belgareth
01-08-2004, 11:19 AM
There have
been threads in the past about this. I thought it was interesting that some of the people complaining are the same
ones whose companies are moving jobs overseas.
U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say
Thu Jan 8, 7:20 AM ET
By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writer
An organization of high-technology
executives yesterday renewed industry calls for government spending and tax cuts to spur research, improved
mathematics and science education and policies that make building technology infrastructure a national
priority.
With India, China, Russia and other countries rapidly becoming technology centers, the executives
warned that without such measures the United States could lose its dominance in the knowledge economy.
\"Our
competitiveness as a nation is not inevitable,\" said Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carleton S. \"Carly\"
Fiorina. At a press briefing alongside Intel Corp. chief executive Craig R. Barrett, Fiorina cited declining federal
government spending on research and development compared with other countries, as well as a kindergarten through
12th grade educational system that \"remains a source of competitive disadvantage.\"
Barrett also cautioned
against erecting global barriers to commerce, a response to mounting concerns that technology and other companies
are transferring tens of thousands of support center, data entry and software engineering jobs overseas to take
advantage of lower wages.
By some estimates by financial consulting firms, 10 percent of jobs at U.S.
information technology vendors will move offshore by the end of this year. Throughout all U.S. companies, Forrester
Research predicts the loss of about 3.3 million jobs by 2015.
Already, some Democratic presidential candidates
have criticized the practice. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has introduced legislation that would require employees
of call centers to identify their location.
Organizations of technology employees, many of whom remain out of
work after the post-tech-bubble downturn, argue that companies are simply reaping greater profits at the expense of
U.S. workers. In November, Indiana Gov. Joseph E. Kernan (D) canceled a $15 million contract with an outsourcing
firm that would have had engineers in India upgrading state computers, even though a domestic contractor cost
more.
Barrett, chairman of the trade group Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP), said such protectionist
responses endanger the ability of U.S. firms to compete. He said Intel hires overseas often to gain local expertise,
so that it can sell more products in those markets. Moreover, he said, migration of lower-paying jobs overseas is
hardly new and is part of a recurring business cycle. He noted that a sizable portion of technology hardware
manufacturing has moved overseas, without dire economic consequences.
Fiorina said that what is likely to occur
is a shift in the kind of technology jobs that will predominate in this country, such as those that requiring the
ability to manage multiple systems and networks.
She said the country cannot afford to be distracted by
short-term financial and employment concerns. \"The biggest barrier [to solutions] is our nation\'s attention
span,\" she said.
Fiorina insisted that the CSPP is \"not lobbying.\" But the group put forth several
proposals, and promised that its executives, who also include Michael S. Dell of Dell Inc. and Samuel J. Palmisano
of International Business Machines Corp., would continue visiting Congress and the White House throughout the year
to press its case.
Palmisano and Intel Chairman Andrew S. Grove have made similar appeals in the past six
months, under the banners of other trade groups.
Among the CSPP proposals is an Infrastructure Investment Act
of 2004, which would provide more favorable tax and regulatory rules to encourage building more broadband
networks.
The group also is pushing a Mathematics and Science Improvement Act of 2004, which would fund more
rigorous education and school-testing in math and science.
Fiorina said she could not estimate the cost of the
proposals. But Barrett said they would be less than the $30 billion in agriculture subsidies that he scorned as
investment in \"19th-century technology.\"
been threads in the past about this. I thought it was interesting that some of the people complaining are the same
ones whose companies are moving jobs overseas.
U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say
Thu Jan 8, 7:20 AM ET
By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writer
An organization of high-technology
executives yesterday renewed industry calls for government spending and tax cuts to spur research, improved
mathematics and science education and policies that make building technology infrastructure a national
priority.
With India, China, Russia and other countries rapidly becoming technology centers, the executives
warned that without such measures the United States could lose its dominance in the knowledge economy.
\"Our
competitiveness as a nation is not inevitable,\" said Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carleton S. \"Carly\"
Fiorina. At a press briefing alongside Intel Corp. chief executive Craig R. Barrett, Fiorina cited declining federal
government spending on research and development compared with other countries, as well as a kindergarten through
12th grade educational system that \"remains a source of competitive disadvantage.\"
Barrett also cautioned
against erecting global barriers to commerce, a response to mounting concerns that technology and other companies
are transferring tens of thousands of support center, data entry and software engineering jobs overseas to take
advantage of lower wages.
By some estimates by financial consulting firms, 10 percent of jobs at U.S.
information technology vendors will move offshore by the end of this year. Throughout all U.S. companies, Forrester
Research predicts the loss of about 3.3 million jobs by 2015.
Already, some Democratic presidential candidates
have criticized the practice. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has introduced legislation that would require employees
of call centers to identify their location.
Organizations of technology employees, many of whom remain out of
work after the post-tech-bubble downturn, argue that companies are simply reaping greater profits at the expense of
U.S. workers. In November, Indiana Gov. Joseph E. Kernan (D) canceled a $15 million contract with an outsourcing
firm that would have had engineers in India upgrading state computers, even though a domestic contractor cost
more.
Barrett, chairman of the trade group Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP), said such protectionist
responses endanger the ability of U.S. firms to compete. He said Intel hires overseas often to gain local expertise,
so that it can sell more products in those markets. Moreover, he said, migration of lower-paying jobs overseas is
hardly new and is part of a recurring business cycle. He noted that a sizable portion of technology hardware
manufacturing has moved overseas, without dire economic consequences.
Fiorina said that what is likely to occur
is a shift in the kind of technology jobs that will predominate in this country, such as those that requiring the
ability to manage multiple systems and networks.
She said the country cannot afford to be distracted by
short-term financial and employment concerns. \"The biggest barrier [to solutions] is our nation\'s attention
span,\" she said.
Fiorina insisted that the CSPP is \"not lobbying.\" But the group put forth several
proposals, and promised that its executives, who also include Michael S. Dell of Dell Inc. and Samuel J. Palmisano
of International Business Machines Corp., would continue visiting Congress and the White House throughout the year
to press its case.
Palmisano and Intel Chairman Andrew S. Grove have made similar appeals in the past six
months, under the banners of other trade groups.
Among the CSPP proposals is an Infrastructure Investment Act
of 2004, which would provide more favorable tax and regulatory rules to encourage building more broadband
networks.
The group also is pushing a Mathematics and Science Improvement Act of 2004, which would fund more
rigorous education and school-testing in math and science.
Fiorina said she could not estimate the cost of the
proposals. But Barrett said they would be less than the $30 billion in agriculture subsidies that he scorned as
investment in \"19th-century technology.\"