The U.S. is risking an academic brain drain(axios.com)
axios.com
The U.S. is risking an academic brain drain
https://www.axios.com/trumps-political-uncertainty-risks-an-american-brain-drain-2474420200.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioslogin&stream=technology
203 comments
What you say is so true even that micro-level.
At my company, we were driven by by high code quality. We would try our best to minimize escalations, we will never release new code on Friday or late in a day because people have lives. We really made sure no one was working late or on weekends. And we were still competitive and profitable business.
Then we get bought by a Fortune 500 company. Slowly new rules come in. Deadline driven projects. Code Quality is no longer important. People are expected to release barely working code just so that we can do a press release. People are working late and on weekends. Code is released on Friday at 5PM because who cares about employee happiness.
The result is smartest people have already left the company. This has led to more escalations and less gatekeepers to prevent bad design decisions. People are constantly leaving. I am still here but I am passively looking, so are most of the remaining people. Right now, market is good, so I might see a pay raise but I have told recruiters, I can take pay cut for a great work-life balance.
At my company, we were driven by by high code quality. We would try our best to minimize escalations, we will never release new code on Friday or late in a day because people have lives. We really made sure no one was working late or on weekends. And we were still competitive and profitable business.
Then we get bought by a Fortune 500 company. Slowly new rules come in. Deadline driven projects. Code Quality is no longer important. People are expected to release barely working code just so that we can do a press release. People are working late and on weekends. Code is released on Friday at 5PM because who cares about employee happiness.
The result is smartest people have already left the company. This has led to more escalations and less gatekeepers to prevent bad design decisions. People are constantly leaving. I am still here but I am passively looking, so are most of the remaining people. Right now, market is good, so I might see a pay raise but I have told recruiters, I can take pay cut for a great work-life balance.
It shouldn't be a trade off. You can get a pay raise and get a great work-life balance.
Yeah, don't tell them that. If, at the very end, you get an offer that won't budge, then you can take the cut if you want.
Can you describe what you mean by escalations?
An escalation is an issue that cannot be fixed by a support engineer using regular troubleshooting methods and known fixes and has to be escalated to the development team. They are usually extremely costly and disruptive.
Exactly this.
Probably incidents which are escalated all the way to rapid fix by programmers.
I found this to be pretty much a very biased subjective analogy. I am a european so I hope my "anti-european-rant" will be better accepted but lets see...
Europeans often have this illusion of a working social democracy compared to the US suggesting their by default offered benefits to be superior to the offers from the US. That's not the case. In a lot of middle-income-class positions you get most of the things you described as perks. Health care support check. Additional vac days check. Plus a much bigger paycheck.
Surely I can agree with treating the workers well and in my book this equals with not exploiting them (so no excessive overtimes, phone calls, onduties etc). But this is not a universal thing in Europe you cannot really generalize this and a lot of the EU companies can be very exploitative even if it's ILLEGAL.
Europeans often have this illusion of a working social democracy compared to the US suggesting their by default offered benefits to be superior to the offers from the US. That's not the case. In a lot of middle-income-class positions you get most of the things you described as perks. Health care support check. Additional vac days check. Plus a much bigger paycheck.
Surely I can agree with treating the workers well and in my book this equals with not exploiting them (so no excessive overtimes, phone calls, onduties etc). But this is not a universal thing in Europe you cannot really generalize this and a lot of the EU companies can be very exploitative even if it's ILLEGAL.
So then I guess my takeaway is then that there's great and poor working expectations and conditions in both areas. I found the US to be a highly negative experience and don't wish the stress on anyone. Being able to go home at night and not have to be on call or work overtime because it's expected is a great relief. I'll take that over a 100k salary any day. And certainly over my middle income job in California. However since I'm in tech I also get free choice essentially. We in this industry have it pretty lucky in that our skills are easily transferable across borders.
I am an American that found peace and happiness in Europe however because I am American you are right to say I'm biased. You don't live in a place all your life and not notice the negatives more.
I am an American that found peace and happiness in Europe however because I am American you are right to say I'm biased. You don't live in a place all your life and not notice the negatives more.
Well I guess this is a classic case of the grass is greener on the other side :-).
Enjoy living in here.
There's so much variation that it's difficult to make a comparison. In my experience, it's reasonable for a senior developer in the US but not in SV to make over $130k in a 9-5 with a month's vacation. Compared to that, $60k and maybe an extra week's vacation doesn't look as nice. Developers are definitely pushed too hard in the US, but they are also definitely underpaid in Europe.
Despite the fact that all we can do here is argue using anecdotes, I'll toss mine in - I live in the US, not on the west coast (midwest for me). I make over 100k a year, I have excellent benefits, lots of vacation time, and when I leave work after 8 hours, nobody bothers me.
I do feel incredibly lucky in this situation - I know not everyone gets the stuff I do. But I feel like maybe you might be mistaking "programming in SV/startup community" for "programming in the US". The rest of the country (for the most part) isn't as completely crazy and (sorry to say) idiotic with programming jobs and lifestyles as SV is.
I do feel incredibly lucky in this situation - I know not everyone gets the stuff I do. But I feel like maybe you might be mistaking "programming in SV/startup community" for "programming in the US". The rest of the country (for the most part) isn't as completely crazy and (sorry to say) idiotic with programming jobs and lifestyles as SV is.
Our company is based in Oregon, not a typical "startup" in that we are a bootstrapped lifestyle business, but we pay competitive wages, full good medical/dental/vision, and a 10% matched 401k. We have lax vacation time policies, typically meaning around four weeks, plus three months paternity and maternity. People work their forty and enjoy frequent three day weekends. We make software for bicyclists so most of our team ride a lot, and we comp all those expenses and a good amount of their fun bike trips. Not to mention a 2k bike budget when they get hired. All that, and we still have a hell of a time finding good candidates with the right attitude. Blows my mind that I can read people here saying they have to move out of the country to feel respected, and we have a hard time finding people...
Just another anecdotal rant to add to the pile :)
Just another anecdotal rant to add to the pile :)
I'll add another one: I'm in SV, good money/benefits, work 40 hour weeks. I'm good at what I do but nowhere near world-class.
There are great companies all around the world, and there are crap companies all over the world.
There are great companies all around the world, and there are crap companies all over the world.
But in Sweden almost EVERYONE (full time workers) gets 5 weeks vacation, 4 weeks contiguous, no questions asked. Not just engineers at great companies.
Sounds like high-school teachers in the US. Even the same pay scale.
From what people are saying (myself included) is that you can find those jobs in the US but possibly with double the salary. There's more variation.
From what people are saying (myself included) is that you can find those jobs in the US but possibly with double the salary. There's more variation.
I think you're still missing the point. It isn't all about what we can individually get. I don't want to live in a country where you have to have a special high-paying job to get fair and reasonable holidays and healthcare.
In conclusion, America is a land of contrasts.
The developer market is so much bigger than the valley. I went there and left because, LOL like I'm joining a startup for 150K to live in SF.
If you don't care about brand name then work in other parts of the country, even remote. Easily pull down six figures and live like a king compared to Europeans. Typing this from Europe.
If you don't care about brand name then work in other parts of the country, even remote. Easily pull down six figures and live like a king compared to Europeans. Typing this from Europe.
I work in a company that has significant European presence. Plus I have worked for a year in Netherlands. Company approach to European employees and US employees are very different. Sure you get paid a lot more in the US, but most companies are very stingy with vacations (doesn't matter what the vacation rules are). People in our European offices are routinely out for the entire month of August, very little email during that period. They are also not expected to work beyond office hours. In addition, parental leaves are much more generous in European offices. Further, risk of layoffs are minimal.
When I used to work in Netherlands, regular employees only worked 4days / week for 36 hrs. They would take a day off in the middle of the week.
Having experienced both, the European work life is much more preferable to me, especially when you have a family.
When I used to work in Netherlands, regular employees only worked 4days / week for 36 hrs. They would take a day off in the middle of the week.
Having experienced both, the European work life is much more preferable to me, especially when you have a family.
Which again does not contradict what i wrote does it ?
You may prefer it to be the norm but it cannot be considered a universally the best approach. I mean look ... some people actually prefer the steretypical american way. And then there are people like you that have different preferences.
What I was trying to say is that in the US you get to get nice salary and the euro perks quiet often but in Europe you are pretty much stuck when it comes to money.
What I was trying to say is that in the US you get to get nice salary and the euro perks quiet often but in Europe you are pretty much stuck when it comes to money.
You are comparing the worst of Europe (companies can be very exploitative even if it's ILLEGA) with the best of USA (a lot of middle-income-class positions) and not even the complete thing (you get most of the things). That's not a fair comparison.
These things cannot really be compared. As i said some people prefer the social benefits to be the norm some other (myself included) prefer the money. A lot of middle income positions in many places in europe are treated like a mere bricklayers
>In a lot of middle-income-class positions you get most of the things you described as perks.
I don't care about getting it myself. Although, it should be pointed out, you don't have to 'negotiate' for health care or notify someone of your preexisting conditions or any of that crap. You just have to turn up and you'll be treated entirely for free.
But I also want to live in a country where this applies to everyone that doesn't earn as much as me too.
I don't care about getting it myself. Although, it should be pointed out, you don't have to 'negotiate' for health care or notify someone of your preexisting conditions or any of that crap. You just have to turn up and you'll be treated entirely for free.
But I also want to live in a country where this applies to everyone that doesn't earn as much as me too.
Yep, I'm a US citizen with an American PhD in CS. I did a five year stint at a research lab in Iceland, and after two years back in the states, we're in the process of moving back to Reykjavik now, for most of the reasons you're discussing (as well as the bleak outlook for US science funding, and well, the overall bleak outlook for the US as just a suitable place to live at this point, but hey).
It's not just academia and a bleak social outlook. I've been playing around with starting a business, and the USA is not, not, NOT a good place to bootstrap anything involving R&D or manufacturing. Without enormous capital reserves to back you or political connections, you're dead before you leave the gate.
Case in point; my state offers a 40% tax break to manufacturing companies. No, sorry, the governor vetoed that. They offer a 40% tax break to ONE gargantuan manufacturing company. I'd have to pay full price.
I could compete from China. I could play on an even playing field in Europe if I'm gonna pay out the nose anyways. Or I could stay in the US and get bled like a stuck pig until incumbent players can pay a pittance for my operation's desiccated corpse. American dream, my ass...
Case in point; my state offers a 40% tax break to manufacturing companies. No, sorry, the governor vetoed that. They offer a 40% tax break to ONE gargantuan manufacturing company. I'd have to pay full price.
I could compete from China. I could play on an even playing field in Europe if I'm gonna pay out the nose anyways. Or I could stay in the US and get bled like a stuck pig until incumbent players can pay a pittance for my operation's desiccated corpse. American dream, my ass...
You have to play the politics, some way, any way.
Iceland is great.. most likely place to survive a nuclear winter.
Do you have a source for that?
Have you looked into employment with a US government (either state, local, or federal)? It's pretty much exactly what you described, plus you get to work on real problems instead of churning your minimally viable product into framework flavor of the month.
Problems you mentioned are not unheard of from my personal experience but it's highly dependent on which company or industry. Most of my peers who work in the software industry never had a problem of getting vacation time of few weeks and never work more than 8 hours per day. Of course there's a few times during the year where working more hours are encouraged (e.g. before release/deadline), but even then it's pretty rare. A lot of my friends from foreign countries will not hesitate to come to U.S. to work if they can resolve their visa situation. Also, this article mostly addresses academic jobs which is a totally different story from typical corp jobs.
Yes, all of the above. Plus, those same sorts of policies keep the US employment rolls lower. More people would be employed if the full time work week was 30 hours (time and a half above that), for instance.
> Well in Europe you usually get your 2 weeks
Are there EU nations that give so little paid vacation? At least in the West, I think at least 3 weeks (non contiguous) is the norm...
Are there EU nations that give so little paid vacation? At least in the West, I think at least 3 weeks (non contiguous) is the norm...
In the us, I get 4 weeks and can take it basically however I want. I can choose to get 5 weeks by buying it. Depending on my team I might not be able to take the month leading up to taxes off, but a month off is easily done and happens often.
I have 25 days in Sweden and my UK colleagues 28 days, but they still envy me because of how my 5w are mine to choose and aren't used up on bank holidays etc. When summer comes I usually have 4-5w off and they have 2 or 3.
Having to use pto for sick days also doesn't happen anywhere in the EU.
Having to use pto for sick days also doesn't happen anywhere in the EU.
> In the us, I get 4 weeks and can take it basically however I want. I can choose to get 5 weeks by buying it.
I can get up to six weeks with roll over. Used up 4 weeks for my wedding, still had 2 weeks left, saved one of them up so I'd have 5 weeks in total the next year.
It is very hard to paint the US with a broad brush.
I can get up to six weeks with roll over. Used up 4 weeks for my wedding, still had 2 weeks left, saved one of them up so I'd have 5 weeks in total the next year.
It is very hard to paint the US with a broad brush.
In Europe 4 weeks of PTO is the minimum by law IIRC. I'm inclined to think the parent meant "2 continuous weeks" (I'd have to check but AFAIK at least in germany your employer has to grant that as well, either by law or by court interpretation of the law. Take this with a grain of salt, no legal advice, yadda yadda...)
The legal minimum across the EU is four weeks of paid annual leave.
Source (article 7):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
Source (article 7):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
It varies. Most importantly the "good countries" have 5-6 weeks plus all sick days, bank holidays etc.
That is, you get at least 5W in summer (typically).
The uk for exemple I think has 28days pto as a minimum, but as bank holidays count against those 28, it's hard to get a long holiday.
That is, you get at least 5W in summer (typically).
The uk for exemple I think has 28days pto as a minimum, but as bank holidays count against those 28, it's hard to get a long holiday.
This is interesting. I work for a Swiss company with an office in SV. We often joke about our European employees and their work-life balance.
Well, I ended up working with a team in Switzerland and holy crap, they work hard! Emails coming in at all hours of the night, meetings that go well past dinner time.
I didn't notice any difference in work life balance. Our office has the same vacation policy as HQ, so even that was the same.
Well, I ended up working with a team in Switzerland and holy crap, they work hard! Emails coming in at all hours of the night, meetings that go well past dinner time.
I didn't notice any difference in work life balance. Our office has the same vacation policy as HQ, so even that was the same.
How do the salaries in Switzerland compare to SV?
It sort of depends on where you work. I'm in the US and I get five weeks of vacation. My colleagues take off contiguous weeks all the time. Of course you're not going to get that in your first year at a startup, but that sort of thing is available in the US if you're willing to take a bit less money and you stay at the same company for awhile.
[deleted]
60k in Sweden: 30k after tax
60k in U.S.: 40k after tax
It depends on where you live. It's about 37k usd after taxes in Stockholm.
Then remove health costs from the US remainder, equivalent to those provided by taxes alone in Sweden.
Add to that in Sweden you also have:
* Long (1+ years) state funded parental leave.
* Childcare at a negligible cost.
* Free education all the way through University.According to my calculations 60k in Sweden would land you some 43k after taxes. At 60k the progressive taxes in Sweden are just starting to hurt. Somewhere north of 80k, it starts to feel like you only work for the government...
If you don't understand how progressive taxation works, maybe. High taxes on the marginal dollar after your middle-class life expenses are met isn't so bad.
Particularly if you realize that your late-career taxes paid for the two years of maternity leave your family enjoyed when you were 30 and didn't make a ton of money.
Well, there are progressive taxes and there are progressive taxes. In Sweden, the taxes were a bit too "progressive" a couple of decades ago, when you could have a margin tax rate above 100%. It's a bit better now though...
But if I understand you correctly, your argument is that once my expenses are met, I might as well give the rest of my money to the government?
But if I understand you correctly, your argument is that once my expenses are met, I might as well give the rest of my money to the government?
You might as well give a larger fraction of it to the government.
This is not really a controversial position since almost all jurisdictions have some version of progressive taxation.
Among other effects, it compensates somewhat for value added taxes (eg sales taxes) that consume a disproportionate fraction of the income of poor people.
This is not really a controversial position since almost all jurisdictions have some version of progressive taxation.
Among other effects, it compensates somewhat for value added taxes (eg sales taxes) that consume a disproportionate fraction of the income of poor people.
Well, I do give a larger fraction of it to the government. My current margin tax rate exceeds 60%.
I never claimed it was controversial but the consequence of this (good or bad) is that I feel more inclined to ask for more free time rather than a raise. From a government position, the good is that it potentially opens up for more people getting employment, the bad is that I will pay less taxes (because I earn less). Had the progressive tax rate hit me less hard I might instead work to increase my salary so that in the end I would pay more in absolute money with the lower margin tax rate than with the current one.
The compensation you talk about goes both ways. If you have a high income, you're more likely to have a higher education and with that accumulated student debt that needs to be paid off. It can also be seen as one incentive to push yourself through getting a university degree, which again is seen as beneficial by most governments.
I guess you can see it both ways, either from a fairness perspective or a utilitarian perspective. I'm personally quite fond of fairness but, and this is a large but, I'm convinced that too much focus on fairness can be detrimental to everyone, including those who consider themselves unfairly treated (and hope to get even by more fairness). See my example above, if I paid more in absolute money but less in relative, that would seem less fair, but it would be more beneficial for everyone. Of course it would benefit me more thus be a thorn in the eye of some.
I never claimed it was controversial but the consequence of this (good or bad) is that I feel more inclined to ask for more free time rather than a raise. From a government position, the good is that it potentially opens up for more people getting employment, the bad is that I will pay less taxes (because I earn less). Had the progressive tax rate hit me less hard I might instead work to increase my salary so that in the end I would pay more in absolute money with the lower margin tax rate than with the current one.
The compensation you talk about goes both ways. If you have a high income, you're more likely to have a higher education and with that accumulated student debt that needs to be paid off. It can also be seen as one incentive to push yourself through getting a university degree, which again is seen as beneficial by most governments.
I guess you can see it both ways, either from a fairness perspective or a utilitarian perspective. I'm personally quite fond of fairness but, and this is a large but, I'm convinced that too much focus on fairness can be detrimental to everyone, including those who consider themselves unfairly treated (and hope to get even by more fairness). See my example above, if I paid more in absolute money but less in relative, that would seem less fair, but it would be more beneficial for everyone. Of course it would benefit me more thus be a thorn in the eye of some.
It's only a peak b/c you just need more people there to start companies. Get more people; more companies; more traction; more pay.
Europe is able to do this because the US subsidizes their existence.
1. Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs.
2. US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere.
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-us-subsidizes-cheap-drugs-europe-...
1. Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs.
2. US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere.
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-us-subsidizes-cheap-drugs-europe-...
> US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere.
The US doesn't “defend the world” by any stretch of the imagination. As for what it does commit to defending, well, other countries wouldn't let the US put the forces and facilities in their countries that the US wants there for global force protection of the US didn't also make a credible commitment to mutual defense; the US doesn't “defend the world” as a charitable service, it agrees to assist with the defence of select countries in order to contain others, secure access to key resources, and be in a position to project force to advance US interests anywhere in the world.
The US doesn't “defend the world” by any stretch of the imagination. As for what it does commit to defending, well, other countries wouldn't let the US put the forces and facilities in their countries that the US wants there for global force protection of the US didn't also make a credible commitment to mutual defense; the US doesn't “defend the world” as a charitable service, it agrees to assist with the defence of select countries in order to contain others, secure access to key resources, and be in a position to project force to advance US interests anywhere in the world.
I can tell you're someone who has actually read the core objectives of branches of the military and has experience with their relationships with other countries.
If you're reading this and would like a concrete example of what the guy above me means, take a look at the U.S. history in major foreign bases like Okinawa. Okinawa does not exist so we can defend Japan. It serves as an Asian FOB, helps contain North Korea / China, secures our access to important shipping routes, and of course "projects force".
The "U.S. protects Europe and the rest of the world" is just some jingoist narrative with no factual basis.
If you're reading this and would like a concrete example of what the guy above me means, take a look at the U.S. history in major foreign bases like Okinawa. Okinawa does not exist so we can defend Japan. It serves as an Asian FOB, helps contain North Korea / China, secures our access to important shipping routes, and of course "projects force".
The "U.S. protects Europe and the rest of the world" is just some jingoist narrative with no factual basis.
> Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs.
You conveniently forget the European drug companies who develop drugs—and completely pay for the research—while negotiating price ceilings, and then export the same drug to the US, selling it 5x the price for pure profit (minus distribution/marketing/lobby costs).
Disclaimer: my Dad managed research at one of those large European pharma companies.
You conveniently forget the European drug companies who develop drugs—and completely pay for the research—while negotiating price ceilings, and then export the same drug to the US, selling it 5x the price for pure profit (minus distribution/marketing/lobby costs).
Disclaimer: my Dad managed research at one of those large European pharma companies.
So they get (most of) their profit from the US market. How is that different from the point made in the message you reply to?
You proved my point, if US did what Euro countries do to us, European pharma companies would lose their primary profit source. It's a wealth drain from US citizens to Europe.
Maybe you shouldn't choose to have such a terrible healthcare system then.
I appreciate that you've moved toward civility in your comments on HN, but we need you to go further, because comments like this add no information and are just rude. Could you please just be scrupulously civil and respectful and only post comments that have good signal/noise ratio?
Other users have reformed themselves this way (I'm one of them), so I'm sure you can, once you internalize the value of what we're shooting for here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It isn't primarily an ethical issue, if that helps; it's about trying to avoid degradation into boredom. Flame-style comments provoke worse, both quality- and quantity-wise.
Other users have reformed themselves this way (I'm one of them), so I'm sure you can, once you internalize the value of what we're shooting for here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It isn't primarily an ethical issue, if that helps; it's about trying to avoid degradation into boredom. Flame-style comments provoke worse, both quality- and quantity-wise.
Yeah that was pretty worthless as a comment.
No, it obviously doesn't, unless of course you think the US manages to lead the world by acting against its own interests.
In addition, and as far as agitprop goes, this particular argument begs the question: if this is the case, why are we doing it in the first place?
This kind of juvenile ideology, claiming some pretended affront to some national interest to justify some weakly supported exceptionalism and eventually supremacism, is old as the world. As I don't want to invoke Godwin so early in the afternoon, I'll just mention this is also quite a popular theme amongst wife beaters.
A significant segment of the US population is following a well known path for all of those acquantied with early 20th century European history. It's only that the US is still catching up with all that, being such a young nation, and not having been vaccinated against fascism like pretty much most of the old world. It's gonna get rough I'm afraid.
In addition, and as far as agitprop goes, this particular argument begs the question: if this is the case, why are we doing it in the first place?
This kind of juvenile ideology, claiming some pretended affront to some national interest to justify some weakly supported exceptionalism and eventually supremacism, is old as the world. As I don't want to invoke Godwin so early in the afternoon, I'll just mention this is also quite a popular theme amongst wife beaters.
A significant segment of the US population is following a well known path for all of those acquantied with early 20th century European history. It's only that the US is still catching up with all that, being such a young nation, and not having been vaccinated against fascism like pretty much most of the old world. It's gonna get rough I'm afraid.
Drug makers spend more in marketing than R&D, and I strongly suspect that most of their marketing dollars are spent in the US. So all we're really subsidising is more marketing to doctors via our high cost health care system.
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-puttin...
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-puttin...
This was very apparent to me when recently on a visit in the US. There were a lot more TV commercials for different kinds of drugs than I'm used to. Ironically the required(?) list of potential side effects at the end of each ad often sounded worse than the condition the drug was supposed to treat in the first place.
Drug makers spend more in marketing than R&D
Absolutely untrue. It's amazing how this "fact" continues to be shared even when shown to be false.
Absolutely untrue. It's amazing how this "fact" continues to be shared even when shown to be false.
A simple search would have saved you some embarrassment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
I knew you'd reference that study, it is really poorly done. Lumping all SG&A into "marketing" is wrong.
SG&A is a catch all. It included things like staplers, secretaries, etc. it's not purely marketing.
SG&A is a catch all. It included things like staplers, secretaries, etc. it's not purely marketing.
The US chooses to do this though. The US can stop doing this anytime it wants to, nobody is forcing us to.
If we don't like subsidizing Pharma companies maybe it should just stop doing it. It's not like Europe is asking us to. Similarly, I'm all for closing bases. If the US wants to close bases and cut military spending, who's stopping us?
If we don't like subsidizing Pharma companies maybe it should just stop doing it. It's not like Europe is asking us to. Similarly, I'm all for closing bases. If the US wants to close bases and cut military spending, who's stopping us?
Russia invading Europe is what's stopping us.
Russia is part of Europe, Russia invading other countries in Europe is presumably a threat those countries would be highly motivated to address. The US keeps forces there and defence commitments because we're afraid of how Europe might act to protect itself if we weren't there, and because we want other countries in the region to feel inclined to accommodate US interests. (In both cases, “Finlandization” is an applicable concept.)
Russia has 144 million people and a GDP on par with Italy. The EU has 500 million people and - even without NATO and the UK - French nukes, with the ability to develop them in other countries if necessary. Russians aren't stupid, they would never attack us.
Fun fact: Russia has never once invaded Central Europe. Central / West European countries have invaded Russia a few times.
Russia does not need space or natural resources and it would be difficult to conquer its way to the soft factors it is missing.
Given the strength of most European countries and their lack of natural resources, the chance of a large war being a net positive for Russia is small. Of course, sometimes there are internal reasons to start a war. Falklands and some US wars and, I think, most of Russia's small wars after the cold war come to mind.
Given the strength of most European countries and their lack of natural resources, the chance of a large war being a net positive for Russia is small. Of course, sometimes there are internal reasons to start a war. Falklands and some US wars and, I think, most of Russia's small wars after the cold war come to mind.
Fun fact: Russia, as the dominant part of the Soviet Union, invaded Poland, which is in central Europe.
Defends against who and what...
If US stops initiated wars, I bet the world can be a safer place already...
If US stops initiated wars, I bet the world can be a safer place already...
>US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere.
You really think that? I mean come on
You really think that? I mean come on
I totally agree. The US should withdraw all its military personnel and equipment from Europe as quickly as feasible.
Of course US does. We really need to acknowledge that. Don't believe it? Support US withdrawing from mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan and NATO.
>Support US withdrawing from mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan and NATO.
I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it.
I'm afraid there's a point at which America's overwhelming military, cultural and political dominance itself becomes a problem. Even if one can argue that, as hegemonies go, you could do worse, superpowers and their chess games are also holding the world back.
I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it.
I'm afraid there's a point at which America's overwhelming military, cultural and political dominance itself becomes a problem. Even if one can argue that, as hegemonies go, you could do worse, superpowers and their chess games are also holding the world back.
