Comment by programmertote
4 days ago
The 'brain drain' (as you refer to it) stems from intelligent/motivated grads in the US for the last two decades (at least) pursuing more lucrative fields like finance and adtech (re: Google, Facebook). Or some pursue management route (attending big MBA schools and switching to management roles where they climb corporate ladder). In other words, there are not a lot of college/grad students who want to pursue traditional engineering routes in the US.
I myself was an electrical engineering (EE) major until I switched to computer science in my third (junior) year of college because like a friend of mine at the time told me, "<my name>, if you don't major in computer science, you will not be able to find a job easily after graduation". He was right. All of my former college friends in EE ended up pursuing programming jobs (a few of them now works for FAANG; I used to work for one but left a year ago due to RTO). That is why the US has no sufficient personnel to do traditional engineering jobs and we have shipped off a lot of those to foreign countries.
Everyone I know that was in EE falls into two camps basically:
1. Became web developers
2. Work in Defense or some other regulated industry that has protections from being outsourced to China
I'm a EE and had no problem finding a job and neither did any of my classmates in my EE program (early 2010s). I also didn't exactly go to anything approaching MIT, but it was an engineering school and I had a decent GPA. Particularly, there are a lot of well paying jobs in power systems with good work life balance. We have an energy transition going on, so that helps. Having an internship probably helped me too. I acknowledge that things might have broadly changed.
> there are a lot of well paying jobs in power systems with good work life balance
How much electrical engineering is there in these jobs? I knew a few electrical engineer at university (weirdly they outnumbered the software engineers 3 to 1) and some of them told me they could get work for a local power company, but it was mostly looking at spreadsheets and not really using anything that they'd learned.
3 replies →
“Fun” fact: pure EE is no longer a major at MIT
Similar qualifications here, but no internships. Couldn't find anything after grad school in the early 2010s (and still nothing in the mid 2010s after trying again). Went into telcom and I'm a happy little coder now. Nice to actually feel appreciated in this field compared to EE where it felt like I was always working my butt off for scraps.
2 replies →
Is there a somber write-up anywhere as to the future of EE in the West?
I don't know if there is a somber write up. But from what I have heard from a lot of people, is that jobs designing and making say PCB boards and electronic circuits just don't exist. They are all in Shenzhen. Those American firms that have American engineers still, seem to all involve flying to those factories to help fix problems, and are dead end jobs. At least thats my impression.
3 replies →
Chip design/semiconductors/etc. have been a dead end in the US for 30+ years, but EE is a broad field and other specialties like RF/power systems/anything defense related are still in high demand. An EE with a PE will have an infinitely easier time getting a job working at a utility or engineering firm than any software developer these days to be honest.
1 reply →
Limited to non existent jobs. Not much else to say, the jobs like so many others have been exported. Taiwan and China being the electronics and manufacturing centers means design has steadily moved as well. Ask any board house in the west how things are going, the ones that are left that is.
4 replies →
Software jobs are more plentiful, sure, but you’re discounting the extremely high quantity of EE/CE jobs available at semiconductor companies (Intel, AMD, and many smaller ones) and companies like Apple. They don’t pay as well, but they can pay quite good over time and tend to be more stable than software jobs.
It's not even brain drain, America's dominance came from the fact that for nearly a century the brightest people in the world were willing to give up everything to come here. That is no longer the case. Today's Einstein probably isn't going to immigrate here.
That is still the case and no where else is even close.
https://www.statista.com/chart/30815/top-destination-countri...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/468218/nearly-900-million-world...
Does a want to immigrate necessarily mean that the US is the most favoured destination for the world’s intellectuals?
It might, but how do you measure that?
I just want to point out that germany and US have a similar number when adjusted to it's respected population size (I think it's even a little bit higher).
I am kinda surprised to see it so far on the top
Today's Einstein ARE immigrating to US for such positions as finance, adtech and management, ones that explicitly produce no physical artifact.
Unfortunately, I spent more than a trivial amount of time wondering what an Einstein of Adtech looks like.
2 replies →
But not for the hardware that powers the white collar. China is taking those.
1 reply →
Einstein didn't emigrate to get rich, he emigrated because the Nazi's took over Germany. Germany had the best universities in the world before they took the path of self-destruction. So that was a second, separate event that helped America.
America stills gets a lot of immigrants.
Well, hopefully nothing like that happens in the US - that is to say an ideologue that ruins a country by ostracizing and then removing skilled immigrants or deters them from coming in the first place. Perhaps we can examine some recent large scale survey data to determine if the US populace gives a shit.
Pretty sure the use of "Einstein" here is symbolic, not literal.
1 reply →
For nearly a century Europe incinerated itself twice over.
> That is no longer the case.
For all I shit relentlessly on this country and its culture, it's still an extremely attractive place to live if you're well-situated to make money. (Most people are not—hence my contempt for how the society functions. This presumably DOES apply to an "Einstein", if indeed this Einstein wants money.) China still has a way to go in catering to and granting citizenship (or some amenable equivalent) to foreigners.
