Let me review four of my prior postings:
1. Wiener some sixty years ago in Cybernetics and The Human Use of Human Beings laid out just what is happening. It was no surprise then nor should it be now. Namely we have "machines" which make humans more productive and thus decrease the demand for human labor as relates to what a machine can do. Simply, I have not had a need for a secretary in over 20 some years. In fact they get in the way. I type, I electronically file, I email, I use my mobile phone, and thus why get some intermediary unless there is value added.
2. Economists have made one mistake after another, a la Romer. So frankly why do we need them. Unlike say physicians who can do more and are forced to do so, economists really do not accomplish anything, just churn up the water. Perhaps when that is fully recognized we can reduce that overhead.
3. We, not me but "academics", try to make learning science and engineering easier and more learner friendly. That is the core of what I call the "iPhone" generation, namely give someone an iPhone and let them play with it and we assume that they are technically astute. In fact they could never design such a device nor construct it. The poor student who found mechanics "too hard" was probably never really challenged. One can get 800 on the math part of the SATs but frankly that does not mean anything in terms of solving a mechanics problem, that requires understanding geometry and how to fit F=ma into that geometry, that is all, and you do NOT do that by memorizing.
4. Finally good schools are good "fishing, drinking, and smoking clubs", namely watering holes where smart people gather and learn from each other. The learning is what topics are hot, what techniques work, where things are going, and most importantly getting a feeling for one's own measure. Egos can be destroyed or built in such an environment and it the very ego which is a core to the success of the entrepreneur.
Thus growth requires an entrepreneur, one trained in the area of expertise, but one secure in their own vision of moving forward. It is the "individual" who makes progress.
As the contributor to the blog states:
We
attribute this in part to the fact that tech. progress is driving
productivity even has it leaves many types of workers behind. In fact, a
large group has been made worse off, even as those with education and
talent have gained immensely, and opportunities for entrepreneurs are
better than ever. In my judgment, the underlying trends are on track to
accelerating in coming years.
Technical progress has always been driving productivity, just think of the wheel, the steam engine and of course the PC. Education qua schooling is useless unless one is independently well off. I selected Engineering because there were jobs when I started, there were none ten years later, but welcome to the luck of the draw. But one makes do, not complain. The problem as I understand it is that there is a view of entitlement, entitlement of success, if one finishes some form of college, whether that is a productive path or not. That is not true. A History or Philosophy major may be well educated but the demand for that skill in the work force is nil.
No matter what Deans of Liberal Arts say. The Chinese students focus on that productivity factor, thus engineering. But also if one looks at the authors of the new biotech and genomics papers they come from the new Chinese generation, and if we think we have problems now just wait a decade! Frankly it is easy to be an engineer compared to the total uncertainty of the biotech world. Yet the challenge is being met by what we call our economic competitors.
Posts
