Dean's Speech at Nationals

[byrne159]

As much as I love FIRST, I found that Dean Kamen's speech during the closing ceremonies at nationals was less than good. My complaints are not so surface-level as length or monotony, but rather the content of his words. I found it extremely insensitive because it seemed to me that he displayed a lack of respect for all people who are not engineers in his message about humanitarianism and technology. He trivialized the loss of approximately 1.9 million jobs due to "outsourcing" (since I don't want anyone to think I'm making this up, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ing-usat_x.htm) and he took a nationalistic stance on technology in the United States, which didn't strike me as very gracious or professional towards our international teams. So, I was wondering what anyone else got out of the speech, assuming that you didn't sleep through it.

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by byrne159

As much as I love FIRST, I found that Dean Kamen's speech during the closing ceremonies at nationals was less than good. My complaints are not so surface-level as length or monotony, but rather the content of his words. I found it extremely insensitive because it seemed to me that he displayed a lack of respect for all people who are not engineers in his message about humanitarianism and technology. He trivialized the loss of approximately 1.9 million jobs due to "outsourcing" (since I don't want anyone to think I'm making this up, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ing-usat_x.htm) and he took a nationalistic stance on technology in the United States, which didn't strike me as very gracious or professional towards our international teams. So, I was wondering what anyone else got out of the speech, assuming that you didn't sleep through it.

I disagree, I think he was spot on about outsourcing. He backed it up with historical facts, so I really don't see what there is to complain about. Do you have a rebuttal?

Nationlism 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.

While it may not be politically correct to say so, the American people do not have a magical right to anything. This goes for oil, jobs, etc. When people forget this, we get in long/wasteful wars.

If I lose my job because someone is willing to do it for less, how can I possibly blame this on the person who now has my job? I didn't produce at a price that was economically feasible. These are simply the harsh facts of free-market economies. I personally think the invisible hand does the job quite well, but if you think we should regulate it, by all means mail your congress-person.

I'd be happy to hear why Mr.Kamen was wrong, if you're willing to explain it to me.

Oh, and no hard feelings mate, it's only politics! Not something important like Operating Sytems or Text editors!

[Bruce C.]

Originally Posted by phrontist

Oh, and no hard feelings mate, it's only politics! Not something important like Operating Sytems or Text editors!

Now there's a man with his priorities straight!!!
Thank you.

[stevek]

I'd have to agree with Phrontist.

Anyone that disagrees with Deans Speach either doesn't fully understand Economics, thinks they are entitled to something, or just totally misunderstood him. There is no reason what so ever that a job should stay in the US if it can be produced at better quality, or similar quality at a lower cost. I'm not saying that production in the US "IS" Better or "ISN'T" Better. I'm saying "IF" , than why not.

It's true "Gracious Professionalism" to give opportunities to other countries that are qualified to do the work. It's not g.p. to say that we need to hord jobs and force companies to raise prices or go out of business. It becomes a win-win situation. The Company can "Survive" in business (no matter the company size that is a constant battle) by keeping costs down. The Public can have access to products at reasonable prices. The other country can have their economy stimulated by Jobs and corporate expansions.

Please look at this from a global economy view and not the view of someone that feels they are entitled to somthing for nothing.

Dean was saying that if the trained professionals are in other locations than why not make the world a better place by tapping into that knowledge base. There have been decades when those trained professionals came here to the US (sometimes leaving their families) just for work. In a global economy with many multi-national corporations out there- people no longer have to totally uproot to find work. If the knowlede base is concentrated in certain areas, then the jobs will follow.

The Filp side to the speech is the chalange- The Chalange to create the advancement of knowledge in the fields that allows for you or your company to draw customers/employees to you. To be the leader of the pack. If you own or possess the intelectual property then you will get the jobs. If what you do can be done by anyone comming out of college (maybe after a few months of training and experience) then dont expect to have a guarenteed job, especially if you want to get raises every year.

Dean was saying that it's still worth pursuing these fields, even though there is lots of outsourcing going on. Its worth it as long as you plan on being productive. If you want to just take up a seat or computer workstation someplace and collect a paycheck, then expect to be replaced.

One succussful Entrepeniur once stated about his billion dollar company- "No one guarentees his company business, in five years we could go from several billion a year to nothing" If our governments cand protect the companies from going under or guarentee business, then how can we expect our govenrments to guarentee Jobs from these same companies.

