U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say

[cthrumatrix]

U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say
Thu Jan 8, 7:20 AM ET Add Technology - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writer


With India, China, Russia and other countries rapidly becoming technology centers, the executives warned that without such measures the United States could lose its dominance in the knowledge economy.


"Our competitiveness as a nation is not inevitable," said Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carleton S. "Carly" Fiorina. At a press briefing alongside Intel Corp. chief executive Craig R. Barrett, Fiorina cited declining federal government spending on research and development compared with other countries, as well as a kindergarten through 12th grade educational system that "remains a source of competitive disadvantage."


Barrett also cautioned against erecting global barriers to commerce, a response to mounting concerns that technology and other companies are transferring tens of thousands of support center, data entry and software engineering jobs overseas to take advantage of lower wages.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=1804&e=3&u=/washpost/20040108/tc_washpost/a63380_2004jan7


When a team "loses" the manager takes the fall or is fired. Each one of these CEO's should be "fired"...along with shrub. They should be sharing how we can improve our competitveness....hence save jobs.

[bemildred]

1. It's too late.

The lead time is years, and we dropped the ball a long
time ago in pursuit of "profits".

[montanacowboy]

2. And if anyone has been watching ass-kicking

Lou Dobbs, he had a statement by this chick on last night that blew me off the couch - something about it's not a birthright any longer for an American to have a job (very paraphrased)

But - KUDOS TO LOU DOBBS! I LOVE YOU GUY!

[cthrumatrix]

3. Hewlett Packard - Carly Fiorini CEO --- Boycott HP

[hatrack]

15. I'm glad I didn't buy an HP when I went computer shopping last week

And now I know which one to avoid the next time I'm in the market.

[joeybee12]

9. I think that her quote was "God-given" right to a job...

...which makes her even more despicable.

[mrsteve]

4. Okay, let me get this straight...

We are facing the fact that the United States "could lose its dominance in the knowledge economy". Yet the jobs that can help preserve and develop professional experience and technical innovation to preserve said "dominance" must be outsourced overseas to prevent "erecting global barriers to commerce".

So if we outsource all technical jobs to the third world, then increase federal and local spending on research and training, we'll then be the preeminent technological powerhouse in the world.

How in the hell can you be dominate in the knowledge economy with no jobs to show for it, no matter how well your people are educated?

This is a shining example of CEOs talking out of their asses.

[cthrumatrix]

8. shrubs world-- up is down, white is black ...and the people get the shaft

[burrowowl]

5. Given we are deinvesting in

education and the Chinese, Indians and Russia are investing in education, well, I,m not surprised.

[missile_bender]

6. So most of the cars, TVs, VCRs and DVD players won't be U.S.-made?

No way!

Ha. I think it's a little late.

[mrsteve]

7. Here's another jewel from the article

They refer to efforts to preserve US tech jobs as "protectionist", and futher say:

"Barrett, chairman of the trade group Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP), said such protectionist responses endanger the ability of U.S. firms to compete. He said Intel hires overseas often to gain local expertise, so that it can sell more products in those markets. Moreover, he said, migration of lower-paying jobs overseas is hardly new and is part of a recurring business cycle. He noted that a sizable portion of technology hardware manufacturing has moved overseas, without dire economic consequences.

Fiorina said that what is likely to occur is a shift in the kind of technology jobs that will predominate in this country, such as those that requiring the ability to manage multiple systems and networks.

She said the country cannot afford to be distracted by short-term financial and employment concerns. "The biggest barrier is our nation's attention span," she said."

"Short term financial and employment concerns". Apparently the threat to my job and my 15 year career is a short term concern.
I guess my "short attention span" is being rewarded...

Stupid, short sighted, greedy bastards, all of them.

[punpirate]

10. This seems to have a couple of...

... rather nasty implications in it. First, the CEOs of two very mature industries are begging for more federal dollars to pay for their R&D, and second, it's disingenuous to suggest that all jobs going overseas are "low-paying." I would suggest that very high rate of current unemployment in higher-paying jobs--programmers, managers, technical analysts--puts that to the lie.

Beyond that, the US has had a genuine problem for thirty years or more with apportionment of federal R&D money. Fifteen years ago, fully 70% of R&D money provided by all agencies went to defense-related projects (I suspect the percentage is even worse today). Even worse is that brainpower follows the money. Therefore, the best and brightest of the people in the country are working on defense projects, which rarely translate into commercial or industrial knowledge gains.

That effectively means that commerce and industry gets the bottom 30% of engineers and scientists and technicians available. That's not an inviolate rule, but, rather, a general trend in employment.

