Recent Posts
- 07/25 Math Scores Show No Gap for Girls
- 07/16 So graduate school is good for what, exactly?
- 07/09 Sloan Grants
- 07/02 Foreign Born TAs
- 06/29 Science Prizes
- 06/24 phds.org Facelift
- 06/04 Larry Summers Revisited
- 06/02 Women in Science in the News
- 05/28 Remember all those imminent faculty retirements?
- 05/21 Japan worried about engineering "shortages," too
- 05/19 Hard times in physics?
- 05/18 Tolstoy Syndrome
- 05/13 Manufacturing Innovation
- 05/06 Making the Grade
- 05/03 Privacy paranoia at NSF?
Categories
Funding
Fiscal Sponsor
A couple of points:
There are arguments for increasing the number of S&Es in the US independently of the number of S&Es in China / India / EU. Romer's rationale for increasing the # of S&E PhDs is that S&E workers are linked to GDP growth.
I heard Blinder talking about the 40 million number on NPR a couple of weeks ago. One thing he pointed out was that there would not be 40 million NET jobs lost. Outsourcing does save money, and that money ends up in other places in the economy and creates jobs. The trouble is that it's pretty hard to count those other jobs because they are widely diffused.
The solution Blinder proposes is to emphasize training people in things that are impossible to outsource, which seems problematic to me. We'll end up with a nation of barbers.
One read of the article you cite above is that we should be training more, not less native S&Es, since relying on the H-1Bs is problematic. See http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/03/blinder-on-free-ish-trade.html