Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
from
(snip)The following is an email I received from a fellow engineer. It pretty much summarizes the times.
My Florida nuclear power plant work ended sooner than promised, so I networked my contacts and in 6 working days landed 2 solid offers. Yep, it's moving time again.
I'm flying to Vancouver CA to work for 3 weeks, then flying back to Florida to move my stuff to AZ. I'm driving my truck the southern route - New Orleans, San Antonio River Walk and Alamo, Austin City Limits, etc. Should be in Phoenix the last few days of 2011, which gives me just enough time for a round of golf and a hike up Squaw Peak. Then I'm going to Nevada for my next job building a new gold mine.
Let's see, that makes 4 states, 3 companies, 2 countries, and 5 different job-sites for me in the past 11 months. Pack-and-move and pack-and-move and pack-and-move. My world is spinning faster and faster and I can barely hold on anymore. I've rented my house, sold all my furniture, dumped my camping gear, and given away my t-shirts, and now I live out of cardboard boxes.
Anything I buy is too much trouble to drag around. I have simplified so much that all I own anymore is a cell phone, a laptop, and an email address. Travel light, move fast, and stay alive. There's no middle ground anymore.
There are thousands of starving engineers, spun out into a ditch, unable to make that next move, meet that upcoming deadline, or attend tomorrow's meeting. So I travel light and move fast. Very fast. Always faster than the last time. Always faster than the next guy. Always jumping higher and farther and better than ever before. One day I'll just burn up, spin out, or perhaps just give up. But not just yet. Somehow, somehow still, I keep missing career death with that one well-placed contact. With that one quick jump, with that one flexible move, lucky me, I just survived another crash.
And, extra lucky me this time — the nukies downsized me in November but paid me thru January, and by next week I'll be polishing gold nuggets in my hotel room in Vancouver. Double-dipping sweet!
So tonight I'm heading to Wal-Mart to buy a trench coat with deep pockets, extra sunglasses, and a 10 gallon hat. While you are sitting in your cubicle smothered in paperclips and yellow stickies, I'll be surrounded with tons of gold! I'm sure they won't miss an ounce or two every now and then.
And, so I spin, faster and faster, around the world. Where it stops nobody knows. It's either spin or spin out in this business anymore.
Another job, another state, another company, another promise, another airplane flight, another hotel. What day of the week is it? Sorry, I don't have a clue.
All I care about now is that this new job is good. I work 6 weeks on and get 2 weeks off. Free airplane, hotel, food, car, etc. They pay for everything. Even overtime. See you on Squaw Peak every day for 2 weeks about mid-February. Or perhaps Hawaii, Mexico, or wherever the plane lands next.
It looks like I'll be living in hotels until the sky caves in, so if anyone needs any towels, shampoos, or soaps, just let me know.
Hey, Freemon, you can certainly understand. What a fast unstable world! You can do anything you want with this letter, but please change everything that identifies me with it. Thousands of engineers like us are stuck in this spin, and the corporate spin of "America needs more engineers, blah blah blah"
We have thousands of engineers too many. We need a stable economy"(snip)
This is obviously a response to the now highly touted claim that US companies have job openings for engineers, technicians, skilled trades workers etc. that go unfilled. This has in turn led to a well publicized assumption that the US simply doesn't have / create enough engineers, technicians, and skilled trades workers.
However, the 'truth' of the situation may be a bit different. It's entirely possible that the reason US companies are not finding 'takers' for the engineering and technical jobs they are offering is that the 'working conditions' they expect those engineers and technicians to endure are now 'way over the top' compared to the amount of money and near total lack of job security being offered in return.
As the author makes reference to, todays corporate expectations of frequent relocations, meeting crash and burn deadlines, massive expectations of unpredictable overtime work, etc. have created an entirely new paradigm versus the 'classic' example of a career engineer in the auto / aircraft / defense industry being able to work predictable hours in a single location for years or decades. Indeed there must be a large number of 'unemployed by choice' engineers who don't savor the thought of having to leave home / family for weeks at a time, who don't want to see their professional reputations damaged by failing to meet the next deadline because they devoted weekend attention to home / family instead of work, etc.
~
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
The hue and cry for corporate profits...... and return on investment has driven many jobs overseas..... and made working conditions unbearable...... How many Americans were told they had to come to work sometime around midnight just after Thanksgiving?
