The U.S. needs to increase the amount it spends on R&D.

[tosacco]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The reality of the situation is our economy is quickly becoming a knowledge economy dependent on things like technological transfer, R&D, knowledge production, etc. The amount we invest in research is actually quite small vis-a-vis other developed nations. In order to stay competative we should be investing more in research, as well as increasing the amount of funding for education to ensure our citizens are knowledgeable about contemporary science and skilled in the state-of-the-art technology our economy is increasingly fueled by.

This is straight copy-pasted from the other thread, sorry if it's a little rigid.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

 

[alpine]

Do you have any data showing US is in a trend of spending less on education and RD?

US was spending more on these before and now decreasing?

Maybe it is not only about spending more, but spending smart...

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The reality of the situation is our economy is quickly becoming a knowledge economy dependent on things like technological transfer, R&D, knowledge production, etc. The amount we invest in research is actually quite small vis-a-vis other developed nations. In order to stay competative we should be investing more in research, as well as increasing the amount of funding for education to ensure our citizens are knowledgeable about contemporary science and skilled in the state-of-the-art technology our economy is increasingly fueled by.

This is straight copy-pasted from the other thread, sorry if it's a little rigid.

We are well over $16 Trillion in the hole now.

so where are we going to get the money?

do you realize that for the Fed to invest 1 million it has to tax well over that number just to cover the cost of doing it?

Our schools don't need more money, they need to compete for students.

they are run by a union monopoly, so until that's broken up, there will be no improvements, ever

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

No, I'm not.

 

[tosacco]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

Well, to cite one publication, in the Gathering Storm Revisited report published in 2010 argues that the standard of living and opportunities in the U.S. will see a steady decline over the next couple of generations if we don't invest more in research, education, and recruitment into STEM. The authors call for some pretty drastic changes, including doubling total R&D funding over the next ten years.

Ultimately, what we invest should be higher. If you look at the figures for R&D as percentage of GDP, it has been declining. Here is some data looking at 1976-2015. Sure, we are investing more numerically, but the percentage is decreasing.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP_0.jpg

I can go into more detail in the morning.

As for funding social sciences, I think it is equally as important. We are seeing an increase in diversity, our urban centers have steadily growing population, we are looking at environmental factors that could potentially affect the production of adequate food to sustain our population, etc etc. We would be stupid not to invest money in the social sciences because that would lead to poorly informed policy decisions.

 

[Stephanie]

You can home school your children for less and they get a better education. but just like government to use our children to milk more money out you.

the standard for government today, you have to throw more money on it in order for it to be a success

 

[tosacco]

I just pulled up the Gathering Storm Revisited for those interested in this sort of thing.

https://www.uic.edu/home/Chancellor/risingabove.pdf

 

[Stephanie]

I just pulled up the Gathering Storm Revisited for those interested in this sort of thing.

https://www.uic.edu/home/Chancellor/risingabove.pdf

without even reading it, I bet it says we are doomed unless we give more money

 

[tosacco]

You can home school your children for less and they get a better education

Not necessarily.

 

[Stephanie]

The gathering storm

can they be any more dramatic?

what a gig they have going... they use your money to put out scary propaganda that is used against you for the sake of getting more money. something wrong with that show

 

[Rikurzhen]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

Well, to cite one publication, in the Gathering Storm Revisited report published in 2010 argues that the standard of living and opportunities in the U.S. will see a steady decline over the next couple of generations if we don't invest more in research, education, and recruitment into STEM. The authors call for some pretty drastic changes, including doubling total R&D funding over the next ten years

There is no coherent policy at work here and there are problems.

1.) Already mentioned above - we're deep into annual deficit funding.
2.) Not only R&D but all government functions are declining as a share of GDP due to crowding out effect from entitlements. To get a better handle on this we need to know how R&D funding is faring against the Forestry Service, against Border Patrol, against the State Department Budget, etc. If the Budget/GDP is increasing because of out of control entitlements, that doesn't tell us much about what's happening with the spending on traditional government functions.
3.) If you want to rebalance the spending priorities then which entitlement programs are you proposing be cut?
4.) We have no recruitment problem with STEM. Employers are importing immigrant talent in order to drive down wages for domestic STEM talent and there is now a surplus of STEM talent in the labor force. It's idiocy to develop plans to increase the talent pipeline when no talent will sign up for the programs because their career prospects in the US are so dim due to both low salaries and the constant threat of being replaced by an imported visa STEM worker.

Ultimately, what we invest should be higher. If you look at the figures for R&D as percentage of GDP, it has been declining. Here is some data looking at 1976-2015. Sure, we are investing more numerically, but the percentage is decreasing.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP_0.jpg

If you click the button to the right of the happy face, you can imbed images.

What this graph illustrates is that the decrease in R&D spending is principally coming from Defense R&D reductions. The non-Defense R&D spending is looking fairly stable. Your concern in this thread seems to be on non-Defense R&D so aren't you undercutting your own argument here? The big reduction in non-Defense R&D happened before 1982 .

As for funding social sciences, I think it is equally as important. We are seeing an increase in diversity, our urban centers have steadily growing population, we are looking at environmental factors that could potentially affect the production of adequate food to sustain our population, etc etc. We would be stupid not to invest money in the social sciences because that would lead to poorly informed policy decisions.

But that spending doesn't spin-off the benefits you highlighted for scientific R&D.

Look, there are always opportunity costs involved with spending decisions, so which programs are you going to shank in order to free up coin to go to social science R&D? What's the payback from social science versus STEM research?

 

[AntiParty]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The reality of the situation is our economy is quickly becoming a knowledge economy dependent on things like technological transfer, R&D, knowledge production, etc. The amount we invest in research is actually quite small vis-a-vis other developed nations. In order to stay competative we should be investing more in research, as well as increasing the amount of funding for education to ensure our citizens are knowledgeable about contemporary science and skilled in the state-of-the-art technology our economy is increasingly fueled by.

This is straight copy-pasted from the other thread, sorry if it's a little rigid.

How do you expect to invest in education and anti-violence? We only have the $$ to invest in one.

 

[tosacco]

The gathering storm

can they be any more dramatic?

what a gig they have going... they use your money to put out scary propaganda that is used against you for the sake of getting more money. something wrong with that show

No more dramatic than a profile picture comparing Obama, who is solidly right-of-center on the political spectrum, to Lenin.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

Here's more detail. This separates out population effects from schooling effects. Only the city of Shanghai beats the score of Asian-American students. Only Finland beats the scores of white-American students.

Our school problems are at the population level, not with funding or pedagogy.

 

[AntiParty]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

Here's more detail. This separates out population effects from schooling effects. Only the city of Shanghai beats the score of Asian-American students. Only Finland beats the scores of white-American students.

Our school problems are at the population level, not with funding or pedagogy.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

Here's more detail. This separates out population effects from schooling effects. Only the city of Shanghai beats the score of Asian-American students. Only Finland beats the scores of white-American students.

Our school problems are at the population level, not with funding or pedagogy.

Left you speechless, huh?

 

[AntiParty]

Actually, Every gun enthusiast notated recently that every misuse of guns was due to lack of education. Of course that is until you bring education into the taxation room. And sometimes it turns into a race battle, as if skin color has anything to do with the Constitutional laws of owning a weapon.