---------------<<<>>>---------------
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
by Rob Sanchez
June 25, 2004 - No. 1041

---------------<<<>>>---------------

Fox News isn't known for objectivity, and the article below is no
exception. It reads like a press release by Harris Miller and his
organization of shortage shouters at the Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA). There is only one thing in the entire
article I agree with: Joseph Quinlan, chief marketing strategist for
Banc of America Capital Management, said that, "WE HAVE A BRAINS
DEFICIT." Yes, we do have a brains deficit, and keep reading to find
out who has the shortage of brains.


Harris Miller obviously hasn't been to the Bay area or he wouldn't have
made this statement, Bangalore moved into Silicon Valley. They don't
have to move back to India!

"If you believe some of the rhetoric, you'd think Silicon
Valley was going to move to Bangalore [India] next year,
and that's not the case," Miller said.


Just for the sake of balance, I decided to include an editorial from
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers website (IEEE),
but instead what I found was another brain deficit. The article below
endorses just about all of the dumb things in the FoxNews story with
the exception that it debunks the ITAA lie that there is a shortage of
engineers. Unfortunately it quickly devolves into something resembling
an ITAA press release.

In this statement, the IEEE agrees that we must continue to import
foreign students to this country.

The influx of foreign-born students and immigrant scientists
and engineers is both a blessing and a problem. It is a
blessing because it brings the best and brightest from around
the world to our universities and labs and strengthens our
comparative advantage in science and high-tech fields. Given
the nature of the American position in the global economy,
this is not a luxury; it is necessary for long-term U.S.
economic well-being.

What's even worse, the IEEE wants to allow these foreign engineering
and science students to get Green Cards so they can become permanent US
residents. This is a repeat of the IEEE's slogan "Green Cards, Not
Guest Workers" that was instituted during the reign of Paul Donnelly.
To read about the "instant green card" debate, go to:
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/H1BvsGreenCard.htm

To find out more about Paul Donnelly, go to:
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Skunks.htm#IEEE


The IEEE wants foreign students to choose the US as their place to work
and there is no regard for it's affects on American born engineers. How
about this for an oxymoron: "cultural diversity of our melting pot".
This paragraph is totally a brain-dead agenda to import foreign
students that will replace American workers.

The message from visa officials should be that we want
foreign-born students and scientists and engineers to
come to the U.S. We want them to choose our country as
the best place to do their studies and work. The message
should also be that we want them to stay and join us as
citizens. We want them not only because Americans love the
cultural diversity of our melting pot and appreciate
hard-working immigrants more than almost any other peoples;
we want them also because they are necessary for the health
of our economy, for our comparative advantage in the global
economy, and for the long-term ability of our country to
provide rising living standards for our citizens, native
born as well as current and future immigrants.


I cringe every time I read that foreign students are the "best and
brightest". Anyone that says this has a brains deficit. Read the
statements below, and see if you can tell which ones were made by the
shills in the FoxNews story, and which ones are the views of the IEEE.
Read the articles to find the answers, becuase once I cut and pasted
these statements, I couldn't tell the difference.

Statement #1: "You can let the good students and good teachers into
the United States - or companies can go overseas to tap into it - we
want to continue to attract the best and brightest."

Statement #2 ... the country has attracted large numbers of the best
and brightest students, researchers, and science and engineering
workers from foreign countries.

Statement #3: We all know the poem by Emma Lazarus, "Give me your
tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free," at the foot
of the Statue of Liberty. For our economic health (and for our national
security as well), I would amend this: "Give us your best students,
your creative scientists and engineers, yearning to make great
discoveries"

Statement #4: girls, especially, should be encouraged to follow career
paths in those fields. "We have to keep them going through the process
- we're losing half the talent pool,"

Statement #5: Encouragement, education and work opportunities for girls
and women in these fields [engineering] are imperative to generate and
turn ideas into reality for the health, safety, and welfare of all."


Conclusion:

All but the brain-dead of industry and academia understand that
propagandistic attempts to "getting kids excited" about science and
technology will fail as long as the supply of labor continues to be
glutted by the import of foreign workers. American kids are responding
to the job market by avoiding technical degrees. Our universities are
still graduating far more engineers, scientists, and programmers than
is needed in the United States - and that means many graduates are in
for a rude surprise when they start job hunting.
------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123562,00.html

Psyching Up Kids for Tech Could Help U.S. Jobs

Thursday, June 24, 2004

By Liza Porteus


NEW YORK -- Getting kids excited about science and technology (search)
will help keep jobs here at home and will reduce the need to import
talent from other countries, government officials and company
executives said Wednesday.

"I think we have to find ways to excite kids [about those subjects]
probably as early as elementary school," Phil Bond (search), under
secretary of technology for the Commerce Department, said Wednesday,
adding that girls, especially, should be encouraged to follow career
paths in those fields. "We have to keep them going through the process
-- we're losing half the talent pool," Bond said.

Bond's comments were delivered during an offshoring (search) conference
sponsored by the Information Technology Association of America.
Offshoring -- sending work of U.S. companies overseas -- has become a
political lightning rod during this election year.

ITAA President Harris Miller called the issue an "emotional one" that
continues to be surrounded by rhetoric from labor unions, politicians
and others who say offshoring means less work for people here at home.

"If you believe some of the rhetoric, you'd think Silicon Valley was
going to move to Bangalore [India] next year, and that's not the case,"
Miller said.

Offshoring has affected blue-collar workers in America's factories for
years. But the issue has exploded in a presidential election year with
an exodus of white-collar service jobs, particularly in call centers
and technical support.

John Kerry (search) has hammered away at President Bush (search) on the
outsourcing issue -- saying American workers are losing out to foreign
workers on jobs that can be performed more cheaply overseas. Bush, on
the other hand, has argued that the United States cannot take an
isolationist or protectionist stance in a global marketplace.

Many U.S. companies and trade groups are siding with Bush, saying that
in order to remain competitive in a global marketplace, the United
States has to have a presence in overseas local markets.

"The great misconception is that U.S. companies go abroad for cheap
labor," said Joseph Quinlan, chief marketing strategist for Banc of
America Capital Management. But, he said, outsourcing has been going on
for over 100 years. "You have to be in country to compete," he said.
"That's just how the global marketplace is."

Last Friday, the Labor Department issued a report that said in the
first three months of this year, the jobs of 4,633 U.S. workers were
sent to foreign workers -- indicating that few layoffs here at home can
be blamed directly on working being sent abroad. Those displaced
workers were about 2 percent of the 239,361 private-sector, non-farm
workers who lost their jobs.

Industry officials point out that work is also insourced as an
increasing number of foreign companies open up shop in the United
States and hire Americans to work there.

For example, Quinlan said, 25 percent of the manufacturing workers in
Kentucky work for foreign affiliates like those in Japan or China.

To keep the United States on top of its game, not only does it have to
export some work but it also has to have a higher skilled workforce to
be able to do the work here, and to better compete with foreign
workers.

"We're turning out more students with English and history degrees,"
Miller said, while countries like China, India and Taiwan are raising
the quality of their own higher education institutions.

"We're not seeing the results we'd like" to encourage entrance into the
high-tech sector, particularly after the dot-com bust, he said,
although some efforts have been made in the Bush administration to
focus on the need to strengthen these programs.

High tech companies and other businesses also want student visa
restrictions relaxed so foreign students can study at American schools
and stay in the country to work after graduation.

"We have a brains deficit," Quinlan added. "You can let the good
students and good teachers into the United States - or companies can go
overseas to tap into it - we want to continue to attract the best and
brightest."

And although most of the country's 15,000 school districts are now
wired for the Internet, that doesn't mean technology is being utilized
as well as it could be in the classroom, Bond said. There's a huge need
for further teacher training on how to use technology in a way that
gets kids interested, he said, but a positive step is that a new
generation of teachers that has grown up with technology is coming down
the pipeline.

Nanotechnology -- the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or
molecular scale to build microscopic devices, such as robots -- could
be the next big thing that gets kids' attention, Bond later told
FOXNews.com.

"I'm hopeful that's going to fire up kids," he said.


------------------------------------

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=n06
0304

Stimulating Careers in Science and Engineering

The real problem in the science and engineering job market is in the
balance between domestic and international supplies of workers and
students

By Richard Freeman

The United States is the leading country in the world in scientific
research and in applying the results of research and development (R&D)
to practical economic problems. The U.S. relies on high-tech industries
and intellectual property for its competitive edge in the global
economy. The country exports high-tech goods and intellectual property
while importing low-tech goods such as plastic childrenís toys and
sneakers from low-wage countries, and importing medium-tech consumer
and other items such as washing machines and cars from advanced
European economies, Japan, and Canada.