And they put Jeffrey Immelt in charge of group dedicated to creating jobs...... A man whose obsssion is not with creating jobs in this country..... but in getting a foothold in other markets... A man who has slashed his payroll count and taken govt bailout money.
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
Quote:
and return on investment has driven many jobs overseas
These are precisely the sort of ( former ) 9 to 5 white collar engineering jobs the author was referring to. Because this 'desk work' isn't directly tied to a 'hands on' requirement in a US factory / power plant / mine / bridge or whatever, it CAN be outsourced. The remaining engineering work that CAN'T be outsourced involves 'hands on' site work, project work involving local contractors etc., troubleshooting etc. ... none of which still fits the 9 to 5 white collar paradigm.
Quote:
And they put Jeffrey Immelt in charge of group dedicated to creating jobs...... A man whose obsssion is not with creating jobs in this country
I'll give GE CEO Immelt SOME credit ... in that he clearly recognizes that it's no longer possible to profitably manufacture durable goods in America. If you were faced with a similar dilemma, i.e. seeing your company being totally driven out of a business segment by foreign competition, versus retaining market share / profitability in that business segment by involving lower cost foreign manufacturing in your own business model while preserving some number of US support jobs, what would you have done ?
And while I have no particular love for Jeff Immelt, in fairness he was not expected to come up with any realistic options regarding the creation of new US jobs. In fact, actually making such proposals would have landed him and GE in 'hot water'. After all, the US gov't itself is a huge GE customer ( at mandated prevailing wage rates ), and US gov't policy continuation is what keeps GE economically viable in different business segments ( i.e. green energy, medical equipment etc. ). So in essence Immelt has made the only economically viable business decisions that he could ... to grow 'public sector' business segments in the USA where economic competitiveness doesn't matter, and to outsource / offshore 'private sector' business segments where economic competitiveness is an absolute necessity.
~
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
I'll give GE CEO Immelt SOME credit ... in that he clearly recognizes that it's no longer possible to profitably manufacture durable goods in America. If you were faced with a similar dilemma, i.e. seeing your company being totally driven out of a business segment by foreign competition, versus retaining market share / profitability in that business segment by involving lower cost foreign manufacturing in your own business model while preserving some number of US support jobs, what would you have done ?
And while I have no particular love for Jeff Immelt, in fairness he was not expected to come up with any realistic options regarding the creation of new US jobs. In fact, actually making such proposals would have landed him and GE in 'hot water'. After all, the US gov't itself is a huge GE customer ( at mandated prevailing wage rates ), and US gov't policy continuation is what keeps GE economically viable in different business segments ( i.e. green energy, medical equipment etc. ). So in essence Immelt has made the only economically viable business decisions that he could ... to grow 'public sector' business segments in the USA where economic competitiveness doesn't matter, and to outsource / offshore 'private sector' business segments where economic competitiveness is an absolute necessity.
~
You can give Immelt credit if you like..... I see him and his ilk as the problem, certainly not the solution...... And he was offered up as some kind of solution...... The obsession with ROI and shareholder value is creating a permanent unclass (that never existed before) in this country.
Things are not getting better, and they wont in the near future...... The choice is to add these people to the public dole, at the same time we are arguing about reducing transfer payments......Obviously it's cheaper to put these people back to work...... You just never hear any real plans to get this done.
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
This is an interesting news story from 2010 about company's effort to have a product that is fully made in the U.S.A. Instead of Jeffrey Immelt, maybe they should have tried to get Anthony Maglica.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38025260.../#.TtuJjtXQd-w
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
^^^ unfortunately, guys like Tony Maglica ... who are willing to work 80 hour weeks fighting an uphill battle with zero plans to ever retire ... and who also have many millions of dollars earned in previous decades as 'insurance' against being forced into bankruptcy during the next business downturn ... are exceedingly rare finds today.
I would also point out that any young entrepreneur who was in fact willing to work those 80 hour weeks to develop a US business today would probably NOT be able to attract the investment capital to do so, and would probably NOT be able to maintain a 'black' profit margin if repayment of investors was a necessary part of the business model !!!
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
I'll give GE CEO Immelt SOME credit ... in that he clearly recognizes that it's no longer possible to profitably manufacture durable goods in America.
I beg to differ. I've been in the manufacturing business since graduating from college and leaving dancing. Everywhere I've been we've made money. Some places have been old line manufacturers, some new-tech drug development startups but we've made money or sold the company for a big profit. My current company while not profitable this calendar year, has been mostly profitable during its 40 year history. Further, with the changes I have made since buying the place, I expect us to be profitable in Q1 2012. In fact, a tiny operating profit for Q4 2011 is within the realm of possibility depending on signing just one more contract this year! The only thing we do is manufacture durable goods, very durable goods.
While I won't discuss our customer list, a certain General in the aero engine business is making a lot of engines right her in the USA at a substantial profit. (True, BMW and RR can make a profit building aero engines in Germany and the UK, I don't think of either place as particularly low cost to manufacture.) The same General builds most of the world's locomotives in Erie, Pennsylvania. Also at a profit. It's really about your approach to globalization.
I tend to follow a "Japanese" approach. I build close to my customers. That way I can quickly meet their needs. I tend to pay my workers well so that my expectations of high performance are easier to accept.
HTH
Z
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
^^^ would your General still be profitable if it actually had to pay US corporate taxes ? If it didn't position itself to pocket billions from US taxpayer funded subsidies for windpower ? If it didn't have a de-facto near monopoly thus the power to dictate prices for products sold to the US gov't / military ( like jet engines ) that must meet 'made in USA' gov't mandates regardless of lower priced foreign alternatives ?
Granted that your General can operate some business segments profitably in the USA. But let's be clear that those business segments are not operating on a 'level playing field'. There is also tacit admission by the General that other business segments cannot be operated profitably if based in the USA ... which is the reason that the General has moved certain divisions / manufacturing facilities to Mexico, China etc.
Note that my comment was specifically referenced to the production of 'durable goods'. The General no longer manufactures a single appliance in the USA. The General no longer manufactures a single AC electric motor in the USA ( well, smaller than 100hp anyhow ). The General no longer manufactures a single transformer in the USA either ( well, smaller than 115,000 volts ). The reason of course is that these products face 'level playing field' global competition ... with US costs of doing business thus placing these business segments at an 'impossible' economic disadvantage.
Similarly, the specialty machined parts produced by your new company are also mostly free of 'level playing field' competition ... because of the small quantities / short delivery cycles etc. There's obviously nothing wrong with pursuing such 'niche' markets, but again the fact shouldn't be blurred that such 'niche' markets comprise a very small percentage of US manufacturing opportunities.
~
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
[quote=Melonie;2262133]^^^ would your General still be profitable if it actually had to pay US corporate taxes ? If it didn't position itself to pocket billions from US taxpayer funded subsidies for windpower ? If it didn't have a de-facto near monopoly thus the power to dictate prices for products sold to the US gov't / military ( like jet engines ) that must meet 'made in USA' gov't mandates regardless of lower priced foreign alternatives ?
<<<snips>>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GE also manufactures engines for jet airliners at US facilities, ranging in engine size from those that power the smallest regional jet, up to the GE90 ( engine of choice for the new B787, and B747-8 aircraft). Several manufacturing facilities in USA, including one in "Z"s neck of the woods.
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
^^^ and how much of GE's production costs for 'civilian' jet engines is actually subsidized by overcharging the gov't on sales of 'military' jet engines ? In truth, the public will never know. Also, for the moment, the only serious competition from other jet engine manufacturers comes from Western Europe ... where the cost structure is as bad or worse than in the USA. However, that ALL may change next year ... and thanks to Jeff Immelt's understanding of how the 'game is played', GE will be one of the few nominally US companies to 'cash in'.
(snip)"As China strives for leadership in the world’s most advanced industries, it sees commercial jetliners — planes that may someday challenge the best from Boeing and Airbus — as a top prize.
And no Western company has been more aggressive in helping China pursue that dream than one of the aviation industry’s biggest suppliers of jet engines and airplane technology, General Electric.
On Friday, during the visit of the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, to the United States, G.E. plans to sign a joint-venture agreement in commercial aviation that shows the tricky risk-and-reward calculations American corporations must increasingly make in their pursuit of lucrative markets in China.
G.E., in the partnership with a state-owned Chinese company, will be sharing its most sophisticated airplane electronics, including some of the same technology used in Boeing’s new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner.
