Economics as a Limitation to American Technological Advancement

In this century alone, we have seen advancements in technology that were never thought possible. The ability to have telemedicine or to alter a screen through simple hand gestures have already revolutionized the fields of medicine and information technology, respectively. Given all of the intellect, diligence, and labor that has been used, there are still limits to what we as consumers can experience. Currently, one of the major obstacles in the advancement of society, at least in the U.S., is economics.

Economic restrictions, among other things, have probably set the United States back in its technical prowess and intellectual domination, as we are no longer able to boast about revolutionary technologies and creative ideas. After all, many IT jobs are heading overseas due to the discovery of cheap labor, and even more troubling, higher quality workers, both in discipline and intellect. So where does that put the United States? More students, myself included, hope to use a technical background to propel them into higher-paying jobs in the business world rather than continuing more in the technical side. So economics comes into the picture for two reasons. The first is pretty obvious. Occupations in business, namely investment banking and consulting, pay much higher than jobs in technical industry and academia, and therefore are attracting more students. My question, because legitimately I have no clue, is why is that the case? (also, if anyone knows, is this phenomenon unique to the U.S.?) Naturally, one would think that the people who enabled those to use Microsoft Word and Excel, and allowed me to type this onto a screen visible to anyone who wants to access it, should be given more fiscal appreciation. But that is not so. Instead, those who directly help the rich become richer will inevitably be paid more. That is a fact that I will not contend at this moment. So for now, I will consider that fair, since that isn't my main point. It's just one way in which economics is hurting our potential in technological advancement.

The second way economics is hindering progress is not as forgivable to me. A problem in the deployment of technology today is the issue of whether the technology is profitable enough to introduce to the general population. The quality of life of each American could be vastly improved with certain technologies, but these cannot be used because large companies do not see profit in their deployment. One of the most egregious examples is such internet/cellular service providers (ISPs) as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast limiting only certain bandwidths for use by general consumers. It has been shown that we use only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, as these large companies buy rights to these certain frequency ranges and sell their use to general consumers like ourselves. Currently, there is technology developed/being developed that will allow for dynamic allocation of bandwidth among nearby devices, which will ultimately reduce interference (though various multiple access techniques) and increase the speed of the connections. However, ISPs do not see any reason to adopt this technology right now, as it will simply tear into the profits they are realizing from the limited bandwidths since this technology will be more expensive. We can easily have much faster internet and data service in our computers and phones, but we won't unless the large corporations see reason to do so. In the end, the electromagnetic spectrum is a hot commodity, and naturally, access to such a precious resource will come down to who will pay more for it.

Business is impossible to avoid, but it's a shame it sometimes has to come at the cost of advancing technology and our qualities of life.