In the lingo of economists, the U.S. has a comparative advantage in
science and technology just as Columbia or Brazil have comparative
advantages in producing coffee, the Caribbean has a comparative
advantage in sun and beaches, and the Middle East has a comparative
advantage in oil. But unlike the comparative advantages associated with
geography, a comparative advantage in science and technology is
self-made. It requires public funding for R&D and science and
engineering education, and policies that create and maintain a healthy
job market for scientists and engineers.

What shortage of scientists?
At this writing the job market for scientists and engineers is not
healthy and it risks getting less healthy. Many in the science
establishment complain about shortages of scientists and engineers and
call for investments in improved schooling at the K-12 level to create
a larger flow of young persons into science and engineering careers.
This misreads the problem and possible solutions.

There is no shortage of scientists and engineers in the U.S. Between
1990 and 2003 the number of scientists and engineers increased more
rapidly than the rest of the workforce while earnings and career
opportunities in these fields fell short of those in other
education-intensive fields. Unable to gain independent research grants,
young scientists spend years as low-paid postdocs before gaining "real
jobs" in academe, industry, or government. Many bright young Americans
choose to invest in other occupations. Do you want to be a 35-year-old
postdoc earning $40,000 in someone elseís lab, or an MBA earning
$150,000 working in a major business directing others?


Still, the U.S. has been able to increase the number of scientists and
engineers to meet growing demands. There is no shortage because the
country has attracted large numbers of the best and brightest students,
researchers, and science and engineering workers from foreign
countries. According to the 2000 Census of Population, 38% of Ph.D.s
working in science and engineering occupations were foreign-born - a
massive rise over the 24% foreign-born figure for 1990. In 2000, 52% of
employed Ph.D. scientists and engineers in the age bracket 24 to 45
were foreign-born. Among postdocs, the foreign-born proportions is
around 60%. The pattern of rapid influx of immigrants into science and
engineering is also found at the masterís and bachelorís level,
albeit from lower bases.

Until this year the flow of students from overseas seemed unending.
Were it not for the flow of foreign-born researchers, U.S. science and
engineering would be in crisis.

The shortfall of young Americans in science and engineering does not
reflect the state of U.S. education or the innate intelligence or work
ethic of young Americans. Each year our students do well in the Math
and Physics Olympiads. Thousands more American students are capable of
pursuing careers in science and engineering. Suggestions to ramp up
K-12 education to create a scientifically literate and able group of
students - which invariably takes 1 to 2 decades - or to try to
convince U.S. undergraduates that science and engineering is for them
without improving their career prospects will not succeed. Americans
are not enrolling in science and engineering in increasing numbers
because the job market for scientists and engineers does not offer
opportunities as attractive as competing areas. Low-paid postdoc, or
lucrative MBA, MD, or law degree?

The real problem in the science and engineering job market is in the
balance between domestic and international supplies of workers and
students. The influx of foreign-born students and immigrant scientists
and engineers is both a blessing and a problem. It is a blessing
because it brings the best and brightest from around the world to our
universities and labs and strengthens our comparative advantage in
science and high-tech fields. Given the nature of the American position
in the global economy, this is not a luxury; it is necessary for
long-term U.S. economic well-being. It is a problem because, at the
same time, the huge influx of foreign students and workers keeps wages
and employment opportunities below what they would otherwise be. This
discourages U.S. citizens from investing in science and engineering
careers, and thereby increases our dependence on the foreign-born.

There are inherent risks to the U.S. economy from relying extensively
on flows from other countries for the key input into our economic
success. Countries like China that currently supply a large proportion
of students and workers to our science and engineering endeavor might,
in the future, discourage students from coming to the U.S. As the
Chinese and Indian economies improve, the attractiveness of the U.S. as
a place to study and work will decline. Reacting to the flow of
European scientists and engineers to the U.S., the European Union has
already begun improving its offerings to top researchers.

