<p>
</p>
<p>So in other words, you are basically retracting your claim that nurses never get laid off. Good. That is precisely my point. ANYBODY can get laid off. You can talk about how it may be more common for some than for others, but you cannot say that a nurse has an absolutely 0% chance of ever getting laid off. Allright then. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And my response to that is, who knows what the economy is going to look like in 10 years? In 10 years, there may be another super-Internet boom on. In 10 years, the health care industry might have been reformed to cause mass unemployment among nurses and doctors. Who knows? Nobody knows for sure. Heck, 10 years ago, the Internet was just a plaything for academics, and certainly the idea that you could actually form a company on the Internet would have been absurd. The last 10 years has seen vast changes. Who’s to say that the next 10 years won’t see equally vast changes? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think what you are really doing is confusing a difference in INDUSTRY vs. a difference in undergrad field. That’s a subtle yet extremely important difference. I certainly agree that certain industries in the US are dying in terms of employment. Like textiles. Like basic consumer goods. Like agriculture. It wasn’t that long ago when a large chunk of American biologists were employed in the agriculture industry - improving crop yields and that sort of thing. I probably would not recommend that you study biology to go down that road.</p>
<p>I can grant you that health care will probably grow faster than many other industries in terms of employment. However, engineers can take advantage of that by choosing health-care oriented industries to work in. And I’m not even talking about engineers changing to become doctors or PA’s. Many if not most chemical engineers that I know who are not academics are in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Many ME’s and EE’s have moved to the biomedical device industry. Certainly you must agree that the US health-care industry hires plenty of engineers, and will probably hire plenty more. </p>
<p>You talked about Genentech. Good example because I happen to know quite a few people working there - all of who are engineers of one kind or another. Genentech, like most biotech companies, tends to pay significantly more to its bachelor’s degree engineers than to its bachelor’s degree biologists or chemists. Why is that, if engineers are worthless to them? I’m fairly certain that many of those biologists wouldn’t mind having the job of the engineer. Heck, the Executive head of operations at Genentech is an electrical engineer by training. Why did hire Genentech hire this guy if engineering is worthless to the industry? Are you saying that Genentech should just fire this guy immediately because his background means that he is obviously unable to contribute anything to the company? </p>
<p>The truth is that after you’ve been working for awhile, nobody cares about what degree you have. They only care about your work experience. No biotech company is going to say “Oh, I see that you’ve been working at Genentech for 10 years and have done great work, and you have the exact experience we’re looking for, but I see that your degree is in Mechanical Engineering, and we wanted somebody with a Biology degree, so we’re not going to hire you”. We both know that’s not going to happen . All they’re going to care about is your experience at Genentech. </p>
<p>Hence, as long as all these health-care companies hire engineers, which they do and will, then engineers will be able to set their career paths accordingly. I agree with you that engineers who go take jobs in the textile industry might have problems later, just like biologists who go work in agriculture might have problems later. But I’m talking about people who can actually see industry trends and follow them. Nobody is advocating that you take a degree in anything and go to a dying industry. Obviously you should pay attention to what industries are healthy and work there. It seems to me that the health-care industry will hire plenty of engineers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say that it would happen with 100% certainly. I said that it MIGHT happen - and in particular, you cannot simply assume that the OT will exist in the future. It might. It might not. You must admit it’s possible. You are the one who is making the assumption that it will always exist with 100% certainty. So if you say that it is my opinion that it might not exist, then I would point out that it is also your opinion that it might exist. Neither of us knows for sure what will happen. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I am asking - what else is so much better to major in? I never said that engineering would guarantee anybody a stable career. I am asking - what bachelor’s degree will? Engineering is not stable, I never said it was. But neither are most of those things you can get your undergrad degree in. Engineering is arguably the best of all available options when you’re talking about undergrad. I think that both you and golubb have concluded that this is not really a topic of serious dispute, because I think we all agree on this basic point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re exaggerating a LOT when you say that manufacturing is gone. You’re the one that talks about the example of Intel - so let’s talk about it. Why does Intel not have a single wafer fab in East Asia? Yes, it has assembly and testing facilities, but no wafer fabs (where the real engineering happens). Why? Intel has only 2 fab locations outside the US - in Ireland and in Israel, both high-cost places for doing business. Why? Not only that, but Intel has no plans to build one in East Asia. </p>
<p>Is Intel investing hundreds of milions into Asia? Sure. But that’s a drop in the bucket in Intel’s capital expenditure budget. This year, it plans to spend SEVERAL BILLION just in expanding the capacity of the wafer fabs in Portland, Oregon and Phoenix, Arizona. In fact, I believe Intel’s plan is to build an entire new fab in Portland, starting this year. Why? Why is Intel massively boosting its manufacturing capacity in the US? Is Intel being dumb? </p>
<p>And even if you believe that Intel is being dumb, it matters not. The bottom line is that there will be plenty of jobs for Intel engineers at Portland and Phoenix. That’s why those 2 locations are hiring like crazy. Keep in mind that wafer fabs cost most than $3 billion each. So when you build one, you want to use it. You can’t just have it sitting around doing nothing. So tell me why is Intel stupidly expanding its American manufacturing capacity? Boy, this must be the most incompetent company ever, right? </p>
<p>Like I said, for many manufacturing operations, notably chips, labor costs are a vanishingly small part of the total cost of operation. Hence, it doesn’t really matter if you can save on labor costs. When you have to pay $3 billion just to build a new fab, who really cares what the operational labor costs are? The same thing is true for plants that adjust to seasonal demand and/or to shorten the supply chain. How are you going to outsource the engineering work in an oil refinery, when the oil refinery sits in the US? Not only that, but refineries will ALWAYS be built close to the demand in order to keep supply-chains short, because you never know if there will be a regional spike in demand for gasoline or heating oil. Tell me how you’re going to outsource that job? The refinery engineer has to work where the refinery is, and if the refinery is in the US, where is that job going to go? The same thing for an Intel chip fab. If the chip engineer has to work in the fab, and the chip fab is in the US, how is that job going to be outsourced? </p>
<p>[</p>