That is why they are emphasizing so much on hard science and math, so their next generation can compete on the technological front as opposed to just relying on manufacturing-based economy. That gravy train will run dry on manufacturing real soon for them.
We already have a large oversupply of Americans who are trained in math and science. How will further emphasizing it and producing more Americans in those fields change anything?
By the way, the Indians and Chinese have the exact same idea. Contrary to popular belief, innovation is not going to save the U.S. economy. Any new manufacturing jobs created in new fields will be done overseas and even the innovation work itself can be done less expensively. Innovation also tends to follow manufacturing since much innovation comes from engineers and other people who work directly with the manufacturing process ("necessity is the mother of invention"). If anything, this is the one thing trade protectionism cannot protect--the production of ideas and intellectual property.
Protectionism will not work. People are accustomed to a certain lifestyle where cheap prices of goods has contributed to a significant part of that. Would you want to pay $5k for a TV? Or $300 for a pair of Nike's?
What you are failing to realize is the invisible back-end costs of the cheap manufacturing goods. It's true that overseas manufacturing results in lower prices, but at what invisible back-end cost? If your wages decrease by 40% and the price of a manufactured good decreases by 30%, are you really better off? In addition to a 40% decrease in people's wages, what if taxes need to increase as a result of increased unemployment and underemployment? Was that 30% decrease in the price really worth it?
It isn't as easy as just pointing to low prices and then (in a "no-think" economist fashion) saying that Americans purchasing power has increased and that Americans are now better off. Instead you need to look at the big picture and consider other issues such as wages, increased poverty, and increased unemployment and underemployment.
You have to consider the invisible and conveniently-ignored back-end costs as well as the front-end prices.
The point is to adapt our economy so that we can shift our labor force from manufacturing to design as the primary economic engine.
Do you really think we can support a nation of 310+ million people with "design" and "innovation" as our economic engine? Do you think that Americans have some sort of a racial advantage or monopoly in those regards?
Manufacturing holds a less important significance in the economy after a country has been industrialized. We will never be able to compete on manufacturing and artificially forcing companies to hire here on these jobs will only drive them away.
If they want to sell goods and services in the U.S. they would have to produce them in the United States. How will that drive jobs away? If they move their manufacturing facilities and service centers to other nations they simply won't be able to use those facilities for servicing the U.S. market. Businesses might choose not to do business in the United States, but that would create a void for other businesses to fill. (If none of the existing TV manufacturers want to make TVs in the U.S. and if TVs could not be imported, then the market would be wide open for a new company to begin manufacturing them in the U.S.)
We need to improve our labor force's skills so that we can design CPUs, and let someone else manufacture it, which is what exactly Intel is doing. That way we keep our competitive advantage in technology design, and utilize other countries' competitive advantage in manufacturing so we can have these goods produced cheaply. This is the only win-win solution, provided that we can adapt our labor force to keep pace with this rapid changing world economy.
Why do you think that the Indians and Chinese won't want to design CPUs themselves? Do you think Americans have some sort of racial superiority over the Indians and Chinese in regards to electrical engineering knowledge and innovative ability?
What you are spouting off is just conventional bromides. It's what the "no think" free market dogmatists might say. Have you really thought deeply about these issues and asked hard questions?
What you say sounds good--it's touchy-feely and politically correct--but it doesn't have much substance to it. They aren't bad ideas, but they will do nothing to address the real fundamental problem of Global Labor Arbitrage.
Addressing the problem of Global Labor Arbitrage means implementing policies that are not touchy-feely, such as imposing an immigration moratorium, telling foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas that they can no longer work in the United States and must go back home, and telling other nations that from now on they have to purchase our goods and services in equal amount in exchange for us purchasing their goods and services. (We don't want to sell them capital assets such as business ownership and land anymore to fund our purchase of short-term ephemeral goods.)