Hope this makes sence! (though I'm sure someone will dissagree)
(please note this responce was being written before the previous post was submitted) I am not trying to be insensitve to your struggles or anyone elses. Dean wasnt rich when he we 18 or what ever he was when he invented the Auto-Suringe. Comments that say that companies or all rich people cant relate is not fare to them. If you ever talk one on one with them about these situations you'd learn that they often look beyond their own personal needs (since those are well taken care of) and look at a bigger picture. I am self-employed and my wife is home with 2yr-old twins, health insurance is off the wall and other expences keep mounting. I'm by no means finacially independent at this point in my life. But I can still look at a greater good for the world. If the leading techonolgy companies went totally out of business (instead of outsourcing) that would be no good to anyone in the world. Every country would loose the work and we'd loose many of the facilites/resouces to develop new products. Dont forget Dean was trying to inspire students to bring the Jobs to you by having the knowledge instead of jobs moving away. Ant thats true to anyone in any country. Dean just taks about the US because thats his point of reference in his life. Its not Nationalistic, so give him a break. Best of luck to you and your family!

[byrne159]

Originally Posted by phrontist

I disagree, I think he was spot on about outsourcing. He backed it up with historical facts, so I really don't see what there is to complain about. Do you have a rebuttal?

Nationlism 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.

While it may not be politically correct to say so, the American people do not have a magical right to anything. This goes for oil, jobs, etc. When people forget this, we get in long/wasteful wars.

If I lose my job because someone is willing to do it for less, how can I possibly blame this on the person who now has my job? I didn't produce at a price that was economically feasible. These are simply the harsh facts of free-market economies. I personally think the invisible hand does the job quite well, but if you think we should regulate it, by all means mail your congress-person.

I'd be happy to hear why Mr.Kamen was wrong, if you're willing to explain it to me.

Oh, and no hard feelings mate, it's only politics! Not something important like Operating Sytems or Text editors!

I'm all about some healthy debate, definitely no hard feelings.

My reasoning is this: his ideas on outsourcing make sense coming from a corporate standpoint. However, when you're considering American families who were affected by the mass amount of outsourcing in recent years (much more so than ever before, despite how long it has existed) and the way it affects their lives, it's a completely different story. And I don't mean to say that American families more important than anything else, but I do think that financial security of said families should be a priority for this country. And yes, you're right about the international economy, however it's very different when looking at the US economy. As more people lose more jobs, less money is going to the government (and government entities like public schools) and more money is used by the government to support these unemployed citizens with unemployment checks. Part of my basis for this view is simply the town that I live in, where the three major employers are Colorado State University, HP, and Agilent Technologies (my father's former employer). In a city of 120,000, about 4000 engineers have been laid off in the past four years because of the outsourcing done at HP and Agilent. Although I have sympathy for the Malaysians who have these jobs now, because I believe they deserve to enter these fields just as much as any American, I care a lot more about the fact that my family is trying to send my brother to college and both my parents to grad school on my mother's salary, and my mom is a public school teacher. To me, it's offensive for Dean Kamen to send a message to me, and the other members of my team in similar situations, that our parents need to simply raise the bar (no pun intended) and find new technologies to get back on track. They don't care as much about having the jobs they love back as they do about finding a way to get health insurance for their families. Since he clearly isn't experiencing the same threat of financial security as many of the rest of us, he fails to see it from this personal level. It's not that I believe we need to try to stop outsourcing from happening; it's inevitable, but I wish he would show some sensitivity to those of us who have been affected it and try to understand that it's not as easy as he thinks to just get back in the game. As cliche as it may be to say, these aren't just numbers, they're lives.

I feel the same way about his comments on America leading the way in the technological world. True as his comments may have been, they were insensitive, which is the issue for me. His comments also ignored the feats of other countries that have been made. What about the military technology that came out of Europe during World War Two? What about medical technology that's come out of Canada? We've done great things, but we aren't the only ones. We're dependent on other countries for technology and they're dependent on us, and I felt like Dean's speech only displayed the latter.

I think that basically, his speech really showed how economically different he is from most of the FIRST kids, and I felt like he trivialized something that affects a lot of us and a lot of our mentors.

