WSJ Idiotorials
WSJ Idiotorials
Date: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:00 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
by Rob Sanchez
May 09, 2005 No. 1253
Two moronic editorials were published in the Wall Street Journal
lately. Both of them are blatant attempts at supporting the importation
of more workers into the U.S.
The first one parrots Bill Gates' claim that the U.S. has a shortage of
programmers and engineers. Their solution to solving the shortage is to
remove limits on the number of H-1B visas issues per year. The quote
below by Gates is a classic as he justifies his use of H-1Bs not for
cheap labor but to "diversify" his workforce. Apparently Microsoft's
new mission is social engineering, not computer programming. He goes on
to say that if there was any way he could hire Americans that would be
his first choice. Is the staff of the WSJ actually stupid enough to
believe this?
Mr. Gates told National Public Radio that he's not
looking for cheap labor.
"We would have done some work in those markets
[China and India] regardless," said Mr. Gates. "You want
to have some diversity, particularly in research itself,
where you can draw on the talent pool that's there. But
there's no doubt that if we had easier hiring here in the
U.S., we would be doing more in the U.S. and less outside
the U.S."
The second editorial claims that we have a shortage of PhDs in the
United States which can only be solved by funding more research. No
suggestions were ever made to give the most obvious incentive to do the
hard work to earn these graduate degrees - good paying jobs. Instead
the WSJ just intends to fund more research and hire foreign PhDs to do
it.
To make science and engineering careers more attractive to
our youth, we must make a stronger commitment to funding
research .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
High-Tech Brain Drain
May 5, 2005; Page A14
Bill Gates probably didn't shock anyone last week when he said
companies like Microsoft have difficulty finding enough qualified
Americans to hire. That's old hat. But he turned a few heads when he
said immigration policies are threatening U.S. competitiveness like
never before. Asked how he would change current law, Mr. Gates replied,
"I'd certainly get rid of the H1-B visa caps. That's one of the easiest
decisions."
The government grants what are known as H-1B guest-worker visas to
immigrants in specialty fields like math, science, engineering and
medicine. But the number of such visas issued annually is capped at
65,000. That quota is not only unnecessary but ridiculously inadequate,
as evidenced by the fact that the 2005 limit was reached on the very
first day of the government's fiscal year.
Business leaders have long complained that these caps, combined with a
U.S. education system that's not producing enough science and
engineering talent, will inevitably affect domestic growth and global
competitiveness in the technology sector. The U.S. ranks sixth
world-wide in the number of people graduating with bachelor degrees in
engineering. Meanwhile, China is graduating some four times as many
engineers as the U.S., and Japan -- with less than half of our
population -- graduates twice as many engineers as we do.
According to a report by the Higher Education Research Institute at the
University of California at Los Angeles, the percentage of incoming
undergraduates planning to major in computer science declined by more
than 60% between 2000 and 2004, and is now 70% below its peak in the
early 1980s.
So it's no wonder that companies like Microsoft, Intel and IBM have set
up research operations in China and India, which also leads the U.S. in
engineering grads. But outsourcing isn't always about cutting costs.
Mr. Gates told National Public Radio that he's not looking for cheap
labor.
"We would have done some work in those markets [China and India]
regardless," said Mr. Gates. "You want to have some diversity,
particularly in research itself, where you can draw on the talent pool
that's there. But there's no doubt that if we had easier hiring here in
the U.S., we would be doing more in the U.S. and less outside the U.S."
With so much of the immigration debate focused on low-skilled workers,
it's easy to forget that artificial curbs on the entry of foreign
professionals and international students can restrain industry's
ability to acquire intellectual capital. Immigration policies that
limit access to global talent in a global marketplace won't keep U.S.
innovators and entrepreneurs on the cutting edge. Nor will they help us
continue as the world's science and technology leader.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Ph.D. Deficit
By NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE and BURTON RICHTER
May 4, 2005; Page A18
The unprecedented opportunities for American workers in the latter half
of the 20th century came from creating new jobs, not from protecting
old ones. A major component of job creation is investment in science
research . Our rivals in Asia and Europe have clearly figured this out.
Research , particularly in the physical sciences and engineering, is
the foundation of our innovative economy. It has spawned the
transistor, fiber optics, integrated circuits, wireless communication,
liquid crystal displays, lasers, the Web, the GPS, hybrid automobiles
and medical technologies far too numerous to list. With these new
technologies have come new, high-wage jobs. MIT alone -- faculty,
alumni and staff -- has created 5,000 companies in the last 50 years.
When an innovation is found, the U.S. entrepreneurial spirit is quick
to develop, produce and market it, creating new jobs and revenue. We
must be prepared to develop the next innovation rapidly to ensure that
the jobs it spawns reside in the U.S. Such a nimble economy requires
venture capital, a level international playing field, technological
infrastructure, a well-educated work force and a healthy budget for
research .
To keep feeding America's great innovation machine, robust investments
in research are a must. Unfortunately, federal funding for research in
the physical sciences and engineering has been stagnant for two decades
in inflation-adjusted dollars. As a percentage of GDP, federal
investment in physical science research is half of what it was in 1970.
The technologies listed above came from decades-old research . A
flatlined research budget won't produce the same economic growth for
tomorrow. Nor will it keep us ahead of the competition much longer.
Through investment in research and education, our competitors have
increased their numbers of science and engineering Ph.D.s. It's no
wonder that foreign applications for U.S. patents are growing
remarkably and that the foreign high-tech labor force is drawing jobs
away from America.
In China, R&D expenditures rose 350% between 1991 and 2001, and the
number of science and engineering Ph.D.s soared 535%. In South Korea,
R&D expenditures increased more modestly -- by 220% -- and Ph.D.s by
150%. In that same period, the number of applications for U.S. patents
from each country grew by 400%. Publications in scientific journals
provide another indicator of the global challenge to our scientific
primacy. In 1986, the U.S. share of articles in such journals
world-wide was 39%. By 2001 it had slipped to 31%, and it is still
declining.
There is another disturbing trend. Fewer Americans are pursuing
physical science and engineering careers. At the graduate level,
enrollments are down more than 20% since 1993. And with abundant
opportunities in their own countries, foreigners are not flocking to
study in our universities in the same numbers they did a decade ago. To
make science and engineering careers more attractive to our youth, we
must make a stronger commitment to funding research . In the 21st
century, that in part must be a federal responsibility. In today's
world of global competition and Wall Street demands for quarterly
growth, the time-frame for discovery is too long, and the risks of
failure too great, for a company -- even a group of companies -- to
shoulder alone.
Mr. Augustine is retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. Mr.
Richter, former director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, won
the Nobel Prize in physics in 1976.
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe, Unsubscribe or to view the Archive go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Back to archives