Dean's Speech at Nationals

[KenWittlief]

thats true, and thats the part the CEO cant see on his little spreadsheet thats telling him he can increase profit by 3% if he outsources 20 peoples jobs to the other side of the world.

Outsourceing isnt even the right word for this - there are many businesses here that have consolidated functions and tasks that businesses need and use, like office cleaning, certain design and manufacturing services - its often better for a business to hire a cleaning contractor than to directly hire people as cleaners

but those jobs stay in the community - the people just work for a different local employer

but when a job is sent to the other side of the world the effects run much deeper and wider than the person making the decision can possibly see.

I think the real problem here is this: if you own a business, what exactly is it that you own? The name? the profit and expense statements?

if your business is based on engineering and manufacturing skills, and you outsource those to a foreign country, then what do you have left?

where is the innovation going to come from when your engineers are all gone? where is the next generation of products going to come from? If you dont have your own people on the manufacturing floor, then who is going to improve the manufacturing process on a day by day basis? improving quality? reducing costs?

who are your customers going to talk to when they call for technical support? someone in Malasia? Will they be able to get an engineer on the phone if they have a difficult problem that needs to be resolved immediately? one that speaks english?

and who are your customers going to talk to when their needs and requirements change? when they need something different.

and heres the real thing - if you ship the core of your business out of the country, your research and developement is now based on what? If all you have left are sales and marketing people, once your foreign design and manufacturing companies have learned how to build your product, what do they need you for? they can market your product and sell it without you.

and when THEY come up with the next generation of products, and THEY hold the next familiy of design patents, why should they deal with you? why should they offer their new stuff to you for a deal any better than anyone else would get?

Then YOU will be in the wrong column on the profit and loss spreadsheet of THEIR company.

do you really think you can send away the goose that lays the golden eggs, and still expect to have a steady flow of golden eggs in your in-basket every morning?

[jpsaul7usa]

Originally Posted by phrontist

Nation(a)lism has a negative connotation. Nationalism is not a vice per se, Nationalism without justification is. The fact stands that America has lead the world technologically for the majority of its history. This may change soon.

I don't mean to be picky, but the US has not been a leader in technology for very long. Anyone who's taken American history classes knows that the US depended on inventions from the real leaders, mainly Great Britain and Germany, for a very long time. The Industrial Revolution, for example, started on the other side of the Atlantic. The steam engine, the entire textile industry, and the beginning of the iron/steel industries were all pioneered by scientists and engineers in Europe. edit: The Industrial Revolution DID NOT begin in the United States. It began in Great Britain. The US did improve these fields, particularly in production, and gradually became a major player in the world of technology, but it really wasn't recognized as a world leader in technology until post-WWI when much of Europe was in pieces. edit: The US has been in a position of leadership in technology for about a century now, however, this is only abour 100 years of a 230 year existance, and much of our recent success has come from the fact that the world wars were fought oversees and not near our major cities and industrial areas. The US has led the world in manufacturing and manufacturing techniques since the beginning of the 1800s. Forgive me if I'm not getting all the details down 100%, as it's been 2 years since I took AP US.

My point is that the US hasn't always been the dominant country in politics, economics, and technology, and there really isn't any particular reason why it should be compared to other countries. Many people seem to think that Americans now have a right to be #1, but that kind of hidebound thinking is misled and potentially dangerous.

This is going to sound corny, but here goes: The US used to be a relatively small "rookie" country, if you will, and now as a big country it seems our team members resent other rookies trying to emulate our success. In FIRST, we honor and give out awards to teams who support others, especially rookies, but when we think about politics we take on a totally different attitude? Does that make any sense to anyone else?

[KenWittlief]

I don't mean to be picky, but the US has not been a leader in technology for very long.

I dont understand this? the industrial revolution didnt start till the late 1800s - yes the steam engine was key to the beginning of it - but once the basic concept for it took hold, american companies ran with it big time

but the real technology revolution came from men with names like: Wright, Ford, Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, Farnsworth (<extra credit if you know him)

and companies like Bell Labs, IBM, Intel, GE, GM

and the businessmen who took these new ideas and inventions and spread them across the nation and the world

its not arrogant to say the US lead the industrial and technology revolution - its a historical fact. Stuff that is being manufactured all around the world, was invented here - electric power, telecommunications, tubes and transistors, semiconductors, computers...

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

its not arrogant to say the US lead the industrial and technology revolution - its a historical fact. Stuff that is being manufactured all around the world, was invented here - electric power, telecommunications, tubes and transistors, semiconductors, computers...

