Topic by Venkatesh Gopal
We visit Tier II cities engineering colleges for campus requirement, and we hardly get any suitable students to join manufacturing industry. Even an average student prefer to get placed in Service Sector.
My Topic is;
Why engineering graduates prefer to work in Service Sectors and why there is so much of reluctance to take up job manufacturing industry?
(Kindly remember Indian manufacturing industry's pay check is almost equal to Service industry salaries and presently there is also huge opportunities to Start ups in manufacturing)
This scenario leaves us very less scope to build and retain a talented team.unfortunately this is going to be one of the biggest hurdle in realizing Mr Modis dream of "Make in India"
I understand many of our friends switched job from manufacturing sector.
Responses
Suresh Babu
This is not relevant to INDIA only, it is in USA too.
I am not going to ponder about the origin of these problems, since I do not have the data to contemplate and address the root cause.
I strongly recommend one of the two of the tactics used by companies, hire people with good attitude (even with low GPA), and train them through a university like program within the company (or) engage them in the university itself through NSF I/UCRC mechanisms. Let me know if you need more information on the NSF I/UCRC mechanism.
www.nsf.gov/eng/iucrc/
The long term pay off is indeed good. Most of them end up in these companies and stay longer time.
We need to use some of the strategies used by companies like SAS
Surya
here are my thoughts on 'Make in India' and why students are moving to the service sector rather than be in the equally lucrative manufacturing sector.
Argument A: Macro-economic trend
The 19th century was dominated by the majority of labor being in the agriculture sector. The early part of 20th century defined the growth in manufacturing. The late part of the 20th century defined by the Service sector. The 21st century is being defined by the knowledge worker.
In other words, the service sector is already one-cycle old!
Arguing for students to enter the manufacturing sector is equivalent to arguing that they must enter the agriculture sector.
Your question perhaps should be forward looking and ask instead, 'why are our students still hankering after the service sector, when they should be focused on the knowledge sector?'
Argument B: Technological trend
You would agree it is very hard to stand in the way of technological progress. Be it nuclear science, genetic engineering or cybernetics.
These technological trends are sweeping away jobs. Can you imagine, when you and I were in the undergraduate program together, we stood in front of manual lathes and cut cylinders with machine tools.
That job does not exist in any real sense of the word anymore. We are even past CNC machining.
Service jobs are being eliminated by the thousands by technology. A good example is automatic trains at airports - where are the train engineers?
Thus the jobs are not those providing the device, but those 'designing' the service
Argument C: Sociological trend
While we aspire to be in egalitarian societies where everyone is treated equally - as human beings we thrive better in meritocratic societies. i.e. establish the rules of the game and let the best person win.
In this context, owners of capital seem to rest on top of the sociological order.
Thus the inexorable aspiration to be in a place to own capital (and thus labor automated or otherwise) to direct where it goes for maximum social and investment return.
Summary
The summary thus is while indeed manufacturing is important to the economy and growth of middle class and incomes, the larger trends are pointing beyond it - and an astute leader such as PM Modi should leap-frog Indian society to the next stage of 21st century development.
Additional Thoughts
A larger conversation of importance of Manufacturing in national economies was had in 2012 - in this link below, hope you enjoy this as well!
http://agingonthevine.blogspot.com/2012/06/point-to-ponder-manufacturing-and.html
Point to ponder: Manufacturing and the economy
A Question: Does the real (sustainable) GDP of an economy include its ability to manufacture goods domestically?
That is the question - please allow me to fill out the context for posing it.
Point 1: Manufacturing represents tangible goods, so when it comes down to it we can barter for its value. Plus it has the ability to employ blue-collar labor which is an important constituent / segment in pretty much any population. And provides for middle class jobs.
Point 2: The western economies changed from agriculture to industrial economies in the early 1900s. That does not mean we GAVE UP agriculture. Rather we use less human capital to generate more agriculture produce!
Point 3: These same economies transitioned from industrial economies to information and service economies in the late 1900s. But in this transition, shrunk the manufacturing labor pool and also shrunk domestic manufacturing (unlike the transition from agriculture). This is conventional wisdon. Some of my friends argue that manufacturing output has NOT shrunk in the western economies - but rather share of Asia / China manufacturing has increased. But I don't know what the facts here are. I do know that the Carolinas have lost textiles. And many many cities in the US have shuttered down manufacturing including Philadelphia.
Point 4: Now these economies are poised to transition from service economies to knowledge economies.
So, the context of my question - is this sustainable? Does every country need a core base of manufacturing, a core base of agriculture, and a core base of service and knowledge for the society to thrive and grow in a sustainable way?