Going through the _legal_ immigration in the US is hell. Even if you're immigrating through a "talent" visa. Never mind regular work visa/GC.
5 replies →
You make a good point about China. It’s still an ethnostate, and I don’t see how it can reconcile such a strong ethnic nationalist identity with its own demographic crisis and competition for labor from abroad.
>if you're well-situated to make money
so basically, like everything else, you make a lot of money but it isn't a great place to live unless you make ALL the money.
The US didn't win World War 2, break the sound barrier, or put a man on the Moon only or primarily due to immigrant workers. We scoured the country's public school system for the sharpest young minds, sent them to institutions of higher learning with rigorous curricula, and found them positions in industry, government, or the military which made good use of their talent. Fetishizing the "nation of immigrants" narrative at the expensive of the native-born Americans who actually built most of this country's prosperity is, at best, ahistorical.
We literally put a man on the moon because we acquired Werner Von Braun and used his plans... I mean, we probably would have eventually done it, but the timeline likely would have been different and the soviets might have beaten us to the moon, but the time line we are in, we had a space program as successful as it was because we acquired German scientists who were already thinking about these problems a even a decade or so before we started to invest into it.
3 replies →
>Fetishizing the "nation of immigrants" narrative at the expensive of the native-born Americans who actually built most of this country's prosperity is, at best, ahistorical.
Except many of us can trace our family lines to immigration. On one side I have to go back to the early 1800's to see when they immigrated, but this is literally a country of immigrants. (other half of the family is late 1800s/early 1900s immigration)
Even today I would assume the average American doesn't have to trace back more than 100-150 years to see when part of their family moved here.
>We scoured the country's public school system for the sharpest young minds, sent them to institutions of higher learning with rigorous curricula, and found them positions in industry, government, or the military which made good use of their talent.
Don't even get us started on ahistorical nonsense when you just want to make things up. Not when talented folks[0] had to work through system that didn't want them so they could eventually make all the difference.
[0]https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/hidden-no-more-...
2 replies →
Our German scientists were better than their German scientists. We had no real science PhD programs until the 1920's. We had no scouting for young minds until the 1950's.
1 reply →
> Fetishizing the "nation of immigrants" narrative at the expensive of the native-born Americans who actually built most of this country's prosperity is, at best, ahistorical.
Most of those native-born Americans were the children or grandchildren of immigrants.
4 replies →
I wouldn't say most native borns "built" the US. But sure, there are plenty of native born leaders who set the direction towards building such stuff.
> The US didn't win World War 2
The USSR would like a word.
3 replies →
Unless your ancestors crossed the Bering Strait ten thousand years ago, calling yourself "native born" doesn't mean a thing.
11 replies →
If you want to pick an era of technological progress to make that point maybe don't pick the one that involves America becoming a superpower by putting a bomb invented by Jewish refugees on a rocket build by ex Nazi scientists after a physics revolution where be basically got to go and take all of Germany's top talent lol
1 reply →
Alternate explanation: electrical engineering is actually really hard and some parts of computer science look comparatively easier. Plus coding is startups is cool, EE is still nerd as in Nerd.
why would someone pursue a route that's harder AND pays less AND has far fewer jobs available?
Well yes, that's why China's in the lead. We willingfully gave it up because corporate decided it was too expensive to pay american talent. They started the death spiral towards "No American wants to work in EE anymore".
And has less cultural cachet.
4 replies →
Hard and well paid gets a flood of people pursing it so difficulty can't be the only explanation. Finance, actuarial science, medicine, and law get plenty of applicants. I think it's that CS is an office job that pays well and is in-demand.
I studied both, can't say for sure EE was harder. Some courses in computer science were extremely hard for me (complexity, discrete math) and some courses in EE engineering were equally hard (most of the physics courses, analog circuits and more)
Both degrees can be made super hard, as hard as the school desires them to be...
Nah I did EE and then CompE (which was just replacing some later EE classes with hardware design stuff) and EE is not "actually really hard" - although people like to put it on a pedastel.
Compared to CompE or Comp Sci?
I never studied the hard sciences very seriously, although I feel like in retrospect I could have done so at much lesser proficiency than someone with much more encouragement, discipline, and interest, so my path of starting with web/software and then diving into electronics and EE would feel quite different
1 reply →
[dead]
> I myself was an electrical engineering (EE) major until I switched to computer science in my third (junior) year of college because like a friend of mine at the time told me, "<my name>, if you don't major in computer science, you will not be able to find a job easily after graduation". He was right. All of my former college friends in EE ended up pursuing programming jobs (a few of them now works for FAANG; I used to work for one but left a year ago due to RTO).
Nothing against you looking out for your future, but this is exactly what I describe to people when I say the industry has changed. It used to be nerds who were very passionate. Now it’s full of people who are just doing a job.
