We've all heard it a zillion times now: recovering from a recession caused by a financial crisis takes longer than recovering from a "normal" recession. For most of us, recessions have been V-shaped. We go down quick. After a couple nasty quarters, we're headed back up. Wow, sure are things different now. The current recession began in the fourth quarter of 2007. And while the recession was officially over by mid-2009, this recovery sure feels like a recession.
I'm not an economist either, but Alex talks about seeing an increase in innovation. Many say that's the sign to look for. The pick-up in innovation is dawn's first light in a substantial recovery. If that's so, bye-bye double dip.
I agree with your take, Rob, and with Alex's inclination to not go down the path of panic and doom and gloom. While I can't say I'm exactly optimistic, it seems like if you look at the numbers around manufacturing and company's financials, the picture isn't all that bad, especially in the context of Rob's points about a U-shaped, slower recovery being more the norm after a recession caused by financial crisis. Maybe along with putting our nose to the grindstone and focusing on work, we should all try to see the positive. Half the battle with this on-going economic dulldrums is perception.
Alex, I like your Point/Counter-Point argument, and find myself nodding quietly in agreement with both extremes. Because things are so turbulent, nothing is going work - - - at least at the moment.
To the Counter-Point; we are in a saw-tooth economic market; up 300 points one day and down 250 the next. Who can blame any company for not investing in equipment or expanding staff if they think their stock could face a potential slashing on any given day-?Wall Street investors are as unstable as a school of herring, darting "to-n-fro" on only the slightest information.
But to the Point, innovations are quietly budding in the labs, in the factories, and even wading into some cautious markets.(All good comes around, eventually). But the general investment population has been so beaten-down that even golden-hot-cakes would be met with only a tepid response today.
If we could just turn down the turbulence, the knee-jerk recoils would also settle down.
As a former defense contractor now teaching the innovation process in academia, I ascribe to the Wharton School's description of the Five (5) components of society, namely, Wealth, Truth, Membership, Values and Power. As with any spinning system, things run "smoothly" when the components are in balance. Affect that balance and things whirl out of control quickly, exibiting higher-order modes of oscillation.
My current view from the ivory tower is that the Power dimension is at odds with the other four. The Wealth component has much innovation to leverage thanks to the Research & Development (Truth & Membership) components, however due to uncertianty in short and long term costs of human and financial capital, regulations, and liability the sideline is currently the safest place to be until "the ride" smooths out.
Regardless of political idealogy, it looks like things will stay status quo at least until the 2012 elections when the uncertianty in the Power component has a chance to subside.
Predicting a nation's economic performance is nearly impossible, but I'd say there's good reason for engineers to keep their heads down and hope something good is coming. I agree with Bloomberg's take: If orders for capital equipment are up, that bodes well. Fat City? No. But there's reason for some optimism.
There is a bit of a viscous cycle going on behind the manufacturing report. The main reason manufacturing is tepid is because unemployment is high. Unemployment is high because manufacturers, among others, are hesitant to hire. I'm not a fan of big government spending, but to break this cycle federal jobs programs may be necessary.
I would agree to the extent that ideology(ies) have made it impossible to have an honest discussion of the dynamic in play, and therefore of a solution. This is perhaps another way of saying it'd be nice if the preponderance of people in Congress were engineers, rather than lawyers.
Good point that those in Congress should be engineers. Lawyers thrive on conflict. As for hiring, when companies cannot meet demand without hiring, they'll hire. If they can meet demand without hiring, they won't hire.
Usually, once a recovery begins, companies bring on part-time and temporary workers just in case the upward tick in demand does not sustain. That's where we seem to be now. And it seems like we've been there for about two and a half years.
The upward tick in the electronics industry softened over the summer. U.S. demand for electronics went flat in August. Inventories are at a two-year high (US Gov.). So hiring may be a bit sluggish in the electronic industry.
It may take a government effort to get jobs moving. Why not fund a real project, say to DESIGN and BUILD the prototype next generation nuclear reactor, with the caveat that the company also consider it a CCC-style jobs project?
Pick one that is "for the common good", and build it. Not "unemployed retraining". MAKE something.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
The IEEE Computer Society has named the top 10 trends for 2014. You can expect the convergence of cloud computing and mobile devices, advances in health care data and devices, as well as privacy issues in social media to make the headlines. And 3D printing came out of nowhere to make a big splash.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.