Decius's response: The US IT industry cannot employ the people domestically that it has available to it today, and it has no plans to employ more people domestically in the future. That is the reason that it is beginning to fall under political pressure. Their response is to pretend that this problem does not exist by quoting statistics developed during the dotcom boom, and then, with a straight face, request assistance with moving money across international borders, assistance with R&D expenses, and the training of EVEN MORE engineers ("We can't use the resources we have, so please give us more resources.").

This country does not produce as many Engineers as China because Engineering bears a stigma in this country of being an undesirable profession. Numbers increased in recent years because that perception began to change, but its going right back down again. This is because the IT industry has failed to make a compelling case that people should WANT to be Engineers. If they wish to see the US produce more and better engineers, they need to sell teenagers on the idea that being an Engineer is worth all the work. They need to demonstrate to people that there are real opportunities.

How many of those 61,000 Engineering graduates from the class of 1999 do you know who have been underemployed or unemployed in the last 3 years? What kind of message is that sending to people who are considering following in their footsteps? If the IT industry really wanted more Engineers domestically they would be addressing that concern directly instead of getting up in front of Congress and asking for lower taxes. The fact that they chose the later option further contributes to the idea that this is all a big crock. It should surprise none of you that this is the same industry group that cuts deals with the RIAA to sell DRM into your house.

This sort of complete leadership vacuum does not bode well. Leadership vacuums get filled, inevitably. Sometimes by dangerous people.

Choose to Compete - What the IT industry told Congress today

] Intel chief executive Craig Barrett said the United
] States "now has to compete for every job going forward.
] That has not been on the table before. It had been
] assumed we had a lock on white-collar jobs and high-tech
] jobs. That is no longer the case."

They are smarter. They are hungrier. They have a better work ethic. Their dollars go futher, and they are used to having less stuff. Their labor regulations are looser. This isn't about tech jobs, this is about service/knowledge jobs. This is only the beginning. American dominance is over. There are too many skilled people, no one knows how to utilize all of them, and you are far from the most attractive of them. Ever wanted to know what life was like in the 30s? You will.

Tech Firms Defend Moving Jobs Overseas (TechNews.com)

] In recent years, there have been quite a few
] entrepreneurs wandering around with good ideas (at least
] in their heads), but unable to raise capital. There are
] no more angels willing to invest hundreds of thousands of
] dollars. The number of venture capital funds making seed
] investments has sharply contracted, and those still
] willing to invest do so only after long and painstaking
] study, especially in cases of entrepreneurs without prior
] experience.

Interesting interview with the founders of Huminity...

] In retrospect, do you regret not raising money from
] venture capital funds?
]
] "Truthfully, not at all. I think that had they invested
] in us, there's a good chance that TeraSync wouldn't
] exist now. They'd have killed us, like they killed a lot
] of other companies. If they don't see a quick exit,
] they have no reason to waste their management fees on a
] company. Had they invested in the company, they'd have
] forced us to appoint all kinds of American marketing
] people; their kind of people. They'd have diluted us
] altogether at the second financing round, and if they
] didn't see an IPO on the horizon, they'd have simply
] closed us down."

Globes [online] - No favors

] The music industry has been spoiled. They have controlled
] the distribution of music by producing CDs, and thereby
] have also protected their profits. So they have resisted
] Internet distribution. Six years ago I asked Sony Music
] to start working with IBM to figure out how to offer
] secured distribution of their content over the Net. But
] nobody in Sony Music would listen. Then about six months
] ago, they started to panic.

] Nokia is focused on volume—selling as many cell phones as
] possible at a low price. But in my observation, I am not
] sure they know very clearly what the real opportunity is
] in the telephone business. We are talking about secure
] distribution of music on the phone.

Nokia and Sony were the primary investors behind a music searching technology company I worked at. One of the key areas of interest was cell phones. Granted, that particular R&D thread is probably dead to both Nokia and Sony, due to who bought the company.

Sony's CEO Unplugged :: AO