Author Segal takes differing positions from one page to the next, making it difficult to determine what his points are. We should 'focus on product innovation,' no, on on the 'software of innovation' ('we're good at sifting through wacky ideas') because China will outspend us anyway (actually, their goal is to match us on R&D spending as a percent of GDP), and they have more graduates in engineering and science. Their graduates are excellent, no, their graduates are not as good as ours. Later on in the material, while denigrating Chinese research, Segal offers no concrete evidence in support, and ignores their often reputed lesser emphasis on time-wasting publications and PhDs. Further, he's totally oblivious to the U.S.' continual inability to go from grand idea to implementation - thanks to a political system that produces mostly gridlock. Conversely, many marvel at how fast China moves from idea to completion.
A few facts are incontroverable - the U.S. spends more on R&D than the next 7 nations combined, while China is now 2nd in the publication of science and engineering papers, and expected to overtake the U.S. in the number of patent applications this year. (Once again, however, Segal gets distracted arguing with himself whether Chinese patent applications and published papers are as good as those from the U.S. It doesn't matter - if they're not, rest assured they soon will be. There may also be a problem with military innovation in the U.S. via private firms - they may be forced to forego cheaper and faster R&D in China.) 'Process innovation' can be important, even revolutionary in importance - eg. the 'Toyota Production System." However, Segal seems oblivious to the fact that the U.S. is not likely participate in this form of innovation because we produce little - in any case extensive production experience gives China and advantage in both process and product innovation. Another issue - outsourcing our production to China reduces the overall ROI for U.S. R&D. On top of that, Segal does quote George Scalise saying that Chinese government incentives can make it $1 billion cheaper to build and operate semi-conductor manufacturing facilities in China vs. the U.S.; oh yes, their labor costs are also 90% lower. And we're supposed to have an advantage somehow?
Like too many others, Segal also berates China for human rights issues, ignoring the fact that Chinese citizens indicated a much higher level of satisfaction than those in the U.S. - for both the 2009 and 2010 Pew polls. More importantly, a focus such as Segal's misses the opportunity to learn from China's recent economic and education accomplishments, as well as its approach to speeding up innovation and R&D - somethings we sorely need to improve on. He's also oblivious to the fact that R&D is easier and more effective when co-located with production (China) so that mutual beneficial transfers back and forth can better occur. Then there's the topic of how China now forces those wanting to do business with it to share their R&D with it (about 1,200 foreign R&D centers), and the fact that even when the U.S. 'wins' the innovation race (eg. Apple products), it is likely to lose out on most of the production and overall jobs. So much for our supposed advantage in 'innovation software.'
It was interesting to read that Ron Hira showed the median wage in 2005 for new H-1B computing professionals to be $50,000, less than a U.S. entry-level worker with a B.A. and no experience. Further, the BLS found that 85% of H-1B computer workers receive less than the U.S. median. In 2008, for of the top 5 firms receiving H-1B visas were Indian outsourcers - Infosys, Wipro, Satyam, and Tata Consultancy.
Then Segal continues with a one-sided assessment of TGen and ASU in the Phoenix area. TGen has since moved the bulk of their activity to Michigan; to my knowledge, genomic research within the U.S. has not made money overall. As for ASU, enrollee costs have skyrocketed under President Crowe, students still average about six years til graduation, the library does not receive enough money to provide up-to-date books (especially on China), and professors are overpaid - eg. 'no-name' economists are receiving over $200,000.
Returning to China and India, Segal goes back and forth again on the quality of their engineering graduates. Finally, he adds something new - that about one-fourth of U.S. master's level engineering graduates are foreign-born, and about one-third of the doctoral-level graduates. Salaries for engineers in the U.S. have been flat, though their (engineers and scientists) unemployment rate exceeds that of other professionals.
Bottom-Line: Segal repeatedly meanders and ties himself up into knots with unresolved controversies. Safe yourself a lot of aggravation - read something else.