[fred]

I was sort of torn on the speech also I was agitating over Chairman's, so I didn't quite get anything. About outsourcing (THIS IS JUST MY OPINION!), Dean Kamen can talk all he wants about how we need to come up with new technology and that once we do this simple little thing like coming up with a machine that can make food out of air particles or something, we'll be fine. I hate to break it to Mr. Kamen, but not everyone is as brilliant as he is and not everyone is going to come up with these new technologies. Just because we're in FIRST doesn't mean that there aren't other intelligent people out there. Mr. Kamen said that America has always led in technology and that this can continue. Once again, I hate to break it to Dean, but the fact of the matter is that China and India are catching up very fast and I expect them to catch and overtake America soon if there aren't wholesale changes (we can have our MIT's, but check out the competition to get into a university like IIT in India).

Plus, you tell the average American who doesn't have a job to "go invent new technology." There are just so many things wrong with that that it's sick. "Sure, Mr. Kamen, let me just go invent new technology with umm, what resources? I don't have a job you know."

I'd also like to reply to phrontist's comments because he had some interesting ones. When I lose my job to someone in India because he works for less than I do and I'm living on the street, I don't think I'm going to be saying, "At least it's feasible that I lost my job."

Comments on nationalism. You say it's bad, but since 9/11, what do you think the movement with all of the flags and stuff has been. Yeah, it's not militaristic, but it is nationalism. I am NOT saying that nationalism is a bad thing. You can look at history, but I don't think it's going to help a lot. What the US may need is economic nationalism. How would that work? What are the ins and outs? I don't know. I'm just stating my opinions right now. I don't have a solution and AP European is calling.

In conclusion, I am certainly not trying to offend anyone or bash anyone else's statements. My comments do not represent Team 341 at all. It's just my spin on things right now.

[Mr. Lim]

Automobile plants moved to Mexico

Call centers moved to India

What ISN'T manufactured in China nowadays?

Will we be upset when our FIRST (Inter)National Championship Awards start getting "outsourced" to other countries like Canada, Japan, South Korea, China, or even Iran when the day comes when they too have FIRST teams?

like these:
http://www.robocup.org/games/03Padova/3174.html

Shouldn't a person or group be rewarded and recognized for their efforts, regardless of the colour of their skin, race, creed, religion, nationality, or which side of what border their house lies? Are these not the founding principles of our "nation"? Should they not be echoed by FIRST? our governments? our corporations?

Why do we talk about our "nation" losing 1000 jobs from outsoucing, yet fail to realize that 1000 more people half way around the world have gained jobs, often with a much larger and far reaching benefit.

Maybe WE can't buy that over-sized, excessive, top of the line, $60000 SUV anymore, because we've lost our IT jobs to someone in India. But this Indian will use his/her $30000 to provide food, shelter and life's amenities for himself and his poor extended family.

Doesn't trading an unnecessary SUV for one person in exchange for food and shelter for many seem reasonable? Does it hurt even more that this Indian probably has a much more extensive education, and will perform the job, not only cheaper, but much more effectively than his/her American counterpart?

Why does it make us feel hurt? Are we working toward making THE world a better place? or just OUR world a better place?

Why is one nation more important than another...?

Why is our nation more important than yours?

Ask yourself these questions... because I'm asking them over here, and millions more in the Middle East are asking too...

-Shawn...

[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

[KenWittlief]

outsourcing is fine
as long as its someone elses job that is being outsourced, not yours

the problem is, you dont just show up at work for 8 hours a day, then go home - for many hi-tech jobs you put a lot of creativity into it and you personally further the state of the art

but when that gets sent overseas, you have nothing to show for it.

Dean would feel differently if the chinese or japanese government decided his Segway is nothing but a classic inverted pendulum PID control system, voided his international patents, and started flooding $300 Segway clones into the US - when YOUR source of income has been outsourced, its a different story.

BTW - 9 out of 10 patents dont stand up in court when contested.

also, nationalism is nothing but putting your preference to a certain part of the world, or a certain form of government - if you are willing to follow your job to china or india, and live there for the rest of your life, thats cool

but north america is different in one aspect - our ancestors did not live here as far back as we can trace - at some point in our family tree, our ancestors decided to leave their homeland and move here, and many of us dont want to go live in another part of the world.

Is that nationalism? absolutely?

is it a bad thing? I dont think so.

[Pat Roche]

The way I read into it was that Dean was trying to start a "revolution." We in the latter part of the computer age. I think what he was suggesting is that its time for the US to move on to a new technology. Theres an entire universe out there to be discovered that we havent focused (obviously there has been some focus just not enough) completely on because of a lack of technology. In my mind I believe he was suggesting we change our focus. Let the world catch up with computers....well go to mars instead

Just the way I read it,

-Pat