Lockheed's CEO doing a little tech commentary

The article has some interesting facts from the CEO of Lockheed. Nothing we haven't heard before, but you may have noticed that nothing has changed yet. So I guess people will keep trying until they have to move their business elsewhere. Really I wonder if that is when people will sit up and take notice. When GE has more jobs in Asia and Europe than in the US, then people will notice. Oh wait, that's not as far off as you think... In 2004, GE had 165,000 employees in the US, and 142,000 employees elsewhere. In 2001 there was a difference of only 6000 emplyees (it fluctuates a bit from year to year, but the total is usually somewhere around 310,000 employees from year to year). I bet you didn't know they had almost half their workforce outside of the US. Or did you? Are you educated about the global economy? Are you prepared for the global competition for your job?

Commentary: Social Engineering
The Wall Street Journal 04/19/2006
Author: Robert J. Stevens
(Copyright (c) 2006, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Americans are focused on China's rise and the implications for U.S. preeminence -- especially in technology. The revving of China's science and engineering engine is too loud to ignore: 50% of its undergraduates receive degrees in natural science or engineering, compared to 15% in the U.S. Between 1999 and 2003, China doubled production of engineering grads; U.S. numbers are stagnant. Meanwhile, China's global high-tech exports approached $220 billion in 2005 -- more than 100 times 1989 levels.

Some observers view these trends with alarm, fearing the erosion of scientific and technological leadership and the loss of high-skilled jobs to educated, motivated foreign competitors. Others claim the hype is overblown, arguing that the caliber of Chinese graduates is significantly less impressive than their numbers, and recalling how earlier fears of a Japanese juggernaut never materialized. As the CEO of a major advanced technology company, I welcome this debate. For Lockheed Martin, where almost half of our 135,000 employees are scientists and engineers, questions of technological competitiveness go to the heart of our ability to innovate and thrive. Given the security constraints surrounding our work, outsourcing and offshoring aren't feasible options for companies in our sector. For the aerospace and defense industry, the front lines of the brainpower battle aren't in China, they're here at home.

One in every three of Lockheed's employees is over 50. To sustain our talent base, we're hiring 14,000 people a year. In two years, we're going to need 29,000 new hires; in three years, 44,000. If this trend continues, over the next decade we will need 142,000. We're not alone; industry-wide, some 19% of employees are eligible for retirement. Yet Department of Education data suggests U.S. colleges and universities are only producing about 62,000 engineering BAs a year -- fewer than the visual and performing arts graduates -- and that figure hasn't grown in a decade.

The looming tech talent shortfall will have an impact far beyond any single firm or sector. Science and engineering aren't just crucial for national security; they're critical for economic growth. High-tech industries drive development, boosting productivity and generating good jobs. If the U.S. intends to remain the world's technological leader, we have to act today, inspiring more young people to thrive in advanced-tech careers. It's achievable, as long as government, the private sector, schools and communities work together.

The classroom is the place to begin. A major study ranked us 24 out of 29 countries in terms of 15-year-olds' ability to apply math skills. The Bush administration's pledge to improve math and science education, including 70,000 newly trained high-school teachers, is encouraging. But in order to attract the best teachers, we should pay them what they're worth. Between 1993-94 and 2003-04, 15 states saw declines in teacher salaries when adjusted for inflation.