People greatly underestimate the magnitude of bloodshed that would come with American isolationism.
Because of Pax Americana, most people can't even grasp the concept or seriousness of, say, a neighboring nation dropping bombs on your city just because they want your territory. The US is insulated from such concerns, Europe is rife with them :)
Because of Pax Americana, most people can't even grasp the concept or seriousness of, say, a neighboring nation dropping bombs on your city just because they want your territory. The US is insulated from such concerns, Europe is rife with them :)
Pax Americana can't last forever. The world must inevitably move on from the the old "gods playing chess" paradigm of East vs West. Something has to come next.
This is very different from saying that US' spend is not what allows Europe and Asia have a very nice security cost free life.
> Because of Pax Americana, most people can't even grasp the concept or seriousness of, say, a neighboring nation dropping bombs on your city just because they want your territory.
Because of “Pax” Americana, many people have a vivid and direct understanding of a remote nation dropping bombs on your city because they aren't satisfied with your internal politics, even though they don't want to be bothered with the general burden of governing the territory.
Because of “Pax” Americana, many people have a vivid and direct understanding of a remote nation dropping bombs on your city because they aren't satisfied with your internal politics, even though they don't want to be bothered with the general burden of governing the territory.
> I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it.
Why? If US does nothing for their security, then there's zero point of US spending money on it. It is like code - if the line is NOOP, then it should just go.
Why? If US does nothing for their security, then there's zero point of US spending money on it. It is like code - if the line is NOOP, then it should just go.
I don't believe the US does nothing for their security, certainly in the case of South Korea and Japan I think the US has been both an asset and a burden. I'm just not certain that what the US does is entirely necessary, meaning I don't think it's impossible for the world to go on without American interference and it shouldn't be a unilateral decision on the part of the US to simply opt out.
If the US has treaty obligations that require its military engagement, then those need to be upheld, or else the US should try to renegotiate them. Otherwise, even if the security situation is made worse, the US should respect other countries' sovereignty if they want them gone.
If the US has treaty obligations that require its military engagement, then those need to be upheld, or else the US should try to renegotiate them. Otherwise, even if the security situation is made worse, the US should respect other countries' sovereignty if they want them gone.
I wouldn't say the US defends "the world", but certainly countries like Germany and Japan are getting a pretty good deal from the US taxpayer.
Yeah seeing the refugee crisis, the uprising of ISIS, terrorist attacks that are indirectly related to a lot of American invasions we Europeans are getting definitely the long end of the stick.
I find it really weird how over the ocean they are always pounding the self on the chest but they never think about how some of us need to deal with the consequences of the decisions they made in the past. You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place.
Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet.
America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
I find it really weird how over the ocean they are always pounding the self on the chest but they never think about how some of us need to deal with the consequences of the decisions they made in the past. You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place.
Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet.
America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
>You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place.
Because they know you're a soft touch? How many 30 year old "Syrian children" from Pakistan and North Africa are you going to settle before you realize most of the people coming to Europe are coming for the free benefits and not because they're fleeing war? Shouldn't Syria be pretty much empty by now?
Besides, there was a country which kept migrants bottled up in Africa until France and the UK decided to settle old scores.
>Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet.
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You could buy from the Swedes, or the French, or even the Russians. And no, the JSF is not a "shoddy" product. It's just too expensive. Do you expect the US will bomb your country if you don't buy it? Don't buy it.
>America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
Nobody's claiming to be perfect. All I'm saying is we're wasting money protecting Europeans who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Europeans who refuse to spend more than a token amount on defense and then expect the US to "take the lead" whenever something bad happens. If it were up to me you'd be on your own.
Because they know you're a soft touch? How many 30 year old "Syrian children" from Pakistan and North Africa are you going to settle before you realize most of the people coming to Europe are coming for the free benefits and not because they're fleeing war? Shouldn't Syria be pretty much empty by now?
Besides, there was a country which kept migrants bottled up in Africa until France and the UK decided to settle old scores.
>Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet.
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You could buy from the Swedes, or the French, or even the Russians. And no, the JSF is not a "shoddy" product. It's just too expensive. Do you expect the US will bomb your country if you don't buy it? Don't buy it.
>America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
Nobody's claiming to be perfect. All I'm saying is we're wasting money protecting Europeans who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Europeans who refuse to spend more than a token amount on defense and then expect the US to "take the lead" whenever something bad happens. If it were up to me you'd be on your own.
"... before you realize most of the people coming to Europe are coming for the free benefits and not because they're fleeing war? "
The majority is definitely not coming for what you call 'free benefits', and most of those who do will be sent back home in due time, if their home countries accept them back. Unfortunately it's quite common that they don't, and then there's not much left to do but allow also these people to stay. Can't really deport people when their home countries won't let them through the border control.
The majority is definitely not coming for what you call 'free benefits', and most of those who do will be sent back home in due time, if their home countries accept them back. Unfortunately it's quite common that they don't, and then there's not much left to do but allow also these people to stay. Can't really deport people when their home countries won't let them through the border control.
>The majority is definitely not coming for what you call 'free benefits', and most of those who do will be sent back home in due time, if their home countries accept them back.
Those people are not leaving. You may tell yourself they're leaving. Your government may tell you they're leaving (someday), but when push comes to shove the media will be blanketed with sob stories and accusations of racism if anybody actually tries to repatriate them.
Those people are not leaving. You may tell yourself they're leaving. Your government may tell you they're leaving (someday), but when push comes to shove the media will be blanketed with sob stories and accusations of racism if anybody actually tries to repatriate them.
We did a good job taking care of their Yugoslavia problem while they just dragged their feet.
US spends more on military than every Euro country combined. If they are attacked we have to defend them and they know it. They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked.
> If they are attacked we have to defend them and they know it. They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked.
If? In the entire history of NATO, the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once, and that in response to an attack on the US, and the non-US NATO contributions were not insignificant.
If? In the entire history of NATO, the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once, and that in response to an attack on the US, and the non-US NATO contributions were not insignificant.
>the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once
that's the point
that's the point
Sure, deterrence is the point of the treaty, but the claim upthread was about the significance of contributions that would be made in the event of an attack, a claim which contradicts the facts of the time when an attack resulting in the mutual defense provisions being invoked actually occurred.
> They would contribute a relatively insignificant amount if we were ever attacked
Many Europeans gave their lives in Afghanistan, responding to an attack on the U.S., and also in Iraq on a fools errand. The U.S. is the predominant power, but that doesn't make others insignificant.
Many Europeans gave their lives in Afghanistan, responding to an attack on the U.S., and also in Iraq on a fools errand. The U.S. is the predominant power, but that doesn't make others insignificant.
The fact that we spend too much by an order of magnitude or two doesn't mean the rest of the world is dependent on us. We don't spend this much because it's the only way to make the world safe. We spend this much because every Congressman has a some part of a defense contractor in their district and they'd rather build billion dollar boondoggles that the military leadership explicitly doesn't want than vote to close the local plant.
[deleted]
Who will buy products from such companies. They will have to compensate for the productivity from somewhere else.
> The U.S. is risking an academic brain drain
He got a good offer from his home country. Isn't that a good thing that he gets to go home to his country and contribute there? he fact they can spare $250k for him to buy a house and $1M in grant money says a lot about China.
Having been in academia for a bit, it seemed there was an oversupply of PhD in some fields. There are just not going to be enough university teaching positions and not enough Googles or Teslas or other companies needing that many employees with such advanced degrees.
He mentions it's Trump's fault. Let's criticize Trump but not sure if attaching it to this particular case makes it productive. I think they meant this H1-B overhaul
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/18/524569185/trumps-latest-execut...
Another Axios reporter seems to think the update to H1-B overhaul is mainly targeted at abuse by India-based staffing companies like Tata, Wipro and HCL
https://www.axios.com/changing-h-1b-rules-computer-programme...
He got a good offer from his home country. Isn't that a good thing that he gets to go home to his country and contribute there? he fact they can spare $250k for him to buy a house and $1M in grant money says a lot about China.
Having been in academia for a bit, it seemed there was an oversupply of PhD in some fields. There are just not going to be enough university teaching positions and not enough Googles or Teslas or other companies needing that many employees with such advanced degrees.
He mentions it's Trump's fault. Let's criticize Trump but not sure if attaching it to this particular case makes it productive. I think they meant this H1-B overhaul
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/18/524569185/trumps-latest-execut...
Another Axios reporter seems to think the update to H1-B overhaul is mainly targeted at abuse by India-based staffing companies like Tata, Wipro and HCL
https://www.axios.com/changing-h-1b-rules-computer-programme...
Hard to say what is really going on here or if there is even a problem at all. Academic positions have always been in short supply in many fields, particularly hard science. However I do get the sense it has gotten worse in recent decades but have no hard data.
Are there actually fewer positions available?
If so, what is the cause?
There is lots of evidence that our universities have become less effective in both teaching and research - prioritizing administrative and income generating functions for example. Perhaps this results in fewer jobs available. Or perhaps professors are simply retiring older (I have heard this too).
I agree that blaming Trump seems wrong. While media reports have been hyperbolic little if anything has changed so far. The proposed new "points" system actually gives highest priority to people like that young Chinese Ph.D mentioned in the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/cotton-perdue-trump-b...
Are there actually fewer positions available?
If so, what is the cause?
There is lots of evidence that our universities have become less effective in both teaching and research - prioritizing administrative and income generating functions for example. Perhaps this results in fewer jobs available. Or perhaps professors are simply retiring older (I have heard this too).
I agree that blaming Trump seems wrong. While media reports have been hyperbolic little if anything has changed so far. The proposed new "points" system actually gives highest priority to people like that young Chinese Ph.D mentioned in the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/cotton-perdue-trump-b...
This NSF report [1] has a lot of interesting data.
It seems in particular we're seeing (1) more people get PhD's (see page 3) and (2) a lower proportion of PhD's securing post-PhD employment (see page 9).
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/digest/nsf16300...
It seems in particular we're seeing (1) more people get PhD's (see page 3) and (2) a lower proportion of PhD's securing post-PhD employment (see page 9).
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/digest/nsf16300...
It's a combination of mainly two things.
1. More people are getting PhDs, which means if the job supply remained constant, higher percentages of people won't get a job.
2. There are fewer "real" academic jobs, because universities have evolved to focus on cost-cutting business practices, tenured faculty are expensive, and an endless stream of abused adjuncts has no down side except the quality of education provided by your university, and who cares about that anyway.
1. More people are getting PhDs, which means if the job supply remained constant, higher percentages of people won't get a job.
2. There are fewer "real" academic jobs, because universities have evolved to focus on cost-cutting business practices, tenured faculty are expensive, and an endless stream of abused adjuncts has no down side except the quality of education provided by your university, and who cares about that anyway.
An oversupply of PhDs or our capitalist system not aligning in a way to advance us in ways that don't model a ROI in three years or less?
No just an oversupply of people that really arent smart enough to push their fields forwards, they are just highly "educated". PHDs at average schools can be done by most people willing to put in long hours, we need to stop conflating these "highly educated" people with actual ingenuity. Capitalism rightly casts them off to the side.
I maintain that the biggest inefficiency of how we practice capitalism today is that it is casting aside the ability for people to contribute to society to their full potential. And as we advance economically, it seems that inefficiency is expanding to more and more people.
Inefficiency compared to what?
Look at what capitalism has done to standards of living and life expectancy across the world over the last 100 years. In terms of the quality of human life, it is so staggering how effective capitalism has been. I think your view point of certain people being disadvantaged with regards to our current form of capitalism is short sighted. Sure, some physics phd may not be fully utilized, but that is at the cost of a system that is changing the world for the better.
What we are arguing is whether forcefully changing the inefficiencies (how do we even know they are inefficiencies? We dont. We can only speculate) you see in capitalism would help society overall. But that is like saying in the course of human evolution, we need to enforce mating rules to "change the course", sure we could do that, but how impossible is it? Would it even help? Are we even smart enough to figure that out?
Look at what capitalism has done to standards of living and life expectancy across the world over the last 100 years. In terms of the quality of human life, it is so staggering how effective capitalism has been. I think your view point of certain people being disadvantaged with regards to our current form of capitalism is short sighted. Sure, some physics phd may not be fully utilized, but that is at the cost of a system that is changing the world for the better.
What we are arguing is whether forcefully changing the inefficiencies (how do we even know they are inefficiencies? We dont. We can only speculate) you see in capitalism would help society overall. But that is like saying in the course of human evolution, we need to enforce mating rules to "change the course", sure we could do that, but how impossible is it? Would it even help? Are we even smart enough to figure that out?
Inefficiency at delivering improvements in life quality compared to even a couple of decades ago in the US.
I look at the characteristics of capitalism across two different zones of operation. One a sort of pre-industrial/pre-buildout phase and the other a post-buildout phase. The performance was great in pre-buildout where it's pretty easy to direct just about any additional economic activity to creating new value. So just about any activity that increase profits - increases general well being in the region.
But for nations in the post-buildout it's pretty sketchy, mostly more and more capital allocation going to momentum activity (three years of provable ROI...) instead of fundamental value creation. Increased profits don't necessarily spread out to general well being.
Nations like China, and many African nations, etc are in the earlier phase and it is certainly improving human quality of life in those kinds of regions - but other nations in post-buildout it's a very mixed bag where fundamental improvements are flat or even reversing. China is arguably in the middle of build out and may have another decade or two to go where current capitalistic tools work well for it. Africa is even earlier on that curve - but the US is definitely in the post phase.
I'm not even advocating any specific change - just observing that there's a big difference in the effects of economic activity in the two phases. And that the US in the second phase is really not delivering quality of life improvements to society at large in the same way as earlier. If one agrees with my observations though - it is easy to think that some sort of change is warranted.
I look at the characteristics of capitalism across two different zones of operation. One a sort of pre-industrial/pre-buildout phase and the other a post-buildout phase. The performance was great in pre-buildout where it's pretty easy to direct just about any additional economic activity to creating new value. So just about any activity that increase profits - increases general well being in the region.
But for nations in the post-buildout it's pretty sketchy, mostly more and more capital allocation going to momentum activity (three years of provable ROI...) instead of fundamental value creation. Increased profits don't necessarily spread out to general well being.
Nations like China, and many African nations, etc are in the earlier phase and it is certainly improving human quality of life in those kinds of regions - but other nations in post-buildout it's a very mixed bag where fundamental improvements are flat or even reversing. China is arguably in the middle of build out and may have another decade or two to go where current capitalistic tools work well for it. Africa is even earlier on that curve - but the US is definitely in the post phase.
I'm not even advocating any specific change - just observing that there's a big difference in the effects of economic activity in the two phases. And that the US in the second phase is really not delivering quality of life improvements to society at large in the same way as earlier. If one agrees with my observations though - it is easy to think that some sort of change is warranted.
And really, to be fair, America has been benefiting from brain drain from the whole rest of the world for decades and decades. Almost centuries. It probably can't last forever.
If we're being really honest with ourselves, the likelihood that he will get a faculty position is quite low. Here, he faces discrimination because colleges aren't interested in having another Asian name with the risk of being a lecturer that student's cant understand - and Asians are overrepresented anyways. He might as well take an offer from a country that is welcoming to him.
$1M is a typical US startup fund, if not a little low.
The $250k for a house is weird, but in the US we make deals like spousal hires that might seem strange in other places.
The $250k for a house is weird, but in the US we make deals like spousal hires that might seem strange in other places.
I believe it's a down payment even it's not mentioned. It's a reasonable amount of money for down payment in suburban area of major cities in China
Startup packages vary a lot depending on the tier of the university (I have seen $300K to $1M at research universities). I imagine the housing subsidy is due to the high price of real estate in Shanghai. Some US universities offer favorable loan terms to faculty in places like UCSB, so perhaps not that strange...
What is the point of this article?
They've claimed that the person in the article is going back home because he received no teaching offers. That's standard practice for foreign individuals on a visa in the US. You have to be doing something to stay here. We're not going to let you live here just because you felt like you wanted to.
---
Other than the politicking going on in the article: "OMG TRUMP IS SO BAD AMIRITE?!" (Paris accord disagreement, etc) What I think up for debate is:
Should foreign contribution in the economy on a national level be considered fair and healthy for our economy?
My concern is due to depressed wages competing on non-equal levels causes more long term harm to the consumer and the businesses involved.
They've claimed that the person in the article is going back home because he received no teaching offers. That's standard practice for foreign individuals on a visa in the US. You have to be doing something to stay here. We're not going to let you live here just because you felt like you wanted to.
---
Other than the politicking going on in the article: "OMG TRUMP IS SO BAD AMIRITE?!" (Paris accord disagreement, etc) What I think up for debate is:
Should foreign contribution in the economy on a national level be considered fair and healthy for our economy?
My concern is due to depressed wages competing on non-equal levels causes more long term harm to the consumer and the businesses involved.
Former senator David Boren writes in his book, Letter to America, that not only does this happen, it's actually a good thing for the United States because many of these US-educated folks go on to become leaders back home.
So if anything, their return to their home countries only solidifies American strength. For the time being, at least.
So if anything, their return to their home countries only solidifies American strength. For the time being, at least.
To me it's less about visas and more about jobs. Why aren't their more research jobs? Why isn't the govt doing more to bolster research and create opportunity for talented minds?
Perhaps the right value proposition hasn't been made. It the ones that have been made have been made with poor arguments. "Research" in itself is neither inherently good not bad...just asking for more of it doesn't make sense...just like asking for more water doesn't make sense unless you know the context is you're dying of thirst and not pumping out your flooded basement.
Government funding for research is important, especially for the pure science, but government should not blindly increase funding because some people are not finding academic jobs.
