will be raised to our current (western, developed) standard.

"it does not follow that everyone else will be raised to our current (western, developed) standard"

Unless "we" are prepared to lower our standard it does. And I see little evidence of a willingness to lower standards of living in western countries.

I am curious about the use of the term "birthright" on the leading page.

If birthright had anything to do with it England would still be the leading industrial nation in the world as it was during the industrial revolution. It was, in fact, the US that took that crown followed shortly thereafter by Japan then Korea and so on. There is no birthright for anyone in the post WW2 compete-or-die economy.

has happened since Nations have existed.

When life is good people get lazy and forget why it became good. It does not need government to support the nation but the nation of people to steer the government. Otherwise the leaders become like the leaders of the Roman empire, lazy, lacking leadership, thinking more of themselves than the office they hold, belief that it is their birthright to be top dog, ultimately corrupt then the empire falls.
When it happens you have few friends. Look at the way the British Empire declined after two world wars. We bankrupted ourselves trying to save the world from ideologies we did not agree with. Then wrote the history books as the victors always do.

History repeats itself. Which only goes to prove that man is not yet smart enough to rule the world.

Regarding WW1 and WW2, I for one am very grateful to the British Empire for bankrupting itself to ?save the world from ideologies it did not agree with.? They did everything possible to avoid a fight; and I?d put a world governed by Nazism in a different category than the mere existence of ideologies that didn?t suit my taste.

with you Mikiel.

The point was that when your Empire starts to decline for what ever reason you will have few friends.

One of the reasons for this is that while you were at the top you became arrogant and failed to consider other people.

The British Empire has not completely died. Considering the US is a former colony of that empire and that basically many of the former colonies form part of the British Commonwealth. Most if not all of the commentators here live in (or are from) either Britain or one of its former colonies. I would say the Empire still exists to some extent.