No, but it is arrogant to assume the US is the only country in the world capable/deserving to invent and manufacture these goods. I've followed the whole outsourcing "phenomenom" for a while, and while I am young and employed, let me ask this:

Is there a difference in outsourcing internally, within the country, than outsourcing internationally? Say an engineering firm in New York decides it can cut costs by hiring engineers in Nevada to work, assuming a lower cost of living. Is that as bad as outsourcing to India or China? I've never heard so much contraversy about companies relocating within the country as I've heard about companies hiring overseas.

The bulk of Deans speech was to say let those millions of new engineers in India and China work with current technology if they can produce it cheaper. That is the purpose of competition after all. Good for them, they can make a living. What we need to do here is develop new technology, rather than rely on what's already here and common.

but the real technology revolution came from men with names like: Wright, Ford, Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, Farnsworth (<extra credit if you know him)

and companies like Bell Labs, IBM, Intel, GE, GM

Exactly! What Dean is saying is we need to become the next generation of great inventors, and start the next generation of great companies. We can't hope to make a living off our grandfathers and great grandfathers work, especially when the technology is already developed all over the world. It's up to us to keep the spirit of invention alive and keep pushing the boounds and "raising the bar" of technological innovation.

[Paul Copioli]

Here are my thoughts about Dean's speech and about what we (as mentors)are trying to do about outsourcing.

Let's just say it: Dean is not a good public speaker. If you talk to him individually you get a different view of him. I think I understood what he was trying (very poorly) to say about outsourcing. He has had many people come to him asking about outsourcing and how it will affect engineering jobs. His speech was in response to that. Other engineers at my work complain about it all the time. Things like, "did you know GM (or Ford/DCX/etc) is sending X amount of engineering jobs to China?" or "in 20 years we will not have any engineering jobs left in this Country." You know what I say to them?

"What are you doing about it?! I am mentoring a FIRST team and showing kids that engineering is cool. I (and MANY other engineers involved in FIRST) am taking unfocused kids and getting them interested in science and technology and some of them are becoming engineers." They look at me like I just insulted their mother. They just don't know what to say.

Dean did have some points regarding the numbers of engineers coming from other countries compared to our own and this is the fundamental problem we will have: not enough engineers to keep the technology edge.

Here is one quote from a Detroit News article from Thursday, March 6th 2003 (this article is posted outside my office): "U.S. technology, seen from an Indian point of view, seems overwhelmingly cool and speaks to our status as a nation." It goes on to say, "Many of our own kids find science and engineering difficult and aren't aware it's the source of our power." The article was about U.S. automakers getting engineers from India.

The above article pretty much sums up some of the reasons I am involved. Our students need to get excited about engineering and science in order to want to be an engineer (or scientist, etc.). Dean's speaking skills don't even get me excited about engineering and am already excited about it.

[byrne159]

Originally Posted by jpsaul7usa

In FIRST, we honor and give out awards to teams who support others, especially rookies, but when we think about politics we take on a totally different attitude? Does that make any sense to anyone else?

The thing about that is, FIRST isn't politics. And, as much as many of us enjoy FIRST more, politics affect us a lot more. It's great to see other people succeed, but in FIRST, we still get to go home to a warm house, a nice school, and parents who feel like they're worth something, even when we lost to the rookie team. In the political world, it's a whole different story, so it does make sense that we would approach it with a different mentality.

[RoboMom]

Interesting piece in Newsweek this week about outsourcing, including a brief interview with the CEO of Autodesk

[Adam Y.]

It is very hard to loose a job, but what about a home? a life? or a family? others have it much harder than your lack of not having the latest widescreen or 3.9 Ghrz machine. Just take a moment to look at the bigger picture and think about others...and enjoy life (oh and btw its just a speech)

I agree. Does anyone find it interesting that the three countries that are competiting with the United States technology wise also have problems with suicide? I was reading articles about how Japanese workers that loose their jobs just kill themselves.

Interesting piece in Newsweek this week about outsourcing, including a brief interview with the CEO of Autodesk

I saw an interview too with the CEO of Autodesk. She said the company could produce products not viable to create because of outsourcing.
Btw... Does anyone think that the reason most people are not interested in sciences is because they don't leave very good lives? Galileo died while in permament house arrest. The Wright Brothers did not make much money off the airplane. Tesla died forgotten and not even receive the credit for the radio or for developing our power system. Curie died of radiation posioning which is not fun. Einstein died forgoten and not even achieving his greatest goal. Archimedes was killed by a Roman soilder while doing a math problem.