Hit the nail on the head. I went to the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering in Albany for a master's in "nanoscale engineering" which essentially boiled down to a master's in being a fab line manager. I finished the degree since it was only a 3 semester program and I was getting paid for research work, but almost immediately after chatting with alumns that went to go work at IBM/Intel/etc it was pretty clear that software engineering was a much more lucrative and less stressful career.
Definitely true, as there weren’t EE jobs here. Now that we’re moving chip manufacturing back, and with programming job market being saturated, perhaps it will shift and EE will pay more due to being more in demand
The jobs needed for chip manufacturing aren’t primarily EE. It’s largely chemical engineering with specializations related to semiconductor tech. EEs use the tools developed by fabs to make their products, but those are typically separate companies (or, in the case of in-house fabs like Intel, basically run as separate companies).
I suspect the kinds of salaries that's possible in Silicon Valley only happens because:
(A) Skills are fairly transferable. (B) There is a lot of employers competing for workers. (C) An awful lot of value is created along the way.
If you specialize in some tiny part of chip manufacturing, there aren't many places you can transfer your skills.
Even if, in the future, you have multiple chip vendors. They won't all use the same processes, and you might only fit into one role at each of these businesses.
Maybe it's not that simple. But few chip companies have to compete against startups for workers. And that probably won't change.
Not saying the jobs can't be well paid, just that it's not unlikely that it won't be absurd SV level salaries.
> Maybe it's not that simple. But few chip companies have to compete against startups for workers. And that probably won't change.
It seems like what EE needs is something similar to open source, so that does happen.
The way things like Google or AWS got started is they started with Linux and built something on top of it, so it could be a startup because they don't first have to build the world in order to make a contribution, and they're not building on top of someone else's land.
There isn't any reason that couldn't inherently work in EE. Get some universities or government grants to publish a fully-open spec for some processors that could be fabbed by TSMC or Intel. Not as good as the state of the art, but half as good anyway.
Now people have a basis for EE startups. You take the base design and tweak it some for the application, so that it's a startup-sized job instead of a multinational-sized job, and now you've got EE startups making all kinds of phone SoCs and NVMe drives and Raspberry Pi competitors and whatever else they think can justify a big enough production run to send it to a fab and sell it to the public.
An interesting license for this could be something along the lines of: You can make derivative works, but you have to release them under the same license within five years. In other words, you get five years to make money from this before it goes into the commons, which gives you the incentive to do it while keeping the commons rich so the next you can do it again tomorrow.
2 replies →
There were a ton of chip making startups in the 1970-1980's. Now the processes are much harder to access so you have fabless.
It's just maturity. You can't invent the op amp twice.
The same analysis makes me doubt those wages are likely to prevail for software engineers. They are the result of a particular time and place.
I think your explanation about large numbers of motivated students pursuing lucrative Non-STEM degrees is incomplete without mentioning the cost of an undergraduate and graduate STEM education in the USA.
The most critical shortages of STEM graduates are in roles requiring advanced degrees. Your median undergraduate education (~$40k) and median graduate education (~$60k) saddles students with approximately $100k in unforgivable student debt! Never mind the years lost that one could otherwise be working. So it’s no wonder students are motivated by the ROI of their degrees, it’s why I chose Computer Engineering over Electrical Engineering.
These are expensive STEM degrees which students on visas are all too willing to pay for a chance at a residency and a pathway to citizenship. So no wonder the majority of undergraduate and graduate STEM students are foreign born in the US. The ROI is not worth it for the debt. We don’t have enough need based scholarships available to finance the STEM graduates this country claims it needs.
Really appreciate this comment and perspective! In the larger context of immigration and brain drain in other countries, how the US also has one, but of a different kind. Ultimately, it's a loss of potential. I'd somewhat disagree with the directionality of the correlative/causal relation, though. But what can be said is that the US also experiences a knowledge drain towards plainly lucrative jobs. I'd wager that it was/is a cyclical effect that just worsened over the decades and that neither engineers moving to fintech nor low-paying engineering jobs were/are the sole reason.
My hot take as to the reason EE is a bit of a dead end in the US is that the options outside of the handful of primary employers are limited. It is very capital intensive to run a semiconductor fab, design chips or assemble electronics at scale. Therefore the employer has all of the leverage. The equipment and/or factory worker infrastructure comes first and the engineering teams are just a cog.
Compare that to having all the degrees of freedom as a computer science student to start up a niche mobile app or internet based niche service after working at FAANG for 5-6 years. Even AI infrastructure will eventually go down in price making niche AI first startups a possibility. In finance its the same, as a post i-banker you have the option to start a boutique fund, a niche fintech or just invest your own savings.
What you said seems contradictory. You open with the premise that intelligent youth go the finance / CS / MBA path instead of engineering and then say that those who do go into traditional engineering can’t find jobs. Couldn’t it be that people don’t go into engineering because there aren’t any jobs? Wouldn’t the lack of jobs explain the low salaries and thus the preference for more high paying alternatives?
Your argument doesnt really make sense : there are no EE jobs in the use, therefore no one wants to pursue EE jobs, therefire there are no EE jobs.