Next, the assertion that moving manufacturing overseas hasn't hurt the economy is hardly true. Loss of manufacturing jobs has simply forced more people into lower-paying service jobs as the shift to a "knowledge-based" economy left out those who did not have all the necessary skills. The simple truth is that, overall, American workers have not shared in the productivity gains of the last twenty years because of the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Finally, corporate CEOs complaining about the educational system is the height of arrogance. Education is part of that social infrastructure system which corporations have done their best not to support by failing to pay their share of taxes. Thirty years ago, corporations were paying approximately 35% of the total tax load, while the most recent estimates are that they may pay, in 2003, as much as 11% and as little as 8% of the total tax load.

These two people are doing their level best to say that greed is not what it seems.

[cthrumatrix]

13. you should read the "subsidies" these companies get in the Medicare Reform

Bill....todays WSJ reports that FASB is allowing them to book these "subsidies as profits now ...even though they will not receive them for two years.

January 8, 2004
U.S. Drug Subsidy
Benefits Employers

By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Some companies with many retired workers are expected to post big earnings gains for 2003 or 2004, thanks to accounting guidelines for subsidies under the federal prescription-drug program.

When Congress approved prescription-drug benefits for Medicare recipients last year, it granted benefits for the 65% of large employers with retiree health-care plans, providing funds for companies that maintained their prescription-drug coverage for retirees.

more

The subsidy won't be paid for another two years, but the Fianancial Accounting Standards Board of Norwalk, Conn gave permission yesterday for companies to book the value of their anticipated government payments in 2003 financial statements, if they believe they can accurately predict the effect of the subsidy.

more

So if an employer and a retiree each pay $1000 toward the retiree's medical costs, the employer subsidy is caluclated in the full $2000, bringing the company a total subsidy of $490, rather than the $210 that it would get if it received a subsidy only on its share.



Only in America....it goes on and on...and gets more detailed. This was a "corporate gift" from bush.... period.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107350927860976500,00.html?mod=home%5Fwhats%5Fnews%5Fus

[tom_paine]

11. Yet another hidden consequence of the Bloodless Coup of 2000

Allow me to illustrate with a personal anecdote...

In 2000, I worked for a small cutting edge genetics company developing a new drug-discivery platform for diseases such as breast cancer, AIDS, and alzheimers. Like most early science, it was not profitable and we got by on equal measures of investor and grant monies. In 2000, as our money was running out, we had filed a grant with the Advanced Technology Program for $5,000,000 (enough to keep the company going for 3-5 years). They loved the science, and we were making real progress in turning the technology platform into a marketable system. But our business plan required fine tuning, the Feds said, and that we should rewrite it and turn it back in for almsot certain funding

"Unless George Bush wins the election. Then you can just forget about it."

Well, as well all know, Bunnypants* DIDN'T win, but that didn't stop him from seizing power in a Bloodless Coup. naturally, ATP and dozens of small-business-technology-aiding programs were shut down so that Cheney could buy another Lexus.

The company went belly-up shortly thereafter, in spite of the fact that this viable technology is just sitting there half-finished. maybe someone someday will pick it up again, but given the small-business climate in the Empire, such bold discvovery ventures are much less possible without government assistance during the non-profitable early stages.

Which brings me to my point. There is a correlatable reason why America was losing it's technology dominance during the 12 years of Emperor Bush I, and why we sprang back on top during the Last Presidency of the Old Republic.

Because the Bushevik philosophy doens't take into accoutn science and discovery. They don't like scienec or scientists, with their fact and figures and need for corroboration and their tendency to tell unpleasant truths simply because they can prove them.

As a result, all their policies work to crush scientrifidc discovery, and now that Imperial Orthodoxy has taken over, eventually NIH will be purged like the military and the FBI, replaced with Imperial Loyalists wielding power for politiical gain and nothing else. Small businesses, again in th erealm of technology dominance, are thus discouraged by the Imperial Policies.

In science, one in ten small companies (or thereabouts) makes a significant discovery and becomes marketable. But, without the 9 failures the one success is that much less likely to find it's way. Hell, the one success might not even come to be because the person with the idea can't get enough funding to start up.

And yes, this was predicted by me almost immediately after the Bloodless Coup of 2000. But it was a no-brainer.

[sushi]

12. I read that

the countries on the rise are Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC).

[The Zanti Regent]

14. Remember that the GOP wants kids to study the Bi-Bull only

While China establishes a permanent moonbase and sends probes to Mars and beyond, our kids will be instructed in the Bi-Bull and nothing else.

Within 20 years we will be a bigger joke than England is!

[Oggy]

16. Oy

That's not fair. ( as an English contributer.). Tony Blair is a joke, but not the whole country.

[damnraddem]

17. We'll send the high-tech jobs oversead, ...

and then warn that we might lose dominance in high-tech.

The thing is: the U.S. dominance is not really threatened by outsourcing so much as it is by the failure to motivate and teach young Americans.