With the (IMO pretty broken) tenure system in the US, research-track academic jobs can be very lucrative and with many researchers un-fireable regardless of what they do academically makes research both more expensive (folks goofing off) and less valuable (sharp researchers cannot find positions) for the society that it can be. I think we need to tune the system before we talk about more funding as a solution
With the (IMO pretty broken) tenure system in the US, research-track academic jobs can be very lucrative and with many researchers un-fireable regardless of what they do academically makes research both more expensive (folks goofing off) and less valuable (sharp researchers cannot find positions) for the society that it can be. I think we need to tune the system before we talk about more funding as a solution
I'm curious, what makes you think that people are goofing off? I suffer from selection bias, but most of the tenured faculty (in the sciences) that I know are extremely driven people who work nights and weekends...Have you seen any studies that would suggest otherwise? As for lucrative, I'm still biased, but I would say that academic jobs can be comfortable financially, especially given the stability of tenure, but outside of superstars, I wouldn't say that they are outside the range of say a software engineer...
Mostly my observations when I was doing my PhD at one of the pretty good schools (one that considers itself in the top 20, but may actually be in the top 50). I might be suffering from the selection bias as well (as I decided not to pursue an academic career), but I did see professors who had no Ph.D. students, did not publish or present and just took it easy with a minimum teaching load. I do not doubt their teaching skill, but they were doing the job of, say, a senior lecturer at 2-3 times the salary and half the workload. There were not many (maybe 10-15%), but not a single case either.
My experience was on a "pure science" / paper and pencil side. Maybe it was the fact that one does not need grants for labs, etc. that takes pressure off as well. Among the grads (at least in physics) the split between experimentals and pure would be crystal clear any weekend: the first were in the lab, second played warcraft :).
My experience was on a "pure science" / paper and pencil side. Maybe it was the fact that one does not need grants for labs, etc. that takes pressure off as well. Among the grads (at least in physics) the split between experimentals and pure would be crystal clear any weekend: the first were in the lab, second played warcraft :).
Are scientists only valued when the United States is against a country of equal education?
I haven't had much time to read into this, but it feels like the advantage the United States has over other countries in terms of academic institutions has stagnated.
Where are the Bell Labs, PARC, Los Alamos Labs of the 21st century?
Where are the Neumanns, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins of this era?
Probably not here.
The agitation of identity politics and growing wave of anti-intellectualism is keeping our best minds apart.
I haven't had much time to read into this, but it feels like the advantage the United States has over other countries in terms of academic institutions has stagnated.
Where are the Bell Labs, PARC, Los Alamos Labs of the 21st century?
Where are the Neumanns, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins of this era?
Probably not here.
The agitation of identity politics and growing wave of anti-intellectualism is keeping our best minds apart.
Because the article just offers a single example, and seems to center on the lack of available tenure track positions, I'm going to take a more holistic view that gets at the major issue: is current research funding at the appropriate level?
What would happen if we increased research funding by X percent? How did we settle on the current funding levels? I would be curious to see a reasonable source for this. A cursory google search mostly returned opinion pieces that we should increase funding for science. I agree, but hard(er) numbers would be better. It would be great to see a back-of-the-envelope ROI for X percent funding increase in T time. Obviously funding can be applied in many ways, and the ROI is difficult to measure, but someone must have studied it.
For the immediate future, the US remains the best place for research. But dominance can begin to change before the effects become obvious, like a large company that's still profitable long after it's become irrelevant.
What would happen if we increased research funding by X percent? How did we settle on the current funding levels? I would be curious to see a reasonable source for this. A cursory google search mostly returned opinion pieces that we should increase funding for science. I agree, but hard(er) numbers would be better. It would be great to see a back-of-the-envelope ROI for X percent funding increase in T time. Obviously funding can be applied in many ways, and the ROI is difficult to measure, but someone must have studied it.
For the immediate future, the US remains the best place for research. But dominance can begin to change before the effects become obvious, like a large company that's still profitable long after it's become irrelevant.
the article notes that US universities take 50% of a professor's research grant as operating overhead! (in China it's 10%.)
maybe US universities are just not efficient enough. maybe US universities are basically bloated, government subsidized fat-cats that cannot compete in the global marketplace.
maybe US universities are just not efficient enough. maybe US universities are basically bloated, government subsidized fat-cats that cannot compete in the global marketplace.
The university system was the envy of the world when it was run like a government program. It was only when we started running them like businesses that the system has gone pear-shaped.
i was going to say "maybe US universities are basically bloated, greedy corporate fat-cats that cannot compete in the global marketplace."
but it raised a question i couldn't answer: how do such unproductive blobs of corporate greed survive at all? i mean, if it's not government subsidies. is it some sort of protectionist regulatory regime (e.g. sort of like the TBTF Wall Street banks enjoy)? some kind of collusion? a secret cartel?
but it raised a question i couldn't answer: how do such unproductive blobs of corporate greed survive at all? i mean, if it's not government subsidies. is it some sort of protectionist regulatory regime (e.g. sort of like the TBTF Wall Street banks enjoy)? some kind of collusion? a secret cartel?
there's a strong argument that the university system was destroyed when it was started to be run like a government program.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science
Is this exodus even remotely close to the net influx of talent coming from other countries? If not, it really can't be called a brain drain.
Not yet, but the trends are not good. Closing borders will cut off the influx and increased regulations are going to increase the exodus.
Biotech or anything related to "Stem cells" or "Cloning" are the past ones, future ones may be AI.
And cryptocurrencies and that entire area of research is quickly becoming untenable in the USA.
Biotech or anything related to "Stem cells" or "Cloning" are the past ones, future ones may be AI.
And cryptocurrencies and that entire area of research is quickly becoming untenable in the USA.
The academic brain drain starts in middle school. Why are we pushing US kids into bankruptcy and importing brains who come with dollars?
Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I think everything America needs to succeed and grow can be found right here in America. The problem is that it's sometimes cheaper to import foreign labor, or export domestic production.
Einstein, von Braun, Musk, Brin.
Immigrants are more than cheap labor.
edit just for a bit more diversity: Madeleine Albright, Schwarzenegger, Ang Lee, Tesla, Fermi, Audrey Hepburn, Sataya Nadella, Jerry Yang, Cary Grant...
edit 2, correction: Ang Lee's Wikipedia page says he's a resident and not a US citizen. Another alien undercutting US labour like James Cameron and Ridley Scott.
Immigrants are more than cheap labor.
edit just for a bit more diversity: Madeleine Albright, Schwarzenegger, Ang Lee, Tesla, Fermi, Audrey Hepburn, Sataya Nadella, Jerry Yang, Cary Grant...
edit 2, correction: Ang Lee's Wikipedia page says he's a resident and not a US citizen. Another alien undercutting US labour like James Cameron and Ridley Scott.
For every person you can cherry pick, I can name you 50 names of cannon fodder that nobody ever heard of.
For most of my career, I've watched as shitty body shops stuff unqualified candidates at low rates to "farm" them into more valuable workers. They don't hire onshore workers because they lose the visa leverage and hose many of them with "company town" style bullshit like corporate housing.
I'd love to have the opportunity to pull in some equally unqualified urban and rural high school students whose only prospects are Walmart, truck driving or the army and give them the same opportunity. Many would suck, but many others would flourish and build meaningful careers.
For most of my career, I've watched as shitty body shops stuff unqualified candidates at low rates to "farm" them into more valuable workers. They don't hire onshore workers because they lose the visa leverage and hose many of them with "company town" style bullshit like corporate housing.
I'd love to have the opportunity to pull in some equally unqualified urban and rural high school students whose only prospects are Walmart, truck driving or the army and give them the same opportunity. Many would suck, but many others would flourish and build meaningful careers.
Bad examples. Legal immigrants are different from "cheap labor" (H-1B and seasonal/temporary workers for example) which does depress wages. Once you have a green card you can demand higher wages and threaten to pack up and move to the competition.
I don't want to start an immigration argument, but the skills based system that has been proposed and was in place in Canada would have let Einstein, von Braun, Brin, Fermi, Yang, Albright, etc. into the country.
I don't want to start an immigration argument, but the skills based system that has been proposed and was in place in Canada would have let Einstein, von Braun, Brin, Fermi, Yang, Albright, etc. into the country.
You seem to be arguing something completely different to the grandparent comment.
Just pointing out that cheap labor and immigrants are not synonymous.
Citing examples doesn't really convince anyone intellectually curious, determined or with momentum in the opposite idea. What you need to do to definitely drive the point is to compare "rock star per group". Then just compare the two values, and see which group has a higher "rock star" ratio, or whatever you want to call them. Pretty obvious, right?
Then you have go on and prove that for every one of those imported "rock stars", you wouldn't have gotten an equally great person from the local group. It's not immediately obvious that those things wouldn't have sprung up without that external "rock star" being brought in. We're often told that people aren't islands, so it may very well be that the local environment/culture is the one that helps create these "rock stars", and they just happen to be in the right place / right time.
I use "rock-star" because I have no idea what else to call them. Leaders, high-achievers, smart-people, role models?