For G.E., the pact is a chance to build upon an already well-established business in China, where the company has booming sales of jet engines, mainly to Chinese airlines that are now buying Boeing and Airbus planes. But doing business in China often requires Western multinationals like G.E. to share technology and trade secrets that might eventually enable Chinese companies to beat them at their own game — by making the same products cheaper, if not better.
The other risk is that Western technologies could help China play catch-up in military aviation — a concern underscored last week when the Chinese military demonstrated a prototype of its version of the Pentagon’s stealth fighter, even though the plane could be a decade away from production.
The first customer for the G.E. joint venture will be the Chinese company building a new airliner, the C919, that is meant to be China’s first entry in competition with Boeing and Airbus."(snip)
from
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
...The first customer for the G.E. joint venture will be the Chinese company building a new airliner, the C919, that is meant to be China’s first entry in competition with Boeing and Airbus...
What many companies are learning the hard way is that manufacturing overseas is giving away the factory and the technology. The WSJ had an article years ago about Nike building a factory and having an unauthorized '3rd shift' making shoes to sell to their customers in the USA. (Quite profitably since their capital investment was zero!) Many companies delude themselves by saying that they don't give their latest products to overseas manufacturers, but China can copy anything from iPhones to our most sophisticated products. To them it is the same as duplicating a CD of Windows or the latest movie. Quick short term profits, but doom the company. Ok, done ranting... :banghead:
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ would your General still be profitable if it actually had to pay US corporate taxes ? If it didn't position itself to pocket billions from US taxpayer funded subsidies for windpower ? If it didn't have a de-facto near monopoly thus the power to dictate prices for products sold to the US gov't / military ( like jet engines ) that must meet 'made in USA' gov't mandates regardless of lower priced foreign alternatives ?
Granted that your General can operate some business segments profitably in the USA. But let's be clear that those business segments are not operating on a 'level playing field'. There is also tacit admission by the General that other business segments cannot be operated profitably if based in the USA ... which is the reason that the General has moved certain divisions / manufacturing facilities to Mexico, China etc.
Note that my comment was specifically referenced to the production of 'durable goods'. The General no longer manufactures a single appliance in the USA. The General no longer manufactures a single AC electric motor in the USA ( well, smaller than 100hp anyhow ). The General no longer manufactures a single transformer in the USA either ( well, smaller than 115,000 volts ). The reason of course is that these products face 'level playing field' global competition ... with US costs of doing business thus placing these business segments at an 'impossible' economic disadvantage.
Similarly, the specialty machined parts produced by your new company are also mostly free of 'level playing field' competition ... because of the small quantities / short delivery cycles etc. There's obviously nothing wrong with pursuing such 'niche' markets, but again the fact shouldn't be blurred that such 'niche' markets comprise a very small percentage of US manufacturing opportunities.
~
You're just making stuff up. There are plenty of businesses that are able to profitably manufacture products in the US. You don't understand, and I don't think you are able to understand, there are more factors in the profitability of a business than the cost of labor and environmental regulations.
Re: Real World response to claims that 'US Companies can't find enough Engineers'
Quote:
There are plenty of businesses that are able to profitably manufacture products in the US. You don't understand, and I don't think you are able to understand, there are more factors in the profitability of a business than the cost of labor and environmental regulations.
Certainly I do ! First there is 'inflated pricing' when manufactured products are being sold to the US gov't / military. There are also quotas / tariffs, which allow 'inflated pricing' into the private sector market by limiting competition from lower cost imports. Then there is US gov't / state gov't grant money, gov't loan guarantees, targeted tax credits / exemptions, tax 'loopholes', discount / free infrastructure, discount utilities etc. None of these involve the cost of labor or the cost of environmental compliance. However, all of these involve increased costs to US taxpayers / consumers to 'subsidize' the beneficiary US manufacturers.
But where a purely 'private sector' US business tries to make a go of it without receiving these gov't 'perks', and must actually compete head to head with foreign competition, labor costs and environmental costs are areas where HUGE differentials exist.
Quote:
What many companies are learning the hard way is that manufacturing overseas is giving away the factory and the technology.
Undoubtedly true as well. However, board room conversations involving choice A - earn big profits from Chinese manufacturing in the short term even if technology theft will hurt you in the long term, versus B. - continue trying to manufacture in the USA and risk going bankrupt in the long term , choice A is the lesser of the two evils !