Just askin'
Also, a follow-up silly question perhaps, but what is the GDP of a communist country?!
My Topic is;
Why engineering graduates prefer to work in Service Sectors and why there is so much of reluctance to take up job manufacturing industry?
(Kindly remember Indian manufacturing industry's pay check is almost equal to Service industry salaries and presently there is also huge opportunities to Start ups in manufacturing)
This scenario leaves us very less scope to build and retain a talented team.unfortunately this is going to be one of the biggest hurdle in realizing Mr Modis dream of "Make in India"
I understand many of our friends switched job from manufacturing sector.
Responses
Suresh Babu
This is not relevant to INDIA only, it is in USA too.
I am not going to ponder about the origin of these problems, since I do not have the data to contemplate and address the root cause.
I strongly recommend one of the two of the tactics used by companies, hire people with good attitude (even with low GPA), and train them through a university like program within the company (or) engage them in the university itself through NSF I/UCRC mechanisms. Let me know if you need more information on the NSF I/UCRC mechanism.
www.nsf.gov/eng/iucrc/
The long term pay off is indeed good. Most of them end up in these companies and stay longer time.
We need to use some of the strategies used by companies like SAS
Surya
here are my thoughts on 'Make in India' and why students are moving to the service sector rather than be in the equally lucrative manufacturing sector.
Argument A: Macro-economic trend
The 19th century was dominated by the majority of labor being in the agriculture sector. The early part of 20th century defined the growth in manufacturing. The late part of the 20th century defined by the Service sector. The 21st century is being defined by the knowledge worker.
In other words, the service sector is already one-cycle old!
Arguing for students to enter the manufacturing sector is equivalent to arguing that they must enter the agriculture sector.
Your question perhaps should be forward looking and ask instead, 'why are our students still hankering after the service sector, when they should be focused on the knowledge sector?'
Argument B: Technological trend
You would agree it is very hard to stand in the way of technological progress. Be it nuclear science, genetic engineering or cybernetics.
These technological trends are sweeping away jobs. Can you imagine, when you and I were in the undergraduate program together, we stood in front of manual lathes and cut cylinders with machine tools.
That job does not exist in any real sense of the word anymore. We are even past CNC machining.
Service jobs are being eliminated by the thousands by technology. A good example is automatic trains at airports - where are the train engineers?
Thus the jobs are not those providing the device, but those 'designing' the service
Argument C: Sociological trend
While we aspire to be in egalitarian societies where everyone is treated equally - as human beings we thrive better in meritocratic societies. i.e. establish the rules of the game and let the best person win.
In this context, owners of capital seem to rest on top of the sociological order.
Thus the inexorable aspiration to be in a place to own capital (and thus labor automated or otherwise) to direct where it goes for maximum social and investment return.
Summary
The summary thus is while indeed manufacturing is important to the economy and growth of middle class and incomes, the larger trends are pointing beyond it - and an astute leader such as PM Modi should leap-frog Indian society to the next stage of 21st century development.
Additional Thoughts
A larger conversation of importance of Manufacturing in national economies was had in 2012 - in this link below, hope you enjoy this as well!
http://agingonthevine.blogspot.com/2012/06/point-to-ponder-manufacturing-and.html
Point to ponder: Manufacturing and the economy
A Question: Does the real (sustainable) GDP of an economy include its ability to manufacture goods domestically?
That is the question - please allow me to fill out the context for posing it.
Point 1: Manufacturing represents tangible goods, so when it comes down to it we can barter for its value. Plus it has the ability to employ blue-collar labor which is an important constituent / segment in pretty much any population. And provides for middle class jobs.
Point 2: The western economies changed from agriculture to industrial economies in the early 1900s. That does not mean we GAVE UP agriculture. Rather we use less human capital to generate more agriculture produce!
Point 3: These same economies transitioned from industrial economies to information and service economies in the late 1900s. But in this transition, shrunk the manufacturing labor pool and also shrunk domestic manufacturing (unlike the transition from agriculture). This is conventional wisdon. Some of my friends argue that manufacturing output has NOT shrunk in the western economies - but rather share of Asia / China manufacturing has increased. But I don't know what the facts here are. I do know that the Carolinas have lost textiles. And many many cities in the US have shuttered down manufacturing including Philadelphia.
Point 4: Now these economies are poised to transition from service economies to knowledge economies.
So, the context of my question - is this sustainable? Does every country need a core base of manufacturing, a core base of agriculture, and a core base of service and knowledge for the society to thrive and grow in a sustainable way?
Just askin'
Also, a follow-up silly question perhaps, but what is the GDP of a communist country?!