Then you have go on and prove that for every one of those imported "rock stars", you wouldn't have gotten an equally great person from the local group. It's not immediately obvious that those things wouldn't have sprung up without that external "rock star" being brought in. We're often told that people aren't islands, so it may very well be that the local environment/culture is the one that helps create these "rock stars", and they just happen to be in the right place / right time.
I use "rock-star" because I have no idea what else to call them. Leaders, high-achievers, smart-people, role models?
[deleted]
the standard, American theoretical response to an individual with a low standard of living is: "lack of talent is not the problem. lack of education is. these individuals simply need more education in order to access better opportunities."
one might argue, on a national level, that because lack of education -- not talent -- is the true limiting factor, there are plenty of existing US residents who are capable of filling these jobs. the US can simply train from within and promote from within.
at the same time, the standard American theoretical response for the lack of expertise and trained labor required to grow the companies is: "we can't find anyone here who can do the job. period. we absolutely have to import people from foreign countries."
one might argue, on a national level, that there's no point in spending government money to further the education of US residents. they'll never be able to do the work anyway. instead, America might as well write these people off and import different people who already have the talent, expertise, training, education.
don't these ideas contradict each other? which theory is right?
one might argue, on a national level, that because lack of education -- not talent -- is the true limiting factor, there are plenty of existing US residents who are capable of filling these jobs. the US can simply train from within and promote from within.
at the same time, the standard American theoretical response for the lack of expertise and trained labor required to grow the companies is: "we can't find anyone here who can do the job. period. we absolutely have to import people from foreign countries."
one might argue, on a national level, that there's no point in spending government money to further the education of US residents. they'll never be able to do the work anyway. instead, America might as well write these people off and import different people who already have the talent, expertise, training, education.
don't these ideas contradict each other? which theory is right?
Now, see, there's your problem right there.
Americans don't worry about whether a theory is correct. We worry about how much money can be made by believing in it.
Americans don't worry about whether a theory is correct. We worry about how much money can be made by believing in it.
>Immigrants are more than cheap labor.
Great, but not the important question. The important question is: are citizens more than cheap labor?
Great, but not the important question. The important question is: are citizens more than cheap labor?
I think that's a simplistic view. For one, it can't be cheaper to import than to train/educate locally. But that doesn't stop the local culture from being detrimental to higher learning.
> everything America needs to succeed and grow can be found right here in America
This is clearly not true. If you look around you, much of what you own, use, etc. comes from other countries, including the ideas, science, and technology behind them. Just off the top of my head, in one industry: The web, Linux ... why would we think for a moment that Americans have superior ideas to everyone else?
Also, if the U.S. doesn't buy goods, services, labor, etc. from other countries, then they won't buy them from the U.S. The U.S. is only 5% of the world's population and maybe 20% of the world's market (due to the wealth of its citizens). A U.S. 'Brexit' from the world would be an economic disaster.
This is clearly not true. If you look around you, much of what you own, use, etc. comes from other countries, including the ideas, science, and technology behind them. Just off the top of my head, in one industry: The web, Linux ... why would we think for a moment that Americans have superior ideas to everyone else?
Also, if the U.S. doesn't buy goods, services, labor, etc. from other countries, then they won't buy them from the U.S. The U.S. is only 5% of the world's population and maybe 20% of the world's market (due to the wealth of its citizens). A U.S. 'Brexit' from the world would be an economic disaster.
> U.S. universities take about half of research grants as fixed overhead, sapping up funding before it reaches a scientist's hands. In China, overhead is closer to 10%, allowing more staff hiring and equipment purchases, Li said
US university administrators are fat. Start cutting.
US university administrators are fat. Start cutting.
the real issue, unanswered by the article, is why didn't linsen li get job offers here? because the premise that we want to keep all the smart people here to generate more economic value for "us" rather than "them" is hard to disfavor.
1. was he deficient in some way that makes him unsuitable for the job?
2. did the university not provide the needed skills for the teaching positions he was applying for?
3. is the supply of qualified applicants so high that many receive no offers?
4. is there just not enough funding to employ every qualified academic?
5. is the regulatory environment such that we force many qualified jobseekers to look elsewhere?
...and so on. these seem to be the more pertinent questions in this case, not the political "trump is xenophobic and his policy sucks" slant of the article (whether you agree with that sentiment or not), because the uncertainty around imiigration policy doesn't seem to have had direct bearing in this situation. li didn't get a job in the US, so he's going to china, where he did get a job. pretty straightforward.
with that said, i believe we should allow much more immigration, not less (contrary to trump's position), but the light and disjoint reasoning in this article was a head scratcher.
1. was he deficient in some way that makes him unsuitable for the job?
2. did the university not provide the needed skills for the teaching positions he was applying for?
3. is the supply of qualified applicants so high that many receive no offers?
4. is there just not enough funding to employ every qualified academic?
5. is the regulatory environment such that we force many qualified jobseekers to look elsewhere?
...and so on. these seem to be the more pertinent questions in this case, not the political "trump is xenophobic and his policy sucks" slant of the article (whether you agree with that sentiment or not), because the uncertainty around imiigration policy doesn't seem to have had direct bearing in this situation. li didn't get a job in the US, so he's going to china, where he did get a job. pretty straightforward.
with that said, i believe we should allow much more immigration, not less (contrary to trump's position), but the light and disjoint reasoning in this article was a head scratcher.
Let's say you apply for a faculty position at a good public university. In physics, it would not be uncommon for there to be around 200 applicants. Imagine that only say 50 of them are great...Teaching positions are also competitive. That's one level. Now, the US is in an enviable position of being able to skim top people from around the world who come here to study--so we end up with a huge competition for a small pool of positions. The notion being that all other things being equal, having a large candidate pool is more likely to result in stronger candidates. That's what we risk giving up by limiting immigration--especially after we (I am from the US) train people here to do research.
For better or worse, a number of countries are going to be churning out far more people with PhDs than can fill their academic or research positions. That will probably include China, given the trend of education there.
Besides job offer salaries, we usually don't quantify other aspects such as social quality, family, housing conditions, etc... It is actually very hard or impossible in some cases to measure. US has definitely been winning with the salary advantage, but it is lacking the rest compared to many places. This would be the main reason that talents would eventually go away. There's no war, life conditions have been improved in many parts of the world, why not those places.
250K for a house. How exactly do you expect any country, let alone the US, to compete with that kind of offer.
Sure you can expand research grant money, as the article mentions, but what more than that? A guaranteed job? A blank check? The author should have spelled out some realistic reforms.
I'd hardly call 140+ out of 3000+ applicant returnees a brain drain. Sounds like they don't offer this to foreigners either. Someone forgot to tell them how politically incorrect that is. Plenty of smart people from other countries would love to take their place.
And so what if they go to Canada, our friendly northern neighbor, ally, partner in this hemisphere, and subscriber to our intellectual property laws. I don't necessarily consider that a "drain", more like just living in "alternative version USA". Not like they can't easily return to the US if a better opportunity came up and or the political climate shifted more to their liking.
Sure you can expand research grant money, as the article mentions, but what more than that? A guaranteed job? A blank check? The author should have spelled out some realistic reforms.
I'd hardly call 140+ out of 3000+ applicant returnees a brain drain. Sounds like they don't offer this to foreigners either. Someone forgot to tell them how politically incorrect that is. Plenty of smart people from other countries would love to take their place.
And so what if they go to Canada, our friendly northern neighbor, ally, partner in this hemisphere, and subscriber to our intellectual property laws. I don't necessarily consider that a "drain", more like just living in "alternative version USA". Not like they can't easily return to the US if a better opportunity came up and or the political climate shifted more to their liking.
> Canada, France and China have been most open and aggressive about seeking out foreign talent studying in the United States. Financially, China's offers appear to be the most attractive.
This was an amazing thing for me how China can pay more than Europe (and America). How the world has changed in just a few decades.
This was an amazing thing for me how China can pay more than Europe (and America). How the world has changed in just a few decades.
Not so surprising to me. The 1000s people plan and its version for younger people ("young 1000s") have been there for years actually. The reward is much more than what's listed in the surface. You can earn super high social status and chances to get tons of privileges.
I have spent many years living and working in countries other than the USA-- and while I found all of them had one advantage or another over the USA, the cultural differences were enough to make me come back to the USA.
Alas, at the way things are going with regulations, particularly in tech, and the increased... polarization and radicalization of politics here, I'm starting to think that it's time to leave again.
And here's the thing-- I bought a car on a 5 year note and it's not even paid off yet.
Pretty soon, any kind of innovative work in the crypto space (Eg: trust-less atomic swaps between blockchains for example) is effectively illegal, UNLESS you can raise $100M to hire enough lawyers to prove you never have custody of the coins.
Much cheaper to move to a friendly jurisdiction, raise the same $100M and put it into engineering salaries.
Alas, at the way things are going with regulations, particularly in tech, and the increased... polarization and radicalization of politics here, I'm starting to think that it's time to leave again.
And here's the thing-- I bought a car on a 5 year note and it's not even paid off yet.
