How is globalization affecting U.S. high-tech workers? What steps should
the government take to ensure sufficient jobs and a robust high-tech
workforce in the future? What are the roles of community colleges and
industry in producing highly-skilled employees for technical and manufacturing
jobs? The House Science and Technology Committee addressed these issues
in two recent hearings. Witnesses at the first hearing indicated that
not enough is yet known about the consequences of offshoring of high-tech
jobs. They were united in opposition to protectionist policies, arguing
that the United States instead should take actions to support a flexible
and creative environment for innovation. The second hearing highlighted
the fact that many highly-skilled manufacturing jobs are still available
in the U.S., but employers face difficulties finding qualified people
to fill them and community colleges are having trouble attracting students
to technology training programs.
In what Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) called "the first in a series
of fact-finding explorations," the full committee on June 12 heard
from experts in economics and international R&D. The number of jobs
that can be done electronically, and thus are vulnerable to being relocated,
is "destined to increase greatly," according to Alan Blinder,
Director of Princeton's Center for Economic Policy Studies. He testified
that the types of jobs moved overseas did not necessarily correlate
to wage or education level; those least vulnerable were those that required
the most face-to-face contact between people outside the same work unit.
Globalization will not lead to mass U.S. unemployment, he noted; it
will also create jobs in the U.S., but he warned that more Americans
may need to find personal service jobs. Thomas Duesterberg, President
and CEO of the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, testified that U.S. multinational
companies, even as they increase employment among foreign affiliates,
also generate employment growth in the U.S. that "equals or exceeds"
that of other U.S. companies. He added that more R&D is insourced
to the U.S. by non-U.S. firms than is outsourced by U.S. firms.
Other benefits of globalization mentioned at the hearing included lower
prices, improved products and services, and access to new technologies
and business practices. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation President Ralph Gomory,
however, warned that the old theories of free trade assumed that production
capabilities are fixed. If those are now mobile, he said, it will lead
to "a whole new ball game." According to his analysis, increased
production in a trading partner may be beneficial to the U.S. if the
trading partner is very low wage, but may become harmful as the partner
becomes better developed.
All four witnesses were adamantly against trade barriers and protectionist
policies; Blinder called protectionism "a loser's game." Suggestions
for maintaining U.S. economic prominence included policies to ensure
that the U.S. business environment remains flexible and innovative,
such as support for R&D, creative business strategies, the venture
capital industry, competition and free trade, intellectual property
protection, and risk-taking. Also encouraged were tax policies that
would reward companies for locating production and high-value-added
jobs in the U.S. In addition, the federal government should take steps
to "ameliorate the downsides" of globalization, as Blinder
put it, including addressing the costs of health insurance, litigation
and regulatory burdens, ensuring sufficient unemployment insurance and
worker retraining, tackling budget and trade deficits and the national
savings rate, and addressing the undervaluation of certain Asian currencies
and intellectual property theft. Blinder encouraged the U.S. to move
away from a 19th century education system that stressed rote learning,
and he worried that the No Child Left Behind Act was "pushing us
in the wrong direction."
Some of these same themes arose in a June 19 hearing of the Research
and Science Education Subcommittee. According to the hearing charter,
as manufacturing jobs have become more specialized, companies are reporting
difficulties in finding workers with the necessary skills. Chairman
Brian Baird (D-WA) cited a National Association of Manufacturers survey
indicating that "80 percent of…respondents report difficulties
in finding qualified people to run their production processes and serve
as technicians."
The witnesses described how community colleges and other two-year institutions,
in partnership with industry, frequently fill the role of training high-tech
production and technical workers. Community colleges often rely on local
businesses to provide information on their needs and develop appropriate
curricula, and in many cases an industry advisory board oversees the
training programs, provides feedback, and ensures that courses remain
current. In addition to oversight of curricula, witnesses stated that
businesses could also offer internships, guest speakers, equipment donations,
job placement for graduates, and marketing and recruitment efforts.
Even though manufacturers are reporting a need for more skilled workers,
one of the biggest challenges remains attracting sufficient numbers
of students to such programs. As reasons, witnesses suggested parents'
advocacy of a four-year college education, students' aversion to and
lack of preparation for science and technology careers, and lack of
awareness or a poor opinion of manufacturing as a career. All stressed
the importance of good marketing to get the word out, but agreed that
community colleges rarely have the funds for effective marketing. It
was suggested that political campaigns discuss the importance of high-tech
jobs remaining in the U.S. In echoes of the previous hearing, Stephen
Fonash, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization
at the Pennsylvania State University, said that the U.S. must "innovate
or perish," and Monica Poindexter, Associate Director for Corporate
Diversity at Genentech, Inc., questioned whether the U.S. education
system was ready for the 21st century. Eric Mittelstadt, CEO of the
National Advisory Council for Advanced Manufacturing, said the federal
government should assist workers in dealing with short-term displacements
in a rapidly moving economy. Baird and other subcommittee members mused
that perhaps the allocation of H1-B visas should reward businesses that
play an active role in attracting students to, and helping educate them
in, high-tech careers.
Future Science and Technology Committee hearings will explore additional
aspects of globalization and its impacts on the science and engineering
workforce.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl