Many engineers are clearly disgruntled, with formidable reasons. Others are comfortable in their career choice. Actually, is engineering a career or life choice? I believe it's the latter as, most often, engineers live and breathe this stuff. Whether solving a problem or dreaming, thinking like—or being—an engineer isn't a job that can be switched off at the end of the day.

I don't have a great mind, or even a very good one. So, the following is admittedly simplistic. Great minds certainly exist everywhere from ThomasNet to your offices, universities to research labs, executive environs to the plant floor. So, pick a topic or topics and—please—offer your feedback.

Outsourcing and world trade are huge issues—to many readers, the most ominous of all. How do we stop bleeding U.S. jobs to the rest of the world, mainly China and India? How do we put U.S.-made products back on our own megastore shelves? Or should we at all? I don't see a way to stop it without protectionist legislation which is, of course, particularly dangerous ground. In the extreme, let's say that legislation passes which forces U.S. companies to hire U.S. citizens with U.S. addresses. This will help stem the tide, but in the process isolate the U.S. even more from the world—in a time during which we've already honked off far too many 'allies' in every sense of the word—politically, socially, religiously, environmentally, and militarily. So, do we sit back and say, "We're the U.S., dammit. We can do whatever we please"…or do we start listening to and better cooperating with the rest of the planet? If the former, what are the implications? If the latter, where do we start? From toasters and computers to cars and audio-video equipment, are we willing—as consumers—to pay considerably more for the things we buy in order to keep jobs here in the U.S., for example?

Education is also a critical issue, according to your past comments. Starting at the elementary school classroom, how do we give our children the math and science foundations needed to keep THEM competitive not only in engineering, but in the world technology market? Even if we can change the system so that they have what's needed, how do we inspire them to want to build on that foundation as engineers?

Costs, costs, costs. As long as healthcare costs in the U.S. stay at exorbitant levels, jobs will keep going to wherever the work is cheaper. A reader once commented, to paraphrase, "What's healthcare got to do with manufacturing?" It's got everything to do with manufacturing. As long as manufacturers (or any employer, for that matter) have the choice of paying all or a percentage of your healthcare costs—or giving the work to an overseas company who's willing to do the same job for a song—we're going to lose jobs. Fixing healthcare—making the U.S. more competitive while also easing the cost burden on manufacturers and engineers—is simply and utterly essential. But how do we do it? Hillary tried and failed. Who's got a plan now? Do we mirror, for example, Canada or various European countries? Sure, we could, but again—are you willing to take the hard hit in your paycheck for socialized medicine?

Petroleum dependence. Not too hot of a button, is it. We're fat and happy, with Yukons and Excursions (or yours truly with a gas-guzzling performance car; so I'm in no position to point fingers). Gas prices have been, for us, astronomical. We complain and whine about how the government could possibly let this happen. Problem is, we could be paying 3 or 4 dollars a gallon and it would STILL be cheap in terms of what the rest of the world is paying—and has been paying for decades. Plus, it's not only a matter of our own pockets. Sure, filling a 30-gallon tank hurts. More importantly in this context, manufacturers are also dependent upon petroleum-based power. 'Cheap' fuel is great for now. But what happens when China is using more energy (they're close to the U.S. consumption levels now) and can, because of volume, demand lower prices per barrel? Our bargaining power as the world's greatest petroleum consumer will be diminished. Prices rise, for all of us. Thus, even more jobs—including those in engineering—will be outsourced as manufacturers strain to control costs. So we could, for example, drill in Alaska and reduce our need for foreign oil. Then, however, the tree huggers come out of the woodwork. (Ah! Here you thought I was a flaming liberal!) We can't have it both ways. So…what's the solution? Nuclear?

Liability. When some moron survives the futile act of trying to make his or her vehicle one with a bridge abutment, they'll often times call a lawyer and claim that it was the vehicle manufacturer's fault. "The throttle stuck," or perhaps it didn't. When another moron sticks his hand in a garbage disposal and loses digits, he'll scream and say that there should have been warnings against sticking said hand into said disposal, or blame the disposal maker for not having appropriate safety devices. (A Ground-Fault Moron Interrupter would be nice.) Point is, employers—many of them as manufacturers—have to cover themselves with expensive Insurance for Morons. Tort reform is, thus, also essential to help make manufacturers more profitable. Why? We want to keep more engineering jobs here, right? So, how do we reduce liability costs? In the process, are we, the morons, willing to say, "Yeah. I was a dumbass and stuck my own hand in the disposal. There's no need to call a lawyer and blame anyone else. It was my fault."

All of these things can be fixed. It won't be easy, nor will it be simple. It will be expensive, both personally and as a nation. What price are we willing to pay to keep engineering jobs here while also affording employers the means to better recognize the efforts of engineers with better compensation and stronger job security? Without those elements, attracting American kids to engineering will continue to be a greater challenge than building a suspension bridge (between nations?).

Soon...the Last Entry of this series…let's assume we're on the way to solving the above…and have some fun.