Reply to Trump cutting NSF grantmaking 50%

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump cutting NSF grantmaking 50%"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am surprised this is not getting more attention here. Most probably have never heard of the NSF? Founded in 1950. If our president has its way, it will essentially be wiped out. Our universities will be second (or third) rate, if that. [/quote]
The bigger economic impact will be loss of talent coming to the US to study.  Foreign (and domestic) MS and PhD candidates will be turned away for lack of funds.  We’ve benefited enormously by attracting the world’s top talent.  Now we get to experience brain drain just like Russia.[/quote]

just amazing how the elites twist the truth.

Foreign (and domestic) MS and PhD candidates will be turned away for lack of funds. -&gt; this is a GOOD THING!!!!

importing millions of cheap MS and PhD candidates cheapens our own MS and PhD candidates.

Reduce PH.D Salaries

https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies.

&quot;Upcoming labor market shortages will devastate Science and Engineering.

This was a mantra heard through much of the 1980s. And yet, the predicted “seller’s market” for talent never materialized as unemployment rates actually spiked for newly minted PhDs in technical fields. In fact, most US economists seemed to think that the very idea of labor market shortages hardly made sense in a market economy since wages could simply rise to attract more entrants.   Yet we have had workers visas for over 34 years to alleviate mythical worker shortages.

In the late nineties, in the course of research into immigration, I became convinced that our US high skilled immigration policy simply did not add up intellectually. As I studied the situation, it became increasingly clear that the groups purporting to speak for US scientists in Washington DC (e.g. NSF, NAS, AAU, GUIRR) actually viewed themselves as advocates for employers in a labor dispute with working scientists and were focused on undermining scientists’ economic bargaining power through labor market intervention and manipulation.

Increasingly the research seemed to show that interventions by government, universities and industry in the US labor market for scientists, especially after the University system stopped growing organically in the early 1970s were exceedingly problematic. By 1998, it was becoming obvious that the real problems of high skilled immigration were actually rather well understood by an entire class of policy actors who were not forthcoming about the levers of policy they were using to influence policy. The NSF/NAS/GUIRR complex appeared to be feigning incompetence by issuing labor market studies that blatantly ignored wages and market dynamics and instead focused on demographics alone.

During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate lower wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent economic study done to guide the curious policy choices that had resulted in the flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be correct, the private economic study would have had to have been done studying both supply and demand so that the demand piece could later be removed, resulting in the bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies released to the public. Through a bit of economic detective work, I began a painstaking search of the literature and discovered just such a study immediately preceded the release of the foolish demography studies that provided the public justification for the Immigration Act of 1990. This needle was located in the haystack of documents the NSF was forced to turn over when the House investigated the NSF for faking alarms about a shortfall.

The title of this study was[b] “The Pipeline For Scientific and Technical Personnel: Past Lessons Applied to Future Changes of Interest to Policy-Makers and Human Resource Specialists.” [/b]The study was undated and carried no author’s name. Eventually I gathered my courage to call up the National Science Foundation and demand to speak to the study’s author. After some hemming and hawing, I was put through to a voice belonging to a man I had never heard of named Myles Boylan. In our conversation, it became clear that it was produced in 1986, as predicted, immediately before the infamous and now disgraced demographic shortfall studies.

The author turned out, again as predicted, not to be a demographer, but a highly competent Ph.D. in economics who was fully aware of the functioning of the wage mechanism. But, as the study makes clear, the problem being solved was not a problem of talent [b]but one of price: scientific employers had become alarmed that they would have to pay competitive market wages to US Ph.D.s with other options[/b]…..

[/quote]

Is this from ChatGPT? Why do you think anyone is going to read something so long and dry? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics