Bill Overview
Title: American Technology Leadership Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes an Office of Global Competition Analysis. The purposes of the office are to carry out a program of analysis on U.S. leadership in technology and innovation sectors critical to national security and economic prosperity relative to other countries, particularly those countries that are strategic competitors of the United States; and support policy development and decision-making to ensure U.S. leadership in technology and innovation sectors critical to national security and economic prosperity. To carry out the purposes, the office may enter into an agreement with a public-private or a federally funded research and development center, a university affiliated research center, or consortium of such centers. Periodically, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Economic Council, and the National Security Council, in coordination with other executive agencies, shall jointly determine the analytical priorities of the office.
Sponsors: Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in global technology and innovation sectors
Estimated Size: 30000000
- This bill involves the establishment of an Office of Global Competition Analysis focused on U.S. leadership in technology and innovation sectors.
- People directly working in U.S.-based technology and innovation sectors may experience indirect effects through changes in policy resulting from insights provided by the new office.
- The emphasis is on technology and innovation sectors critical to national security and economic prosperity, which could include areas like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and cybersecurity.
- Additionally, those working in public or private sectors involved in policy making, national security, economic development, and related areas may be impacted by resulting policies and strategic directions.
- Indirectly, citizens of countries strategic competitors to the United States who are involved in global technological sectors might be impacted by the outcomes of these analyses and consequent U.S. policies.
Reasoning
- This bill involves the establishment of an Office of Global Competition Analysis focused on U.S. leadership in technology and innovation sectors.
- The policy is primarily relevant to those in technological fields critical to national security and economic prosperity, such as AI, quantum computing, and cybersecurity.
- The budget allocation appears to be targeted at analytical functions and strategic input rather than direct technology funding, implying most direct effects are on strategic and analytical workforces.
- Indirectly, it could influence employment, economic policies, and technological priorities, affecting workers in some tech fields more broadly.
- Given a US population segment of ~30 million associated with these sectors, the impacts on wellbeing are likely sub-systems specific, reflecting changes in job security, opportunities, and innovations.
- There is a notable lack of direct personal financial or service provision impacts, making wellbeing effects diffuse.
Simulated Interviews
Data Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could help my company stay competitive on a global scale.
- It might result in more data-driven insights that inform better strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The establishment of this office will enhance policy advisory processes.
- It provides a structured framework to focus on important technological developments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to more strategic tech improvements nationally.
- Not sure how it affects me directly except maybe more job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Specialist (Austin, TX)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could introduce new tools and insights essential for my work.
- Expect improvements in national security measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having concrete data and analyses will enrich the academic discourse.
- This policy is likely to influence how technology is taught and funded.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tech Entrepreneur (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this office can highlight growth sectors, it might sway VC attention.
- May not directly impact my business but could adjust market narratives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Game Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how this policy will reach me, perhaps in tech trends.
- It seems broad, which could mean indirect benefits like better processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Quantum Research Scientist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's focus on tech leadership aligns with my research priorities.
- It might indirectly benefit project funding and direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Economist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is necessary to maintain and grow U.S. economic power in tech.
- Provides necessary analytical support my field relies on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelance Web Developer (Portland, OR)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Difficult to see an immediate benefit for a freelancer like me.
- It might eventually filter down as broader tech enhancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The office's impact on U.S. technological leadership can enhance national security and economic resilience, though quantifying this benefit in monetary terms is challenging.
- Coordination with existing federal agencies is crucial to avoid redundancy and ensure effective use of resources.
- Long-term benefits may surpass initial costs as the analyses guide important technological policies and strategic investments.