Pretty soon, any kind of innovative work in the crypto space (Eg: trust-less atomic swaps between blockchains for example) is effectively illegal, UNLESS you can raise $100M to hire enough lawyers to prove you never have custody of the coins.
Much cheaper to move to a friendly jurisdiction, raise the same $100M and put it into engineering salaries.
I don't see a brain drain happening. American academic pay is better than European/Canadian/Australian academic pay by too wide of a margin.
As far as politics goes, I don't think America is that much worse (if at all worse) than other high paying countries.
As far as politics goes, I don't think America is that much worse (if at all worse) than other high paying countries.
Canada is getting some great talent right now. Americans, Brits, and people who would have gone to the US or UK are coming here.
If we can keep them here, this will be a big boost for Canada long term.
If we can keep them here, this will be a big boost for Canada long term.
Agreed. My neighbor (a Mexican national in the U.S.) who has successfully started many companies is looking for a place in Canada this week. His moving will be a great loss to the U.S. economy and innovation.
Canada doesn't pay half as well as US when it comes to research in STEM. Every country has great talent right now, except US has the money.
When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.
We don't have to pay as well, someone else will always be willing to ravage their own country to beat us at that game. We just have to not screw up the local society and environment as badly as the superpowers.
We don't have to pay as well, someone else will always be willing to ravage their own country to beat us at that game. We just have to not screw up the local society and environment as badly as the superpowers.
Sorry, can you flesh this out a little more? I'm not quite grasping how paying academics high wages is ravaging our country.
What I mean, is that it does not really matter that Canada is not the highest paying country in the world, because money is not the only factor in determining where academics choose to live. If we can offer an environment that is conducive to intellectual work (low financial stress, spiritually uplifting environment, a culture of mutual assistance, minimal neurotoxins in the food, water and air, good schools for their kids, freedom of thought and expression, minimal discrimination, no threat of war, etc) then academics will try to come here despite the fact that they won't be as financially wealthy in the global market.
We can offer many of those features simply by leaving the huge local ecosystems intact and accessible, and by avoiding changes that cause parts of the population to become desperate.
We can offer many of those features simply by leaving the huge local ecosystems intact and accessible, and by avoiding changes that cause parts of the population to become desperate.
That's true. The uptick in Canadian academic hiring is about something other than money, I'm guessing.
probably canadians going back home because ... family.
That's a roughly steady state flow, all else being equal, and wouldn't explain the change.
If there was money then why are there not enough research positions open?
I don't think this is a productive game to play.
If there's not enough money then why is academic pay better in the US than almost anywhere in the developed world?
If there's not enough money then why is academic pay better in the US than almost anywhere in the developed world?
Not enough for what?
US postdoc pay is around 40K. Cannot believe Canada pay around 20K.
Depends on field. I paid my last postdoc $90K CAD ($72K USD).
It's hard to find good postdocs in AI with the job market right now.
For biologists or other oversupplied PhDs, salaries are much lower.
It's hard to find good postdocs in AI with the job market right now.
For biologists or other oversupplied PhDs, salaries are much lower.
I guess both US and Canda pay simliar to postdoc, even in China, because all of them are low.
I made the move to Canada some years back. Coincidentally, there was a thread about H1B and here is my comment why I moved to Canada.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15100981
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15100981
I moved to Canada to escape the George W. Bush presidency. I couldn't in good conscience pay taxes to support the Iraq war. I took a 40% salary cut but the next few years dropped the US$ rapidly and made me some of that back. Also my family health costs dropped dramatically, making up more than the rest.
I'm leaving after 3 years working for SV start ups. It's time for me to do my own thing, and there's just no viable way for me to stay here during the "figuring it out phase". Spain, France and the Netherlands have attractive entrepreneur visas, or I could easily go home to Australia, to New Zealand or Canada. I will miss living near Stanford and the people around here, but there are other top universities to go camp out next to.
There was similar discussion on proberts AMA, there's simply no easy way to hang out here to work on cool side projects. The closest thing is the E2 visa, which would require all of my savings.
There was similar discussion on proberts AMA, there's simply no easy way to hang out here to work on cool side projects. The closest thing is the E2 visa, which would require all of my savings.
Seems more like the tub is overflowing rather than draining.
Are the people who applied for research positions and got the job staying? I guess so. So, those who didn't get the job weren't the "brains" that the US needed? And apparently, China is paying big compensations for him because these are the "brains" that China desperately needs. It seems like everyone is happy.
What is the point of this article?
What is the point of this article?
Another way the U.S. is risking a brain drain: I've read that in more than one state college enrollment is going down. Education seems to be going backward.
People assume the U.S. is a first-world country, but there's no reason it can't be like Russia or other nations with poor government, corruption, and a culture that doesn't value education.
People assume the U.S. is a first-world country, but there's no reason it can't be like Russia or other nations with poor government, corruption, and a culture that doesn't value education.
That's not necessarily true if it means that more Americans are pursuing skills-based training instead of college. Many of our vacant jobs do not have a college program to prepare for them [1]. Valuing education doesn't mean you need to chase ever-increasing college enrollment numbers, especially if you are unable to provide every college graduate with a matching job.
[1] https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/22/help-wanted-americans-don... (featured on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14651019)
[1] https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/22/help-wanted-americans-don... (featured on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14651019)
That assumes that the only purpose of college is job skills, a recent phenomenon. College is to teach people about the world and how to reason - the ability that separates humans from beasts, civilization from barbarism, the Enlightenment from the Medieval, fact from fiction (a skill desperately needed these days) - by studying the great reason and 'reasoners' of the world, current and past, in all different fields from science to literature to math to political science. If you think you can reason as well without that, with only coding school, I think you're kidding yourself.
Also, the lifetime wages of college degree holders shows demand is pretty high for them.
Finally, when people say college isn't necessary, they meant 'not necessary for lower class kids'. I assure you that every Senator who proposes cutting education funding is sending their own kids to college, as is almost everyone reading this on HN.
Also, the lifetime wages of college degree holders shows demand is pretty high for them.
Finally, when people say college isn't necessary, they meant 'not necessary for lower class kids'. I assure you that every Senator who proposes cutting education funding is sending their own kids to college, as is almost everyone reading this on HN.
risking? it's been happing for years already. both in the "drain" sense, those leaving the US, and with fewer "brains" coming to the US from other places. also, with the decline in US academics, fewer are being created in the US to begin with. altogether, three different factors making a "brain drain".
There are fewer permanent positions being created,not fewer academics. Hence the post-doc crisis. The risk is that a paying country might win a big portion of US born post docs ifthe situatio doesn't change.
i would argue there are fewer qualified academics being created in the U.S., because our educational system is declining and has been for some time, relative to other countries.
risking? it's been happening for years.
To where? US is basically where most of the capital is when it comes to research in the western world.
Nothing that another World War won't fix. Knock China down a peg or two /s
Seems like a great way to grow the Chinese economy.
Academic positions are different than getting a job.
The US will always be the beacon of innovation in the world. These are just doom and gloom clickbait articles.
The US will always be the beacon of innovation in the world. These are just doom and gloom clickbait articles.
"The US will always be the beacon of innovation in the world."
This is nonsense. Just ask Rome, China and every other country that had it's turn at the top of the heap. We can argue about how and when this will change, but the only thing we know for certain is that it will.
This is nonsense. Just ask Rome, China and every other country that had it's turn at the top of the heap. We can argue about how and when this will change, but the only thing we know for certain is that it will.
If I can't get a research position in the States, but can in Europe, that is a problem.
How does the job market for research positions and potential employee pool in the States versus Europe compare?
My impression is that it's rather difficulty in a number of European countries as well. Chatting with friends, it seems that there are a number of term positions in countries like Germany, but permanent positions are hard to come by.
I don't know the job market there. I was stating a hypothetical; I should have made that clearer. Given the post-doc situation, if another country were to dramtically increase funding for positions, America would see a brain drain.
Not always but it is destined to be at this spot for a very long time.
That's funny. Everyone I know in academia, from CS to Philosophy to Biology, is complaining there is a glut of "academics". They had PhDs but they can't positions in labs or get assistant professors to get on track for tenure because there are so many PhDs in academia.
Maybe a brain drain is something the US needs. An oversupply of "brains" isn't a good thing. We need a balance.
Maybe a brain drain is something the US needs. An oversupply of "brains" isn't a good thing. We need a balance.
From outsider pov, US has been draining talent from foreign countries for ages. Perhaps those talent going back might be a net positive.
The culture I found in Sweden for instance is one that is much better for the employees than the fast-paced top-gun style of programming expected in the US. Sure my peak will probably be 60k, but that 60k will also come with a much better social quality of life. That's the problem with the US that would risk brain drain in my opinion. Money attracts people, but treating them well will keep them and the US is starting to fall away from treating its workers well.
Edit: just think about this. Most Americans talk about how they have so much work to do they don't get vacation. Well in Europe you usually get your 2 weeks and in many countries you get 4 contiguous weeks without question. Couple that with better healthcare options, and yeah the US is not looking so great.