[Jason Kixmiller]

Let me be the first to admit that I may not be the most educated on this subject. However, as someone aspiring to enter the field of engineering, I interpreted Mr. Kamen's message in a different way. Yes, some of the things he said did seem insensitive to foreign countries, and yes, he may not be the most eloquent of speakers, but both of these topics have already been covered. I understand the importance of keeping historical perspectives in mind as history often tends to repeat itself. However, history must also be realized and accepted for what it is: history. I feel that the outsourcing debate is just the tip of the iceberg. Outsourcing can be a potential problem, but a more threatening problem is complacency. America must not become complacent with the status that its forefathers worked for. It is only through the work of organizations such as FIRST and incredible mentors that America can hope to stir the leaders of tomorrow from complacency. If America wishes to stay competitive, its sons and daughters must continuously strive to better themselves and their country through math, science, medicine, technology, etc.

[swando]

I feel that Dean has the inalienable right and privelage to make any point he cares to make for the organization he founded. If you didn't like the speech, i guess that isnt a terrible thing, but i took it as a rare oppurtunity to experience a lecture from one of the geniuses of our time, and a very great man.

[fred]

Just a quick comment. America hasn't really taken over technology until perhaps the Soviet Union disbanded (remember, they were in space first), but now that we are on the top, we should try to stay on the top as long as possible. I think that is the main point that Dean was trying to make. But he went off on a lot of controversial tangents that I didn't agree with and didn't get the point across very well.

[Bharat Nain]

Isn't it clear that Dean said that just because of people were talking against science and technology(in the sense that there is no future to it)? He must have thought that it would drive people away from FIRST and thought it was necessary to say that.

I disagree with what Dean had to say about outsourcing. It gets down to this. You are Mr. X. You have worked in the XYZ industry for 20 years now. One fine day you get an text message on your cell saying "You're fired". You now go around looking for a new job for 2 years and can't find one. You wife has fallen sick and you have no money to get her treated. You can't afford any insurance. You have sold you car, your house, and all your precious jewelry.

Where is Mr. X headed?

This is just a small story which 1000's of people live.

Let's say you have a job. It's rare that anybody would find a dream job these days. You sit in that small box and go thru hell everyday. I am not even kidding, I have been in such offices and I see no scope of improving. Not to be against a job or anything, but thats just real life. In only about 20% of the offices you would find a OK work enviornment.

Getting back to outsourcing. I love to be in a country like America, and I know many others who do. But people have had to leave this country because their job got out-sourced and they have no source of living. They are forced to leave this country, no matter how much they wish not to. Isn't that pathetic?

How can everybody stay at the top of everything? Those who do I know what their life is like... They spend more time with their boss than their wives. They spend all their life doing something useful, but their life is probably ruined. We need those kinda people just because it would be impossible to grow without them, but they just can't enjoy life.

Speaking of experts, anybody heard of the name Robert Kiyosaki? Here is a quote from him "If you have money you life, if you don't you DIE, its already hapenning in other countries, and it is spreading in America" Robert is a well-known expert in financial stuff, care to argue against an expert?

Sorry if I offended anyone, its just my opinion. I love to see technology grow... but I just can't agree that outsourcing is too good.

[mtrawls]

You are Mr. X. You have worked in the XYZ industry for 20 years now. One fine day you get an text message on your cell saying "You're fired".

but I just can't agree that outsourcing is too good

Sure, that people are getting fired because their job is moving, isn't "good." Dean's message was: What are you going to do about it? Talk about it for ever, or invent the next best thing. In our capitalistic society, businesses are going to outsource ... on the one hand it tends to lower costs to the consumer (something most people like), and, true, on the other hand it has a personal effect, and many people get fired. No one is saying that those people getting fired is A Good Thing -- but you've got to understand the issue is not so simple as that!

What I got out of Dean's message is this. Outsourcing is happening, it always has in one disguise or another, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. You can either be the philosopher who ponders over a glass being half-empty or half-full ... or you can think like an engineer and find a solution to the problem. Invent something. Lacking that, go out and make yourself "marketable." But just because you fell of the horse, don't give up. Just because outsourcing is causing a problem for engineers now, if we keep our children from becoming engineers the problem will just get worse, not better.

care to argue against an expert?

Almost always. (As an aside, depending on an "expert" is an example of what's called a fallacy; "experts" seldom agree and are quite frequently wrong )

[Adam Y.]

Almost always. (As an aside, depending on an "expert" is an example of what's called a fallacy; "experts" seldom agree and are quite frequently wrong )

I agree. With economics almost everyone has an opinion and they usually conflict.

[Joe Matt]

My dad has been out of a job for over a year now, and yes, it's easier to write off outsourcing when you still have money coming in and you can feed your family. Just like people who protest genetically modified crops, it's easier to debate against it when your stomach is full and you can do without it.

As for Dean's speach, I think that mabey he should have re-thought out his words, but I agree with him somewhat on things.