Recent headlines highlight the risks. This spring the Council of
Graduate Schools reported a 32% drop in the number of foreign students
applying to the U.S. for higher education. Officials at Wisconsin,
Southern California, Minnesota, Princeton, Texas A&M, among other major
universities have been stunned and troubled by the decline in
applications. Some, such as Chancellor John Wiley of Wisconsin, have
focused on the danger to the supply of scientists and engineers from
reduced flows of international students. Others, such as former CIA
head and president of Texas A&M Robert Gates, have focused on the
implications of denying entry to foreign students on the war on
terrorism and our national security. My concern is with the risk to our
economic health - to trade, jobs, and living standards.

To some extent, the drop in overseas applications to U.S. universities
reflects U.S. visa policies, which the State Department can hopefully
correct. The message from visa officials should be that we want
foreign-born students and scientists and engineers to come to the U.S.
We want them to choose our country as the best place to do their
studies and work. The message should also be that we want them to stay
and join us as citizens. We want them not only because Americans love
the cultural diversity of our melting pot and appreciate hard-working
immigrants more than almost any other peoples; we want them also
because they are necessary for the health of our economy, for our
comparative advantage in the global economy, and for the long-term
ability of our country to provide rising living standards for our
citizens, native born as well as current and future immigrants.

Greater investment needed in young scientists
At the same time, we have to find ways to increase the attractiveness
of science and engineering careers to U.S. citizens. This is a hard
problem because it means improving pay and career opportunities for
independent work by younger scientists and engineers, potentially at
the expense of older PIs and of the relatively inexpensive research
endeavor that the flow of foreign born researchers has permitted. With
a given R&D budget, agencies must devote larger shares to investing in
younger scientists and engineers. The Administration and Congress must
recognize (as many firms already do) that slowdowns in the growth of
R&D budgets are penny wise and pound foolish.

The country does not have many levers to improve the career
attractiveness of science and engineering for Americans while
simultaneously encouraging foreign-born students and immigrants to come
to the U.S. There is, however, one area in which policy can make career
prospects more attractive to Americans. This is through the number and
size of stipends available to U.S. citizens from the National Science
Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other government
agencies. Since these awards are limited to U.S. citizens (just as
scholarships and stipends given by foreign governments are almost
always limited to their citizens), they are the natural tool for
differentiating U.S. citizens from noncitizens.

What is needed to attract more young Americans into science and
engineering are larger and more attractive fellowships and stipends and
a major revamping of the career structure and timing of rewards in
science and engineering. We need to make science and engineering more
like athletics, where pay and career opportunities are frontloaded
rather than backloaded in careers. The relation between senior PIs and
postdocs and young researchers should be more akin to that between
coaches and managers and young athletes than that between employer and
employee. More credit and reward should go to the young researcher.

We all know the poem by Emma Lazarus, "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to be free," at the foot of the Statue of
Liberty. For our economic health (and for our national security as
well), I would amend this: "Give us your best students, your creative
scientists and engineers, yearning to make great discoveries" and we
will continue to be the locomotive economy on which all of the world
can rely. But we must also deliver ample economic rewards and
fulfilling careers to our own best and brightest if we are to maintain
our position as the worldís science, technology, and economic
powerhouse. Striking the right balance between domestic and foreign
supplies is the science and engineering workforce problem of our time.
Letís get on to solving it by improving the job market for scientists
and engineers.


About the Author:
Richard Freeman is the Herbert S. Ascherman Professor of Economics at
Harvard University and director of the Labor Studies Program at the
National Bureau of Economic Research.

------------------------------------

http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2004/032504pr.htm

National Engineers Week has also invited organizations, educational
institutions, and individuals to sign a statement supporting its
initiatives, which can be accessed at the National Engineers Week web
site at www.eweek.org:

"We, the undersigned, encourage all nations to seek the talents,
viewpoints and intellects of women in engineering and related
mathematics and science fields. Encouragement, education and work
opportunities for girls and women in these fields are imperative to
generate and turn ideas into reality for the health, safety, and
welfare of all."

For years, the engineering community has recognized the need to bring
more women into its ranks. Currently, only one out of ten engineers in
America is a woman. National Engineers Week launched Introduce a Girl
to Engineering Day in 2001 to provide girls and young women with a
firsthand experience in the engineering arena.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

To Subscribe or Unsubscribe send an email to
H1BNews@ZaZona.com

To View the Newsletter Archive Go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -