Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Coalition for a Prosperous America Summit Discusses How to Grow Economy

Thursday, December 8th, 2016

On October 13, 2016, the “Southern California Manufacturing Summit” was held at the Wedgewood Center in Aliso Viejo. The summit was hosted by the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), with SDG&E/Sempra Utilities as the major sponsor, along with a long list of non-profit organizations, regional businesses and associations as sponsors and partners. The purpose of the summit was to learn and discuss how we can use Southern California’s advantages to re-grow manufacturing and create good paying jobs through smarter policies on trade, taxes, and the economy.

CPA is a unique alliance of manufacturing, agriculture, and labor working for smart trade policies and represents over three million households through our member associations and companies.
Since nearly all of our sponsors provide services that benefit manufacturers, we modified our format from previous summits to provide opportunities for our sponsors to tell about their services to promote networking among attendees.

Our first speaker was Greg Autry, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, who discussed “National Security Concerns with the Current U.S. Trade Regime.” Among the highlights of his presentation was his statement, “There are national security concerns with trade agreements. An economy that builds only F-35s is unsustainable – productive capacity is what wins real wars. Sophisticated systems require complex supply chains of supporting industries. They require experienced production engineers, machinists, and more.”

He recently prepared a report analyzing the competition and found that we are now outsourcing most of our space-related technology. He said, “NASA awards contracts for launch vehicles to Boeing and Space X, but chose to buy Russian lower stage engines. We have to choose if we are going to have a supply chain for the space industry. We cannot rely on China to produce what we need for our military and defense systems.

He added, “The International Space station was funded by the U. S. to the tune of $100 Billion of the $120 Billion that it cost. We should not be relying on Russia’s Mr. Putin to launch our satellites and space vehicles and provide us a seat to get to the international space station.”

Autry stated, “If you own stock in Alibaba, you actually own stock in a holding company in the set up in an offshore tax haven of the Cayman Islands, and the real owner behind Alibaba is the Chinese government. In contrast, he said, “It was the wealth he created at Amazon that enabled founder Jeff Bezos to now lead Blue Origin, which was selected by the United Launch Alliance to finish development of a new engine to replace the Russian made RD-180 rocket engine used by ULA’s Atlas 5 rocket.”

He pointed out that the Germans had the best technology in WWII, but didn’t win because we out produced them. Productive capacity is what wins wars. We wouldn’t be able to do the same for a future war as China has become the shop floor for too many American manufacturers. Take the U.S. F-22 airplane vs. the Chinese J20 airplane. We have 187 F-22s, and we stopped producing them because they were too expensive. China has several hundred J-20s, and they are still producing them.

He warned, “China has been an aggressive nation for thousands of years – it’s how the country grew from a small nation state. China has expanded their claim to territorial waters to include territory claimed by all of its immediate neighbors — Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, Japan and even New Zealand and Australia. China’s threat to these countries could eliminate getting supplies from Vietnam, Taiwan, and Korea, where companies are located that are now part of our supply chain for the military and space industry. We are going to lose our supply chain for the military and defense industry because the people in the State and Commerce Departments don’t talk to the Defense Department.”

After his presentation, July Lawton, President of The Lawton Group/TLC Staffing, explained that her company provides temporary to permanent staffing solutions for engineering, manufacturing, information technology, as well as the more traditional human resources, accounting, administrative, marketing, and healthcare positions.

Nicholas Testa, Jr., CFPIM, CSCP, CIRM, is founder and CEO of Acuity Consulting, Inc. a firm specializing in supply chain and operations management and systems consulting and training. He is president-elect of the APICS Orange County and described the types of supply chain education and training that APICS provides to its manufacturing industry members.

Economist Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work” was the next speaker. A few highlights of his presentation were: “Free trade is trade without restrictions. Economic rivalry is taking place every day. There is rivalry for wealth and power. We live in America, and it does matter where you live. America’s trade deficit is averaging $500 B/year. Free trade is part of the cause of poverty, as well as family breakdowns. Free trade mostly destroys jobs. We are looking in a decline of quality rather than quantity of jobs. De-industrialization is occurring. Many major American companies are not American any longer; they are owned by foreign corporations. Boeing is losing manufacture of airplane wings to Mitsubishi. There is not a single airplane that doesn’t rely on parts from other countries.”

He stated, “Free trade simplified means there must be something good for both parties. Free trade is only one sided by the United States because many countries practice mercantilism. Trade is being manipulated to benefit our trading partners. The Euro currency has been manipulated to reduce the value of the currency of Germany to be lower by balancing it out with the economies of France, Italy, Spain, and Greece. The U.S. is being forced to compete with the state capitalism of Europe and Asia.”
He added, “Free traders say that trade deficit doesn’t a matter, but trade deficits mean that we consume more than we produce. David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage did not work when it was created and doesn’t work now. A nation needs some protection. Protectionism is really the American way. Alexander Hamilton was the founder of American protectionism. The U.S. had a protectionist policy until after WWII. Every country has done protectionism to succeed. He showed a chart showing the history of tariffs in the U. S.

 

 

 

 

 

He concluded, “After WWII, free trade became a policy because of the politics to win the Cold War. It is crumbling now because of politics. There are dangers in protectionism, but there are dangers in doing nothing. Treaties or trade agreements are basically about protecting property rights. The World Trade Organization has failed to enforce terms of current trade agreements and will not do any better with the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.”

After the morning break, I provided a brief overview of California manufacturing prior to moderating our panel of manufacturers. California is the 8th largest economy in the world, and if it were a country, it would be equal to France. California lost 33.3% of manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2009 compared to 29.8% nationwide, and lost 25% of its manufacturing firms.

I pointed out that even with its unfavorable overall business climate, California still ranks first in manufacturing for both jobs and output. However, since the Great Recession, California lags in manufacturing job growth at a 3.6% rate compared to the national 7.2% rate and a GDP growth rate in manufacturing of 11.2% in California compared to a 22.6% GDP growth in the U. S. as a whole.

On the positive side, California leads the nation in R&D and number of patents issued, and
California companies received $78.4 billion of VC dollars in 2015 (57% of U.S. total – up from 51% in 2010).

Mexico, Canada, China, and Japan are the top four export markets for California, and California represents 11% of total U. S. exports. California ranks second behind Texas in all exports, but
California ranks first among all 50 states in agricultural exports estimated at $13.6 billion per year. California is the biggest U. S. producer of nuts, dairy, ice cream, and wine. The top high tech export is computers and electronic products, which equals 26.1 % of all the state’s exports. Transportation goods are the second top export, consisting of airplanes, ships, unmanned vehicles, and underwater vehicles.

Besides the good weather, Southern California’s advantages are:

• Gateway to Pacific – two major ports – Long Beach and San Diego
• Major hub in western U.S. for air, rail roads & waterway transportation
• Skilled, educated workforce for ALL occupations
• Research Institutions and Universities
• Large inventor/entrepreneur pool
• Hundreds of business Incubators and Accelerators
• Angel investor networks
• Venture capital networks
• 18 Foreign Trade Zones
• Employment Training Panel funds for employee training
• Workforce Investment Boards

There is also an abundance of business resources in Southern California, such as the California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (designated California MEP), two Centers for Applied Competitive Technologies, several Small Business Development Centers and Economic Development Agencies, as well as many Chambers of Commerce and Business Councils.

I concluded with mentioning the opportunities we have to improve the California business climate, change our national tax and trade policies, return manufacturing to U.S. through reshoring, connect regional manufacturers with other U. S. suppliers, increase collaboration between manufacturers and community college to address workforce and skills gaps, and educate community/youth about career opportunities in manufacturing.

After my presentation, the following three panelists shared their stories:

James Hedgecock, Founder and President of Bounce Composites, which designs, engineers, and manufactures high-quality, durable composite goods for multiple industries, including wind energy, automotive, aerospace, and sporting goods. He shared that the company started out producing their own patented design of stand up paddleboards, but it has been tough to compete with offshore companies because of unfair trade practice. He said it was especially difficult to export to Mexico and Europe because Value Added Taxes (VATs) are added to the price of their products, making their product more expensive.

Robert Lane and Dave Mock, principals of Lane OPX, shared how they help companies optimize excellence through blending Lean Six Sigma principles, strategic business initiatives and participative management philosophies to grow organizations, and inspire high performing, motivated teams. By leveraging their deep experience in manufactur9ing, team dynamics, leadership development and organizational design, they have been able to power the turnaround of small to large companies. More recently, they have been able to help manufacturers return manufacturing to America from overseas.

Mr. Wei-Yung Lee, CEO of Carlsbad Technology Inc. was our final panelist. Based in Carlsbad, California, Mr. Lee said that Carlsbad Tech was founded 1990 and is a subsidiary of Taiwan’s leading YungShin Pharmaceutical Co. The company began as a contract manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals and has become an industry leader in manufacturing and distribution of generics, supplements, and medical devices. He said, “We have 150 employees and 15 are well-trained chemists. We have the capacity to produce 60 million capsules and 400 million tablets per year. Last year, we Launched our Comfort Vision™ contact lenses in the USA and have sold over 1 billion units in Asia. We are striving to become a global health bridge, bringing a world of innovative health products to the markets that need them. ”

After the panel, Jill Berg, President of Advanced Test Equipment Rentals, told about the products and services of her company. They rent, lease, and sell a large selection of test and measurement equipment and other types of lab equipment to companies all over the world. She announced that her company was hosting a San Diego Test Equipment Showcase on October 18th.

Then, Chris Marocchi, Field Operations Manager of California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC), explained that his organization is a non-profit consulting organization that just won the competition to provide Manufacturing Extension Program services for all of California. These services provide innovation and growth strategies along with operational enhancements to foster profitable growth for California companies. MEP services include: innovate new products, open new markets, improve workforce skills, increase product quality and reduce costs through Lean training, increase energy efficiency and green production, and optimize supply chain performance.

After our lunch break, I presented information on Lean Six Sigma Institute (LSSI) as neither of the principals was able to attend and I had obtained my Yellow Belt Certificate in Lean Six Sigma from LSSI in 2014. LSSI is boutique-style training and consulting company that uses training and coaching model to guide companies to manage Lean Six Sigma change, develop internal leaders, and sustain the results. LSSI’s is headquartered in Chula Vista California, but has satellite offices located in nine countries and employs over 60 expert consultants worldwide. Lean and six sigma principles and tools apply to virtually any process, and LSSI has successfully helped clients implement Lean Six Sigma in a variety of industries, such as manufacturing, retail, and healthcare.

Our key note speaker for the summit was Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, speaking on “Growing SoCal Manufacturing.” Mr. Stumo stated, “CPA is a true coalition
of manufacturing, agriculture, labor, Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, Conservatives, and Independents. Our members are: Trade Associations, companies, farm organizations, Labor Unions, and individuals from all walks of life. Our non-Agriculture industries are: manufacturers, steel, tooling and machining, electronics, textiles, copper, aluminum, etc. Our mission is to balance trade and produce more in America to reclaim American prosperity.”

Mr. Stumo explained that there is a difference between service jobs and manufacturing jobs. According to Investopedia, “Examples of service sector jobs include housekeeping, psychotherapy, tax preparation, legal services, guided tours, nursing and teaching. There are very few “tradable” service jobs. By contrast, individuals employed in the industrial/manufacturing sector might produce goods such as cars, clothing and toys.”

He said, “There is also a difference in income and purchasing power between manufacturing and service jobs. When considering what industry sectors to prioritize for workforce and economic development efforts, it is important to look beyond basic employment numbers. This is because, while a sector might have a lot of jobs, it might not actually be producing a lot of income for the region, which is also very important for overall economic health and vitality.”

Mr. Stumo stated, “The problem is that as more manufacturing jobs leave, more productivity leaves as well. Unlike manufacturing, service-sector jobs have strict limits in terms of productivity. For example, a live performance of Beethoven’s 5th requires the same amount of performers/employees as when it was performed early in the 19th century. Compare that with the production of almost anything manufactured — the number of workers now required to produce a bolt of fabric, for example.”

He added, “There is a regional ripple effect of service vs. manufacturing jobs. At $4.4 trillion in total sales, manufacturing is by far the biggest income generator in our nation, despite a fairly rapid decline in employment. Yet, manufacturing still manages to far outperform all other industries in terms of pure income creation. Manufacturing generates more income per worker and has much bigger ripple effects, creating much more impact in a region while helping to raise wages in lower-productivity service sectors.”

He asked the rhetorical question, “What’s wrong with a service economy? He answered, “It shrinks manufacturing employment as well as the manufacturing sector’s ability to prop up wages. A labor market that loses wage pressures of high-productivity manufacturing industries will settle at wage rates lower than markets where this wage-boosting effect is present. Economic development policy makers should be careful about shunning manufacturing or other production sectors in favor of service sectors. This is a problem because 66% of U. S. workforce is without a four-year college degree.”

He concluded stating, “America is at a crossroads. We are losing an economic competition against other nations whose mercantilist strategies are destroying our manufacturing jobs, critical industries, and our standard of living, our national security, the security of our food supply, and our children’s futures. For the U. S. to become prosperous again, our future strategy must include the following:

• National Priority of Balanced Trade
• Strong enforcement
• Stop new trade agreements to force a re-think.
• Neutralize currency manipulation
• Tax reform with VAT/consumption taxes
• Consider tariffs to neutralize imbalances

We have a choice. We can continue our current trade and tax policies or we can develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that retains and reinforces our leadership in innovation, locates investment and production in the U. S. and raises employment by creating good paying jobs.”

As chair of the California chapter of CPA, I hope you will join our efforts to make America prosperous again.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Why Should the U. S. Have a Specific Productivity Policy?

Wednesday, July 27th, 2016

This question is answered by  Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) in Part II of the  report, “Think Like an Enterprise: Why Nations Need Comprehensive Productivity Strategies.” He states, “Rather than think of an economy as a large market with self-interested actors transacting on the basis of price and seeking to maximize productivity, it is more accurate to conceive of an economy as a large, integrated enterprise that requires coordination of activities that individual enterprises will not effectively undertake on their own.”

 

His opinion is contradictory to that of most Anglo-Saxon nation economists, whose policies are based on two major competing doctrines vying for influence: “neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economics, neither of which supports a national productivity policy.” In a nutshell, he states, “the neoclassical economic doctrine is focused on limiting government’s role in the economy, even as neo-Keynesians see the government’s main role as managing the business cycle and supporting a fairer distribution of income.” His definitions were so simple that even non-economists like me could understand them:

Neoclassical ? focuses on the “managing scarce resources in such a way that maximizes the net benefit from their use, and that produces the quantity and mix of goods and services most beneficial to society.”

Neo-Keynesian ? is “grounded in the core belief that demand for goods and services from business investment, government spending, and consumer spending drives growth.”

Atkinson particularly criticizes neoclassical economists because they “do not study how societies create new forms of production, products, and business models to expand productivity; rather, they study markets to see how commodities are exchanged.”

He criticizes neo-Keynesian economic policy prescriptions because they “revolve around increasing government spending to keep the economy at full employment and ensuring economic fairness and redistribution, because…their goal is not productivity growth, it is full employment.”

Atkinson states. “Thus, the first step for any policymaker seeking to maximize the economy’s productivity is to reject the conventional neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economic advice and embrace an alternative economic doctrine grounded in an understanding of the economy as an integrated, complex enterprise.”

He adds, “This approach is grounded in understanding that productivity is less about markets and more about organizations and systems, in particular about how technology is developed and deployed to drive productivity.”

Atkinson concludes, “Few conventional economists bother to “look inside the black box” of actual organizations or industries and crossindustry systems. Yet it is there that the keys to raising productivity and the keys to the right productivity policy will be found.” He comments that “conventional economics is of little help in understanding the sources of productivity growth, much less in providing useful or actionable advice on productivity policy.”

The rest of Part II discusses how “public goods, externalities and other enterprise failures, and system interdependencies for development and adoption of productivity-enhancing tools all mean that markets alone will not maximize productivity.”

Public goods are “a good or service provided without profit to all members of a society—to increase their productivity.” Some examples are transportation infrastructure such as roads, highways, bridges, airports, seaports or the education infrastructure for K–12 and higher education. Atkinson comments,”… though public goods are necessary, they are not sufficient.”

Atkinson comments that rather than maximizing productivity companies “can maximize profits from increasing revenues or reducing costs. Many companies focus less on boosting productivity and more on increasing revenues, either by getting more customers or increasing revenue per customer by selling products or services with higher margins.”

What he does not cover is that the best way for companies to boost productivity is to transform themselves into lean companies through the adoption and implementation of lean principles, tools, and strategies.

In addition, “some industries do not have strong incentives for driving productivity because “productivity increases hurt its implementers…In such industries, workers ‘control the means of Production’ and therefore productivity is a direct threat to their jobs.”

I found his brief discussion on the effect of system interdependencies on productivity interesting in how he shows that there is a relationship between product innovation and “interdependencies that are only observable and actionable at the industry or economy level.” For example, “when Apple developed the iPod, it needed customers with broadband Internet access and it needed music to be available for purchase online. Without either, the iPod would have gone the way of the Newton (an earlier, failed Apple attempt at creating a PDA).”

Market failure can stem “from markets tending to be poor at coordinating action when multiple parties need to act together synergistically and simultaneously. These chicken-or egg challenges must be overcome for productivity-enhancing innovation to occur in many technology platforms…Unless government plays a facilitating role, relying on markets alone can mean significantly delayed implementation.”

Atkinson identifies another challenge:  “Many technology solutions require mutual adoption and coordination for them to be effectively deployed… For example, when automobiles were first developed few paved roads had been built. Only after a certain number of autos were sold was demand strong enough that the government needed to build roads. But initially cars could be driven on dirt roads that horses used, so adoption could grow gradually in the absence of government construction

In Part III, Atkins lays out a comprehensive and actionable agenda for spurring productivity growth, which can be used as a guide to tailor national productivity policy policies. This agenda includes policy recommendations…and the ways in which governments need to organize themselves to advance effective productivity policies.”

He states, “The conventional theory holds that the only thing government can do is to remove barriers and fix policy failures so that firms reacting to price signals can do whatever they may choose to drive productivity. This overly passive framework ignores the complexity and enterprise-like nature of economies, which actually require more strategic productivity policies.” He recommends that an “effective productivity policy needs to go beyond the standard limits to embrace four other key components:”

  1. Incentives, including tax policies, to encourage organizations to adopt more and newer “tools” to drive productivity…In particular, governments should use the tax code to provide incentives for acquisition of new capital equipment
  2. .Policies to spur the advance and take-up of systemic, platform technologies that accelerate productivity across industries. Many of the information technologies central to driving future productivity have chicken-or-egg network effects which mean that adoption will lag unless governments adopt smart, technology-specific policies.
  3. A research and development strategy focused on spurring the development of productivity-enabling technologies, such as robotics…Governments need to focus a much larger share of their R&D budgets on advancing technologies that will reduce the need for labor.
  4. Sectoral productivity policies that reflect the unique differences between industries. In terms of productivity and productivity policy, industries differ in significant ways…Any effective national productivity policy will need to be grounded in analysis-based, sector-based productivity strategies.

Within these four policy components, Atkinson makes some recommendations that are more controversial, such as:

Roll back policies favoring small business – “special benefits to small business and discriminatory policies that place tax and regulatory burdens only on large businesses. He recommends, “To boost productivity, governments should embrace firm-size agnosticism in all policies.” (pages 70-73)

Replace the term informal with the accurate term the illegal economy – “individuals are breaking the law by not registering their businesses and paying taxes. Informality is a drag on productivity growth, not a progressive force.” (pages 73-74)

Set a reasonable set minimum wage indexed to inflation – this helps make it more economical for organizations to substitute capital for labor” and “in some sectors may expedite the adoption of automated equipment and new technology to increase labor productivity.” (page 81)

Atkinson warns, “Countries that protect entrenched, incumbent, or politically favored industries from market-based competition only damage their own country’s productivity and economic growth potential… This limits the ability of firms at the productivity frontier to take market share away from firms with lower productivity.”

Atkinson acknowledges that “The challenge is that few governments have designed their scientific research programs explicitly around advancing technologies to drive productivity. Instead, they follow the advice of neoclassical economists that governments should not pick particular technology areas and should focus on curiosity-directed basic science… if economies are to maximize productivity growth, they need to craft technology research agendas specifically around productivity.”

In fact, Atkinson recommends that “Governments need to focus on identifying and funding many more research and engineering projects that are specifically targeted to developing Technology that can replace human labor.”

He explains, “Productivity policy cannot be fully effective unless it is grounded in a sophisticated understanding that industries differ significantly with regard to their productivity dynamics… Three key factors differentiate industries when it comes to considering productivity policy.” They are

  • Scale ? Industries differ in terms of average firm size.
  • Competition ? Industries differ in the extent to which they face competition.
  • Incentives ? The third factor is intensity of incentives for an industry to increase productivity.

This is why Atkinson recommends that “An effective national productivity policy needs to be based on an analysis of individual industries and when appropriate, broader production systems.”

In his conclusion, Atkinson recommends, “The single most important step governments can take to boost productivity is to make higher productivity the principal goal of economic policy, more important than managing the business cycle, defending liberty, or promoting equality.”

He adds, “National governments should also identify or establish one agency or laboratory whose main mission is to support development and adoption of productivity technology as well as of platform and sectoral productivity strategies. In the United States, this might be the National Institute of Standards and Technology.”

Finally, Atkinson states: “Productivity is the key to improving living standards—so policymakers should ignore conventional economists who say there is little government can do about it and instead make it the principal goal of economic policy.”

Even if you do not agree with all of his premises, recommendations, and conclusions, this is an important report that should be widely read and debated for some time to come.

 

 

This question is answered by  Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) in Part II of the  report, “Think Like an Enterprise: Why Nations Need Comprehensive Productivity Strategies.” He states, “Rather than think of an economy as a large market with self-interested actors transacting on the basis of price and seeking to maximize productivity, it is more accurate to conceive of an economy as a large, integrated enterprise that requires coordination of activities that individual enterprises will not effectively undertake on their own.”

 

His opinion is contradictory to that of most Anglo-Saxon nation economists, whose policies are based on two major competing doctrines vying for influence: “neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economics, neither of which supports a national productivity policy.” In a nutshell, he states, “the neoclassical economic doctrine is focused on limiting government’s role in the economy, even as neo-Keynesians see the government’s main role as managing the business cycle and supporting a fairer distribution of income.” His definitions were so simple that even non-economists like me could understand them:

 

Neoclassical ? focuses on the “managing scarce resources in such a way that maximizes the net benefit from their use, and that produces the quantity and mix of goods and services most beneficial to society.”

 

Neo-Keynesian ? is “grounded in the core belief that demand for goods and services from business investment, government spending, and consumer spending drives growth.”

 

Atkinson particularly criticizes neoclassical economists because they “do not study how societies create new forms of production, products, and business models to expand productivity; rather, they study markets to see how commodities are exchanged.”

 

He criticizes neo-Keynesian economic policy prescriptions because they “revolve around increasing government spending to keep the economy at full employment and ensuring economic fairness and redistribution, because…their goal is not productivity growth, it is full employment.”

 

Atkinson states. “Thus, the first step for any policymaker seeking to maximize the economy’s productivity is to reject the conventional neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economic advice and embrace an alternative economic doctrine grounded in an understanding of the economy as an integrated, complex enterprise.”

 

He adds, “This approach is grounded in understanding that productivity is less about markets and more about organizations and systems, in particular about how technology is developed and deployed to drive productivity.”

 

Atkinson concludes, “Few conventional economists bother to “look inside the black box” of actual organizations or industries and crossindustry systems. Yet it is there that the keys to raising productivity and the keys to the right productivity policy will be found.” He comments that “conventional economics is of little help in understanding the sources of productivity growth, much less in providing useful or actionable advice on productivity policy.”

 

The rest of Part II discusses how “public goods, externalities and other enterprise failures, and system interdependencies for development and adoption of productivity-enhancing tools all mean that markets alone will not maximize productivity.”

 

Public goods are “a good or service provided without profit to all members of a society—to increase their productivity.” Some examples are transportation infrastructure such as roads, highways, bridges, airports, seaports or the education infrastructure for K–12 and higher education. Atkinson comments,”… though public goods are necessary, they are not sufficient.”

 

Atkinson comments that rather than maximizing productivity companies “can maximize profits from increasing revenues or reducing costs. Many companies focus less on boosting productivity and more on increasing revenues, either by getting more customers or increasing revenue per customer by selling products or services with higher margins.”

 

What he does not cover is that the best way for companies to boost productivity is to transform themselves into lean companies through the adoption and implementation of lean principles, tools, and strategies.

 

In addition, “some industries do not have strong incentives for driving productivity because “productivity increases hurt its implementers…In such industries, workers ‘control the means of

Production’ and therefore productivity is a direct threat to their jobs.”

 

I found his brief discussion on the effect of system interdependencies on productivity interesting in how he shows that there is a relationship between product innovation and “interdependencies that are only observable and actionable at the industry or economy level.” For example, “when Apple developed the iPod, it needed customers with broadband Internet access and it needed music to be available for purchase online. Without either, the iPod would have gone the way of the Newton (an earlier, failed Apple attempt at creating a PDA).”

 

Market failure can stem “from markets tending to be poor at coordinating action when multiple parties need to act together synergistically and simultaneously. These chicken-or egg challenges must be overcome for productivity-enhancing innovation to occur in many technology platforms…Unless government plays a facilitating role, relying on markets alone can mean significantly delayed implementation.”

 

Atkinson identifies another challenge:  “Many technology solutions require mutual adoption and coordination for them to be effectively deployed… For example, when automobiles were first developed few paved roads had been built. Only after a certain number of autos were sold was demand strong enough that the government needed to build roads. But initially cars could be driven on dirt roads that horses used, so adoption could grow gradually in the absence of government construction

 

In Part III, Atkins lays out a comprehensive and actionable agenda for spurring productivity growth, which can be used as a guide to tailor national productivity policy policies. This agenda includes policy recommendations…and the ways in which governments need to organize themselves to advance effective productivity policies.”

 

He states, “The conventional theory holds that the only thing government can do is to remove barriers and fix policy failures so that firms reacting to price signals can do whatever they may choose to drive productivity. This overly passive framework ignores the complexity and enterprise-like nature of economies, which actually require more strategic productivity policies.” He recommends that an “effective productivity policy needs to go beyond the standard limits to embrace four other key components:”

 

  1. Incentives, including tax policies, to encourage organizations to adopt more and newer “tools” to drive productivity…In particular, governments should use the tax code to provide incentives for acquisition of new capital equipment.

 

  1. Policies to spur the advance and take-up of systemic, platform technologies that accelerate productivity across industries. Many of the information technologies central to driving future productivity have chicken-or-egg network effects which mean that adoption will lag unless governments adopt smart, technology-specific policies.

 

  1. A research and development strategy focused on spurring the development of productivity-enabling technologies, such as robotics…Governments need to focus a much larger share of their R&D budgets on advancing technologies that will reduce the need for labor.

 

  1. Sectoral productivity policies that reflect the unique differences between industries. In terms of productivity and productivity policy, industries differ in significant ways…Any effective national productivity policy will need to be grounded in analysis-based, sector-based productivity strategies.

 

Within these four policy components, Atkinson makes some recommendations that are more controversial, such as:

 

Roll back policies favoring small business – “special benefits to small business and discriminatory policies that place tax and regulatory burdens only on large businesses. He recommends, “To boost productivity, governments should embrace firm-size agnosticism in all policies.” (pages 70-73)

 

Replace the term informal with the accurate term the illegal economy – “individuals are breaking the law by not registering their businesses and paying taxes. Informality is a drag on productivity growth, not a progressive force.” (pages 73-74)

 

Set a reasonable set minimum wage indexed to inflation – this helps make it more economical for organizations to substitute capital for labor” and “in some sectors may expedite the adoption of automated equipment and new technology to increase labor productivity.” (page 81)

 

Atkinson warns, “Countries that protect entrenched, incumbent, or politically favored industries from market-based competition only damage their own country’s productivity and economic growth potential… This limits the ability of firms at the productivity frontier to take market share away from firms with lower productivity.”

 

Atkinson acknowledges that “The challenge is that few governments have designed their scientific research programs explicitly around advancing technologies to drive productivity. Instead, they follow the advice of neoclassical economists that governments should not pick particular technology

areas and should focus on curiosity-directed basic science… if economies are to maximize productivity growth, they need to craft technology research agendas specifically around productivity.”

 

In fact, Atkinson recommends that “Governments need to focus on identifying and funding many more research and engineering projects that are specifically targeted to developing Technology that can replace human labor.”

 

He explains, “Productivity policy cannot be fully effective unless it is grounded in a sophisticated understanding that industries differ significantly with regard to their productivity dynamics… Three key factors differentiate industries when it comes to considering productivity policy.” They are

 

  • Scale ? Industries differ in terms of average firm size.
  • Competition ? Industries differ in the extent to which they face competition.
  • Incentives ? The third factor is intensity of incentives for an industry to increase productivity.

 

This is why Atkinson recommends that “An effective national productivity policy needs to be based on an analysis of individual industries and when appropriate, broader production systems.”

 

In his conclusion, Atkinson recommends, “The single most important step governments can take to boost productivity is to make higher productivity the principal goal of economic policy, more important than managing the business cycle, defending liberty, or promoting equality.”

 

He adds, “National governments should also identify or establish one agency or laboratory whose main mission is to support development and adoption of productivity technology as well as of platform and sectoral productivity strategies. In the United States, this might be the National Institute of Standards and Technology.”

 

Finally, Atkinson states: “Productivity is the key to improving living standards—so policymakers should ignore conventional economists who say there is little government can do about it and instead make it the principal goal of economic policy.”

 

Even if you do not agree with all of his premises, recommendations, and conclusions, this is an important report that should be widely read and debated for some time to come.

 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economic Development, Economy, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Is Bi-partisan Tax Reform Possible?

Wednesday, April 27th, 2016

Tis the season of talk about tax reform. Every presidential election cycle, the candidates all propose some kind of tax reform. However, once the new president is elected, Congress does not do anything because tax reform becomes the “third rail” to special interests who lobby for or against reforms that would affect them. The last comprehensive tax reform that Congress passed was the Tax Reform Act of 1986, more than a generation ago. Thus, we must pose the question: Is it possible for Congress to pass bi-partisan tax reform.

First, let’s separate fact from the rhetoric:

Rhetoric: Corporations play games to keep from paying their fair share of taxes.

Fact: Out of the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group that includes most advanced, industrialized nations, America ranks first with a 39.1 percent corporate tax rate, compared to an OECD average of 24.1 percent. However, the effective rate for 2014 was 27.9 percent, which was second highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured. Effective tax rate takes into consideration the tax deductions allowed corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits.

Some corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes because multinational corporations that have subsidiaries or divisions in other countries use legal accounting strategies to transfer profits to lower corporate tax rate countries or set up shell corporations in tax haven countries. This means that American corporations whose only facility is in the U. S. bear the brunt of our high taxes, making it more difficult for them to compete in the global marketplace.

One of the strategies used is what is called “Corporate inversion” by Investopedia, which refers to re-incorporating a company overseas in order to reduce the tax burden on income earned abroad. Corporate inversion as a strategy is used by companies that receive a significant portion of their income from foreign sources, since that income is taxed both abroad and in the country of incorporation. Companies undertaking this strategy are likely to select a country that has lower tax rates and less stringent corporate governance requirements.
How can we get these multinational corporations to pay their fair share of taxes in the United States?

Well, we can follow the example of states that have passed bi-partisan tax reform to address the problem of getting corporations to pay a fair share of taxes in their state. The solution was “apportionment” of corporate income taxes that is a share of taxes to be paid by a corporation to a state based on a particular formula. According to a Policy Brief by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, all but the five states that don’t have a corporate income tax (Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) have adopted some type of formula for state apportionment of corporate taxes.

  • “First, if a corporation does not conduct at least a minimal amount of business in a particular state, that state is not allowed to tax the corporation at all. Corporations that have sufficient contact in a state to be taxable are said to have “nexus” with that state.
  • Second, each state where a corporation has nexus must devise rules for dividing the corporation’s profits into an in-state portion and an out-of-state portion — a process known as “apportionment.” The state can then only tax the in-state portion.”

About half the states with a corporate income tax adopted the model legislation worked out in the 1950s, called the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA). UDITPA recommends the following three factors to determine the share of a corporation’s profits that can be taxed by a state:

  • “The percentage of a corporation’s nationwide property that is located in a state.
  • The percentage of a corporation’s nationwide sales made to residents of a state.
  • The percentage of a corporation’s nationwide payroll paid to residents of a state.”

Only two states use the percentage of property tax since local government jurisdictions already impose a property tax, and state governments don’t want to encourage corporations to relocate to other states by doubling up on property tax. Only eight states still use the unmodified formula, and many have moved to just sales. Most of the rest of the states have increased the weight on sales, and 18 states “double weight” the sales tax percentage.

One of our members of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Bill Parks, is a passionate advocate of corporate tax reform at the federal level based on the Sales Factor Apportionment Framework. Mr. Parks is a retired finance professor and founder of NRS Inc., an Idaho-based paddle sports accessory maker. He asserts that “Tax reform proposals won’t fix our broken corporate system… [because] they fail to fix the unfairness of domestic companies paying more tax than multinational enterprises in identical circumstances.”

He explains that multinational enterprises (MNEs) can use cost accounting practices to transfer costs and profits within the company to achieve different goals. “Currently MNEs manipulate loopholes in our tax system to avoid paying U. S. taxes… MNEs can legitimately choose a cost that reduces or increases the profits of its subsidiaries in different countries. Because the United States is a relatively high-tax country, MNEs will choose the costs that minimize profits in the United States and maximize them in what are usually lower-tax countries.”

The way his plan would work is that the amount of corporate taxes that a multinational company would pay “would be determined solely on the percent of that company’s world-wide sales made to U. S. customers. Foreign MNEs would also be taxed the same way on their U. S. income leveling the playing field between domestic firms and foreign and domestic MNEs.”

For example, if a MNE’s share of worldwide sales in the United States is 40%, then the company would pay taxes on 40% of its sales. Mr. Parks states that the advantages of his plan are:

  • “Inversions [and transfer pricing] for tax purposes become pointless because the company would pay the same tax no matter what its base.
  • It would encourage exports because all exports are fully excluded from corporate income tax.
  • It simplifies the calculation for federal, state, and local taxes because the profit to be taxed by the U. S. is determined by a simple formula.
  • Reduces or eliminates the tax incentives to locate jobs, factories, and corporate headquarters offshore, boosting employment and U. S. tax revenue.
  • Ends the disguised income taxes which are actually royalty payments.
  • Allow Congress to raise revenue without raising rates because it stops U. S. and foreign multinationals from being able to place their profits offshore to avoid U. S. taxes.”

A couple of additional benefits listed at www.salesfactor.org are:

  • “Removing the incentives for multinational corporations to leave their profits in off-shore tax havens.
  • Maintaining Congress’ ability to lower rates and/or increase revenue.”

Bill concludes that “Sales Factor Apportionment is simpler and more effective than our current system which attempts ? and often fails ? to tax the worldwide business activities or U. S. corporations. Because it is based on sales, not payroll or assets, it is a difficult system to game. Companies can easily move certain business operations and assets out of the U. S., but few, if any, would be willing to give up sales to the world’s largest market.”

Mr. Parks was part of my team visiting the offices of Congressional Representatives in Washington, D. C. the week of April 11th, and several Representatives appeared quite interested in the Sales Factor Apportionment tax proposal he described. Mr. Parks is the author of a much more in-depth article in the April 4, 2016 issue of Tax Notes (available only by subscription), and I am happy that he gave me permission to write about this topic for my audience. For further information, you may email him at Bill@nrs.com. You can also read the results of several studies on SFA at www.salesfactor.org.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Taxes/Regulations | No Comments »

CPA’s Balanced Trade Message has Impact on Congress

Wednesday, April 27th, 2016

I just returned last Friday night from the Coalition for a Prosperous America‘s 9th annual Fly-In to Washington, D. C. It was my 4th time to participate with CPA members from across the country to meet with Congressional Representatives and/or their staff. I noticed a big difference in the reception we got during our visits compared to my first trip. The Coalition for a Prosperous America is a nonprofit organization representing the interests of 2.7 million households through our agricultural, manufacturing and labor members, and I’ve been a member since 2011.

In his report, CEO Michael Stumo wrote, “It was an amazing experience to finally have the wind at our backs instead of facing headwinds…CPA is taken very seriously by congressional offices. They trust what we say. One-fourth of our meetings included the congressman/woman themselves, which is significant and a new high for us. Senior staffers attended our meetings rather than junior staffers as was the case only a few years ago.”

However, we have not just been doing an annual visit to D. C. once a year since 2008. Teams of CPA members led by Michael Stumo have made visits to D. C. once or twice a month since January 2015. Here in California, teams of members led by me have visited the offices of 37 of the 53 Representatives from one to six times since 2013. In addition, CPA has co-hosted four manufacturing summits in California starting in 2013 ? two in San Diego, one in Orange County, and our recent one in Sacramento in February. The same kinds of activities have taken place in other states where CPA has a state chapter, such as Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania.

In all of our visits, either in district or in D. C., we have constantly focused part of our message on simply establishing why our huge trade deficit not only matters, but is core to our national economic malaise. As I have written in past articles, our annual trade deficit over the past 20 years has a relationship to our national debt and is a major cause of the loss of 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and the nearly 95 million people that are no longer part of the workforce.

For years, we have been emphasizing the following:

  1. Trade deficits matter, they kill jobs and growth: This may sound obvious to you and me, but many Representatives and their staffer did not believe trade deficits mattered in the past. They were unwilling to admit the serious consequences in having a huge deficit in goods. So, if trade deficits were not a problem, there was no need to pursue a solution. Michael Stumo wrote, “This past week showed we have largely won that argument. We can only grow jobs and our economy if we focus upon a national strategy to balance trade by identifying the biggest trade cheating problems and aggressively fixing them.”

Our teams distributed a flyer titled, “Balanced Trade: Fighting the New Mercantilism” recommending that Congress establish a national goal to balance trade over a reasonable period of time by means of:

  • Direct trade negotiators to pursue trade deficit reduction as a primary negotiating objective.
  • Review past agreements for compliance with this objective. Renegotiate those that fail the test.
  • Utilize tax, fiscal and monetary policies to achieve the goal.
  • Aggressively and systematically attack and neutralize foreign mercantilism.
  1. Past trade agreements have not improved our trade performance: For years, we have heard this line from the establishment and Congressional Representatives: “Trade agreements establish American leadership, grow exports and create jobs.” The refrain was: “Trade is beneficial. We are increasing exports, and we have a surplus in services.” The only time I heard this refrain this year was by a legislative assistant in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office.

We were able to trounce this argument this year by distributing a flyer that clearly showed the poor trade performance of our past agreements through visual aids CPA spent a lot of time developing (see below). We clearly showed that modern foreign mercantilism has moved beyond the tariff and non-tariff barrier provisions in trade deals. Indeed, those deals often made our trade problems worse. For example, our trade deficit with Korea has nearly doubled since it went into effect in 2012 (from $14.7 billion to $28.4 billion in 2015.)

The TPP will likely make America worse off: CPA read and digested the pro-TPP studies by Petri and Plummer, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper 16-2, Jan 2016 and the “Global Economic Prospects: Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” by the World Bank, Jan 2016. These reports tried to hide the problems and exaggerate gains. Our CPA teams distributed a flyer that “displayed the results through insightful infographics showing that any projected gains were embarrassingly meager and fundamentally implausible”[because] “The studies assume, without analysis, (a) no currency misalignment, (b) no foreign border taxes that replace tariffs, (c) no industrial subsidies and state-influenced enterprises, and (d) no mercantilism.” As Michael Stumo wrote, “These assumptions are untrue. Therefore, we cannot achieve the meager growth projected. We showed how those studies were built upon a series of demonstrably false assumptions to produce those meager gains. Then we showed why losses to American workers, industry and the economy were nearly certain when you eliminated the false assumptions.”


This year we also proposed tax reform that can fix some major foreign trade cheating on a large scale. As Michael Stumo, wrote, “Tax reform is a challenge because K Street lobbyists rig the game for special interests and no connection is made with our success in producing here and winning the international trade competition. However, we made significant gains in showing how we can fight foreign consumption taxes that act as tariffs by smartly adding a US consumption tax and funding the reduction of other regressive taxes and costs to fix the problem. We also showed how we can fix the corporate income tax system with sales factor apportionment to halt tax haven abuse by transnationals, incentivize US domestic production, and make foreign companies pay their fair share of income tax when selling into the lucrative American market.”

The good news is that everyone we saw seemed to agree that the TPP does not have the votes to pass before the election. The danger will be in the “Lame Duck” session. We seem to be in a far better position to prevent future passage than we were last year at this time with regard to passage of the “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority. Michael Stumo, wrote, “We almost beat Fast Track last June. Indeed we won the first votes in regulation time but lost in overtime when the Empire Struck Back. Now, it seems that the anti-Fast Track block is holding strong and quite a lot of pro-Fast Track congressional members have either declared opposition to TPP or are leaning against it.”

Michael added, “GOP House leadership pushed Fast Track through last year but they seem to view TPP as toxic now. The GOP rank and file are letting House leadership know they do not want to vote on TPP at any time in the foreseeable future. The Senate side is less solid and has always posed the bigger challenge. Senate majority leadership wants changes to TPP but still wants get to ‘yes.’ However, the changes being demanded are difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to deliver.”

We are being helped by the stand against trade agreements by two of the major presidential candidates, Trump and Sanders, who bring up our broken trade policy in almost every speech. “Trade has become one of the few, rare ‘voting issues’… an issue that actually moves voters to support or oppose a candidate.”

While this has been a several year battle, we haven’t won yet and still have a lot to do. The establishment will continue say that the voters simply don’t understand the “greater good.” Pundits will continue to write many “reasoned” articles about why the voters should support trade agreements such as the TPP. But the success of Trump and Sanders shows that the establishment has not only lost its clout, it is actively disbelieved by many now.

Help us to grow this movement and increase our effectiveness. Encourage your friends and colleagues to participate. Let’s keep up the good fight!

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Mixed Messages at San Diego’s Economic Outlook Events

Tuesday, February 9th, 2016

Economists and industry experts presented conflicting outlooks at the three of the Economic Outlook events held in San Diego this month. I attended two of the three ? the 32nd Annual San Diego County Economic Roundtable and the San Diego 2016 Economic Outlook by the National University Institute for Policy Research ? and read about the third, the San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) Economic Trends event.

The SDBJ event focused on the areas of expertise of industry panelists in banking, health care, insurance, commercial real estate, tax, and employment, which is why I did not attend this event. If you are involved in these industries, then you were happy to hear that these experts forecast a healthy year for San Diego with the U. S. economy growing about 2.5%. Home prices have increased, consumer spending is growing, wages are increasing, and commercial real estate vacancy rates are below the 10-year average.

The other two events paid more attention to the manufacturing sector in which I am involved. Marney Cox, Chief Economist for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) participated in both events, and he and Kelly Cunningham, Chief Economist at the National University Institute of Policy Research (NUPR) were more cautious, forecasting a more modest 1.9% growth in the region, 2.1% in California as a whole and only 1.8% growth in the U. S.

Kelly Cunningham stated that it took us 74 months after the last recession to get back to the job level we had in 2007, which was two to three times as long as the recessions of 1980-81, 1990-91, and 2000-2001. The average GDP growth after these three previous recessions was 4-5% annual growth, but the U. S. GDP has grown an average of only 2% since the Great Recession. At the SDWP event, Marney Cox opined that the regional GDP growth should be >3%.

San Diego is adding jobs faster than the rest of California, and he forecast that the San Diego unemployment rate would remain at the low of 4.8% reached in December 2015 compared to 5.8% for California. He emphasized that this is the commonly used U3 rate of employment, not the U6 rate that includes part-time and discouraged workers. The U6 rate is about double the U3 rate, and was 9.8% in December 2015. However, the U3 rate doesn’t include people who have dropped out of the labor force. At the SDWP event, Marney Cox stated that 698,000 people had dropped out of the labor force in San Diego since 2005.

What concerns me is that manufacturing is only 9.5% of the regional GDP (based on 2014 data), up from the low of 7.6% of GDP in 2008. This is still considerably down from the high of 30.1% in 1980. It had slipped to 24.8% by the end of 1999, but that is less than a 6% loss in 19 years, whereas we have now dropped another 15.3% in 15 years. Also, San Diego’s GDP dropped from 7th in 1999 to 17th in ranking of the top 35 metropolitan areas in the U. S.

According to NUPR report, San Diego has “added 7,000 manufacturing jobs back as 2015 ended. Half of the new manufacturing jobs are in non-durable goods, one-quarter in aerospace, and the rest among other durable goods production, including shipbuilding and recreational goods…” However, this is about 5% or 6,000 fewer jobs than we had in 2007 (102,400) and more than 26,000 fewer jobs in manufacturing than we had in 1999 (128,300).

Since you have to make it, grow it, or mine it to generate tangible wealth, it is questionable whether or not San Diego can even maintain its level of prosperity in the future. Agriculture did not even show up on the pie chart of GDP for San Diego, and natural resources only represented .5% of the GDP. Thus, it is critical that San Diego maintain a strong manufacturing base. Manufacturing jobs create 3-4 other support jobs, while service jobs only create 1-2 other jobs.

Construction dropped from 3.8% of the region GDP in 2008 to only 3.3% at the end of 2014, but there has been very little recovery in the number of construction jobs as the number of jobs is still down by 12% from what the number was in December 2007. The NUPR report stated, “In 2016 we do not foresee a significant increase of this part of the economy, in part because of the

relatively small number of housing permits approved in the County. Absent a fundamental change of that figure, this part of the economy will continue to struggle.”

Since manufacturing and construction represent good paying jobs for the middle class, this explains why middle wage jobs are decreasing. The NUPR report released at their event defines “middle wage jobs as those paying between $35,000 and $77,000 per year in 2014 dollars” and states that “in 2001 middle wage jobs accounted for 56.6 percent of all payroll wage jobs…the ratio continued to shrink, standing at 49.5 percent as of 2014.”

Essentially in San Diego, we are creating six times more low paying jobs than high paying jobs and double the number of low paying jobs than middle wage jobs. Higher wage jobs “increased from 21.2 percent in 2001 to 26.2 percent by 2014,” and lower wage jobs “increased from 22.3 percent in 2001 to 24.3 percent as of 2014.”

This trend is nothing new. I remember Marney Cox expressing concern over the shrinking number of middle wage jobs at economic roundtables I attended in the mid 1990s.

Another trend Marney Cox mentioned is that the percentage of workers age 55+ has increased from 25% of the workforce to 35.1%, and there has not been a recovery in employment for those ages 25-54. Since these years are supposed to be the “golden years” of making money in a career, this does not bode well for the future for this age bracket. My own son and daughter are in this age bracket, and my son has had to work as an independent contractor since early 2010 without being able to find a permanent, full-time job in an occupation related to construction. Neither of my children has been able to afford to buy a house because with rents as high as they are, they can never save enough money for a down payment. Their dad and I were able to buy our first house in our mid 20s when houses cost about 3-4 times a median annual salary, but now they cost 9-10 times an annual median salary.

As I have mentioned in past articles, San Diego has been an innovation hub of advanced technology for the past 30 years, and we now have many startup companies at various stages of development in the more than 45 different accelerator/incubator programs in the region. This is why I was very concerned when Marney Cox stated that venture funding being invested in San Diego companies has greatly diminished. Last year, venture fund investment was <$One Billion and represented only 2% of national investment compared to 4-5% previously.

If this trend continues, it would have far-reaching effects. San Diego’s diverse industry clusters derived from technology-focused R & D have always helped the region perform slightly better than the rest of the country. However, if early stage companies cannot get venture funding beyond the Angel investor stage, it will be more difficult for them to ramp up into the full production stage where the majority of job expansion occurs. As a mentor for startup technology-based companies for the San Diego Inventors Forum and the CONNECT Springboard program, I am witnessing the increasing difficulty entrepreneurs are experiencing in getting investment funds. Crowdfunding is helping more companies get off the ground, but they will not be able to succeed in the long run and scale up to full production without significant Angel and venture funding.

San Diego’s economy cannot depend on military/defense spending and tourism for growth in regional GDP. Tightening defense/military budgets because of sequestration have been a drag on the San Diego regional GDP growth for the past three years, and the slight increase in defense spending in the current fiscal year budget will not make much of a difference.

These considerations are why I think that the conclusion reached in the NUPR report is valid: “World and national headwinds suggest battening down the hatches with a prognosis for tightening economic conditions…San Diego will be fortunate to achieve a seventh year of continuous positive economic momentum in 2016. These indicators of economic activity, however, do not portend an acceleration, but rather uneasy movement going forward.”

Based on the economic indicators I am seeing for the national manufacturing industry, I would say that these words of caution should also be applied nationally.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economic Development, Economy, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing, Technology | No Comments »

CPA Releases Competitiveness Strategy for the United StatesCPA Releases Competitiveness Strategy for the United States

Friday, November 20th, 2015

For several years, organizations and elected representatives in Congress have proposed developing a national manufacturing strategy. For example, the Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” in April 2011 and the Alliance for American Manufacturing has repeatedly put forward a “Plan to Save Manufacturing,” calling for a national manufacturing strategy to reverse the decline in U.S. manufacturing and the good jobs that come with it. Bills sponsored by Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski (D) have even passed the House of Representatives, but have died in the Senate.

On November 11th, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released “A Competitiveness Strategy for the United States – America at a Crossroads,” which addresses other sectors of our economy in addition to manufacturing.

“America needs to start winning again,” said Michael Stumo, CEO of CPA. “That is why the mission of the Competitiveness Strategy is to:

‘Win the international competition for good jobs, sustained real economic growth and prosperity with a national strategy to counter foreign mercantilism, balance trade and grow strong domestic supply chains.’”

“Across the USA, localities and states employ plans to attract jobs,” said Brian O’Shaughnessy, CPA Chief Co-Chair and Chairman of Revere Copper Products. “Other countries have sophisticated national strategies to acquire industries and bring good paying jobs to their countries. The USA has no comprehensive national strategy for domestic production and good paying jobs to guide trade negotiators and administration officials.”

CPA’s Competitiveness Strategy argues that:

The United States is losing an economic competition against other nations whose mercantilist strategies are destroying our manufacturing jobs, critical industries, our standard of living, our national security, the security of our food supply, and our children’s futures.

The threat to the U. S. economy and national security is grave. Other trading nations are using comprehensive strategies to import jobs across all economic sectors, but are particularly focused on strategically significant technologies and industries. American companies in these sectors face not only wide-ranging mercantilist practices and non-tariff trade barriers such as currency manipulation, tariffs and subsidies, but also much more sophisticated and specific strategies aimed at identifying, acquiring, or otherwise controlling critical technologies.

CPA’s strategy holds out the promise that the U. S. is in control of its own destiny and can re-assert itself as a great manufacturing and producing nation with a rising standard of living for all. We can develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that retains and reinforces our leadership in innovation, locates investment and production in the United States, and raises employment by creating good paying jobs.

The ultimate mission of the strategy is to win the international competition for good jobs and sustained economic growth. The mission recognizes we are in competition with other countries. The Competitiveness Strategy includes nineteen action steps focused upon three interrelated goals:

  1. Identifying and countering foreign mercantilist strategies that grow their economies at the expense of other countries through achieving a persistent trade surplus
  2. Balancing the national trade deficit
  3. Growing domestic supply chains

“All three goals are interrelated and must be pursued together,” continued Stumo. “The President rightfully created the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to grow domestic supply chains, but the effort cannot succeed unless we combat powerful foreign tactics to take those industries away. Further, a new effort to counter foreign mercantilism and trade cheating is essential, but must have the goal of balancing trade to be fully effective.”
“Additionally, balancing trade is essential, but merely exporting raw materials is insufficient. American must grow and retain a diverse array of industries that add value to our products and create good jobs, with special attention paid to advanced and critical industry supply chains,” Stumo concluded.

CPA’s competitiveness strategy shown below is succinct, yet comprehensive:

“Identify and counter foreign mercantilist strategies that grow their economies at the expense of other countries through achieving a persistent trade surplus

  1. End both currency exchange rate imbalances and the accumulation of excessive US dollar holdings by non-US public and private entities.
  2. Impose offsetting tariffs to neutralize foreign government subsidies to industries and supply chains that compete with ours.
  3. Counter foreign government policies that force offshoring by conditioning access to their markets on transfers of technology, research facilities and/or production to their countries, as well as compliance with export performance and domestic content requirements, while their exporters have access to US markets without these conditions.
  4. Ensure that foreign greenfield investments in the US and acquisitions of existing US companies provide a clear “net benefit” to the US with special scrutiny in cases of state influenced foreign entities.
  5. Protect US food security from foreign government tactics to seize markets.

Balance trade

  1. Offset cumulative trade deficits of recent decades and excessive accumulations of dollar reserves through sustained trade surplus to ultimately achieve a long term overall trade balance.
  2. Insure that the composition of trade includes a substantial trade surplus in high value added and advanced manufactured goods.
  3. Make the US workforce more cost competitive by promoting fair pay, rising living standards and safe working conditions for workers everywhere.
  4. Reduce US producers’ trade disadvantage through tax reform which finances the reduction of payroll taxes and health insurance costs with a border adjustable consumption tax in a revenue and distribution neutral manner.
  5. Lower corporate tax rates and end corporate inversion and profit shifting tax avoidance by taxing the income of unitary business groups, whether domestic or foreign, based upon proportion of global sales in the US.

Grow Domestic Supply Chains

  1. Preserve and develop domestic manufacturing and agricultural supply chains to maximize value added production in the US.
  2. Develop, build and maintain a world-class land, water, air, communications and energy infrastructure.
  3. Safeguard our military strength and national security by insuring that critical technologies, weapons & IT components are developed and manufactured in America by American controlled companies.
  4. Develop, commercialize and retain strategic and economically significant advanced technology and grow their manufacturing supply chains in the US.
  5. Increase public support for, and incentives for private investment in, basic and applied research, infra-technologies and new product and process technologies.
  6. Continually raise the competitiveness of American workers by improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education available at all levels, systematically enhance lifelong learning for existing workers, and fostering a national system of apprenticeship and paid internships through collaborative public-private endeavors that are connected to actual opportunities in the labor market.
  7. Raise the competitiveness of small and medium sized domestic enterprises by increasing long-term private sector financing, the sharing of research on common issues and the diffusion of new technologies and production methods.
  8. Preserve our right to adopt and enforce domestic policies that insure the quality of our food and goods, and protect the health, safety and general welfare of our citizens without restrictions from international trade agreements.
  9. Ensure that domestic manufacturing and agriculture benefit fully from an expanded supply of low cost US produced energy”

Anyone involved in efforts to revitalize American manufacturing already has a bookshelf full of books, studies, and reports containing recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy. My book, Can American Manufacturing Be Saved? Why we should and how we can has a chapter on “How Can We Save American Manufacturing?” that contains a summary of the recommendations of many organizations as well as my own recommendations, which I incorporate into articles and presentations whenever possible. As chair of the California chapter of CPA, I plan to incorporate this competitiveness strategy into future articles and presentations whenever possible.

The brilliance of CPA’s strategy is that it is not limited to manufacturing and is not a “to do list” of actions to take. The Competitiveness Strategy will work best when pursued as a whole. The three objectives are interrelated because, for example, we cannot balance trade without growing domestic supply chains to produce more, and add more value in the U. S. We cannot grow domestic supply chains unless we neutralize foreign mercantilism (trade cheating) that offshores otherwise competitive industries that we started and developed in the U. S. We cannot address foreign mercantilism without the guidance of a balanced trade objective.

Businesses must have a strategic plan to start and grow. This strategic plan guides the business with regard to product development, finance, marketing, production, procurement, etc. Many other countries have an economic strategy to grow their economy. A country’s strategy guides their economic, fiscal, trade, innovation, finance and monetary policy, so that they all work together to enhance their competitiveness as a nation.

The United States has no comprehensive strategy ? just a hodgepodge of laws and rules. Trade negotiators have had no strategic plan to guide them, and neither do the administrative agencies relevant to manufacturing, agricultural, and use of natural resources. The United States needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy that clearly expresses exactly what we want to achieve for our country… not for an industry or special interest… but our country as a whole.

We do not have to “keep reinventing the wheel.” It is time for our leaders to “stop fiddling while Rome burns” and show some real leadership. Action, not lip service is what we need now!

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economic Development, Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Reshoring, Trade, Trade Policy | No Comments »

New Technologies Featured at DMEDS 2015

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

In these busy times when face to face appointments have nearly become a thing of the past, don’t miss the opportunity for face to face interaction at the Del Mar Electronics and Design Show on May 6th and 7th at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.

This show is our only local trade show and convention for people who design, manufacture, and test products. The two-day event is free for industry professionals and will be held at the Del Mar Fair Grounds with plentiful free parking and easy highway access. Show hours are 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM Wednesday, May 6th and 10:00 AM – 3:00 PM, Thursday May 7th. Stay to network at the free reception at the Mexican Plaza and enjoy the free food and music after the show ends on the first day. Visit here for more information or to register.

Over the last 19 years, the show has evolved from a sales rep/distributor show to become a major exhibition of local, regional, and national manufacturing companies and organizations.

Since San Diego is a hotbed of innovation and start-up companies, there will be a special program on May 6th starting at 3:00 PM, “Starting Block to Success – Utilizing San Diego’s Resources to Start and Grow Your Business.” First, CONNECT CEO Greg McKee will share some of his experience as an entrepreneur and executive at innovation companies, as well as discuss the ways in which CONNECT supports tech and life science companies at every stage of the business lifecycle. CONNECT provides resources for start-ups, mid-market, and multi-national enterprise companies.

From 3:30 – 4:00 PM, Jeff Draa, President & Board Member of Tech Coast Angels will discuss available sources of capital for startup companies, how to access these sources, which are the right ones at the right times. He will answer the questions about what early stage investors want to see from startups to help guide entrepreneurs through successful funding events which can determine success or failure in early stage businesses.

From 4:00 – 4:30 PM, Rory Moore, CEO and Founder of the EvoNexus incubator will share real life examples of companies at that have been “incubated” at EvoNexus.

Finally, from 4:30 – 5:00 PM, Lou Kelly, Director & Chairman of the San Diego Regional Innovation Cluster at San Diego State University will describe how their federally funded organization brings together 23 organizations in the San Diego area to create a customized package of support for high tech small businesses to help them grow, commercialize their product, and bring it to the market.

Program Manager Douglas Bodenstab stated “This year we are focusing on San Diego’s entrepreneurial spirit with a special program consisting of San Diego’s premier incubators, funding, and entrepreneurial organizations. The Del Mar Fair Grounds presents a relaxed atmosphere that is representative of San Diego’s entrepreneurial business personality, and the show is seen by the local community as the annual event to catch up with old friends, and also see what is new.”

New technologies will be displayed on the show floor with over 500 exhibitors. Dozens of free seminars will be provided on both show days. A few of the technical topics to be presented are:

How to Reduce Costs Using Rapid Prototyping Techniques

3D Printing Processes and Materials

3D Functional Inkjet Printing of Solder Mask & Legend on PCBs

Batteries: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

What’s New in Wire and Cable

Integrate Mobile and Cloud Technology in our Next Electronic Product

Non-technical topics include:

Growth Strategy: How to use Market Intelligence to Shorten the Sales Cycle

How to use LinkedIn to Advance your Career

Using Digital Marketing to Accelerate your Sales Cycle

I will be one of the first speakers at the show on the topic of  “How to Return Manufacturing to America” at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, May 6th, in Room A of the Mission Tower building, (adjacent to Mexican Plaza across from the show buildings). Workshops on this topic at other venues can cost hundreds of dollars, so save money by attending my free seminar.

It has become common knowledge that cost savings of outsourcing in China have eroded due to higher labor rates and shipping costs. Quality problems, IP theft, and counterfeit parts are causing companies to rethink where to source. I will discuss how to select the right parts and products to reshore, how to calculate the Total Cost of Ownership using the Reshoring Initiative’s worksheet, what are the latest trends of reshoring, and share some new case stories of companies that have reshored.

My company, ElectroFab Sales, will be exhibiting at Booth 223 in the Bing Crosby Hall at the show. We will have sample parts on display for Century Rubber Company and some of the companies we represent.
One of the other companies we represent will have their own booth in the Exhibit Hall: A Squared Technologies (booth # 437). Please drop our booths.

Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Reshoring | No Comments »

What would be the Impact of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?

Monday, April 20th, 2015

Last Thursday, Senators Hatch, Wyden, and Ryan introduced “The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,” which is the Trade Promotion Authority bill that would grant President Obama “fast track” authority for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

The TPP agreement has been in negotiation since 2010 between the United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The TPP would cover 792 million people and 40% of world’s economic activity. It is a “docking agreement” so other countries could be added, and India, China, and Korea have expressed interest in joining the TPP.

There has been no involvement by Congress in the writing of the Agreement; instead, 600 corporate advisors have worked with the U. S. Trade Representative and his staff to write the more than 1,000 pages of the Agreement. Members of Congress did not even have access to view the Agreement until last year, and they cannot take any staff with them and are not allowed to take pen, pencil, paper, or a camera when they go view it at the U. S. T. R.’s office.

This Act would give Constitutional power over trade to the President and take it away from Congress. It would allow the Executive Branch to conclude negotiations and sign the Agreement before a vote by Congress. It allows only 45 days for committee analysis and only 15 days to bring it up for floor vote. It allows only 20 hours of debate by Congress and eliminates amendments, filibuster, and cloture. It requires only simple majority vote in the Senate and House whereas the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Treaty clause requires 2/3 vote of Senate. The TPP would remain in effect until 2018, but could be extended to 2021.

What is missing in the TPP

 The TPP does not address any of the “predatory mercantilist” actions that our current trading partners are using that have created the enormous trade deficit that I wrote about a few weeks ago. These policies are: currency manipulation, “border adjustable” taxes called Value Added Taxes (VATs), which are a tariff by another name, government subsidies for State-Owned Enterprises, and “product dumping” by manufacturers in one country at below their cost to produce to destroy competition in another country.

“Over 20 countries, representing 1/3 of global GDP, are engaged in currency wars” by undervaluing their currency. These governments work with their central banks to manipulate the currency value in order to provide a competitive advantage to boost exports and impede imports. China’s currency is estimated to be 25-40% undervalued. As Paul Volcker, former Secretary of the Treasury, has explained, “In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.” Foreign government intervention in foreign exchange markets is manipulation, not free trade.

Value Added Taxes (VATs) range from a low of 10% to a high of 24%, averaging 17% worldwide. The U. S. is one of a handful of 159 other countries that do not charge a VAT. This means that American products that are exported are an average of 17% more expensive when imported by a country that adds a VAT. In reverse, foreign imports are an average of 17% less expensive because the U. S. does not charge a VAT. Thus, we reduce tariffs through our trade agreements only to have our trading partners add a tariff by another name to the cost of our products that we export. This gives other countries an unfair competitive advantage in the global marketplace.

We have all read news stories about “product dumping” cases against U. S. industries, such as the tires, steel, and solar panel industries. With regard to government subsidies, the best example is how Foxconn was able to get Apple’s business for manufacturing the iPhone, iPad and now the iWatch because the Chinese government gave them the land and built the building for them.

What is wrong with the TPP?

 The TPP overrules prior acts of Congress and destroys our national sovereignty. For example:

 Buy American Act made Null and Void: For the manufacturing industry for which I play a role, the most adverse effect would be that the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. What this means is that the TPP’s procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to bid on government procurement contracts at the local, state, and federal level. There are many companies that survived the recession and continue in business today because of the Buy American provisions for defense and military procurement. The TPP could be a deathblow for companies that rely on defense and military contracts, such as the U. S. printed circuit board industry. Most of the commercial printed circuit manufacturing was already offshored to China and South Korea years ago.

Product Labeling: Country of Origin Labeling, labeling of GMO products, and “organic” labeling could be made illegal because of being viewed as an “illegal trade barrier.” Even the health warnings on tobacco products could be viewed as an “illegal trade barrier.”

Many TPP countries are farm-raising seafood using chemicals and antibiotics that are prohibited in the U. S. and farmed seafood from China is being raised in water quality equivalent to U. S. sewers. According to Food & Water Watch, around 90% of the shrimp and catfish that Americans eat are imported. They warn, “The TPP will increase imports of potentially unsafe and minimally inspected fish and seafood products, exposing consumers to more and more dangerous seafood.”

Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) has stated “that fast food restaurants are not required to disclose the origins of their beef and even when restaurants say the beef is “U.S. Inspected,” it is as likely as not to be imported.” When we were in Washington, D. C. together last month, Mr. Bullard told me that the increased importation of sheep and lamb from Australia and New Zealand could wipe out the American sheep ranching industry.

The California Farmers Union recently sent a letter to Rep. Davis Valadao (R-CA) stating, “Passage of the TPP would lead to a flood of dairy imports from New Zealand chronically depressing U. S. dairy producer prices…Agricultural imports will rise dramatically under the proposed agreement…The Agreement further poses a threat to the food security that we have long enjoyed as a nation because imports will replace U. S. produced agricultural products.”

Investor State Dispute Resolution: ISDR is designed to allow foreign corporations to bypass the domestic legal system to use to fight laws they don’t like. International Tribunals, not U.S. courts, would decide on lawsuits between “investor” companies in member countries and the U. S. Foreign “investors” could file lawsuits against city, state, and federal agencies for laws and regulations that may infringe on their “expected future profits.” They can also sue for compensation for the loss of these “expected future profits.” Thus, the TPP would infringe upon states’ rights as state and local governments have the constitutional authority to enact rules governing many areas covered by the TPP. But, they will no longer have the freedom to do so in the many regulatory areas covered by the TPP.

The TPP includes hundreds of pages that govern the policies of states concerning non-trade domestic policy and state and local officials would be bound to comply with much of the Agreement’s rules and regulations.

Space doesn’t allow me to cover all of the things that are wrong with the TPP with regard to non-trade issues, such as patent and copyright laws, land use, as well as policies concerning natural resources, the environment, labor laws, health care, energy and telecommunications.

Except for the large multinational corporations that participated in writing the Agreement and are its beneficiaries, there is something for everyone to hate. Opposition to the TPP cuts across party lines ? there are Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians opposed to many of the “leaked” provisions of the TPP. Organizations from the left to the right are opposed to the TPP as negotiated. It will hurt the 98-99% of American manufacturers who had no place at the table in writing the Agreement. It will hurt American consumers and American workers of all ages. It will harm our environment and put our food and water safety at risk. But, most of all it will destroy our national sovereignty. Now is the time for you to write, call, or email your Senator and Congressional representative to urge them to vote “no” on granting Fast Track authority.

Posted in Country of Origin, Economy, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Looking Back at 2014 and Ahead to 2015

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015

Most economists are predicting a rosy forecast of more than 3 percent expansion for the U.S. economy in 2015, up from 2.3% in 2014. If it does, this “would mark the first time in a decade that growth has reached that level for a full calendar year.” The unemployment rate is also predicted to drop from the current 5.6 percent to 5.3 percent. The questions are: How much will American manufacturing benefit from this expansion and how many manufacturing jobs will be created?

While the country gained 252,000 jobs in December, only 17,000 were manufacturing jobs according the monthly report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ? “In December, …Manufacturing added an average of 16,000 jobs per month in 2014, compared with an average gain of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.”

This was a significant increase over the previous year, but notice that President Obama recently stated that “more than 764,000 manufacturing jobs have been gained since the end of the recession.” This means that we still have a long way to go to recoup the 5.8 million manufacturing jobs that we lost between the years 2000 – 2009. According to Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, “…December’s manufacturing job gains were behind the previous month, and that halfway through the president’s second term, the country is just over one-quarter of the way to his pledge to create 1 million new manufacturing jobs in that four-year span.”

While the U3 unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent, the U6 rate is double at11.2 percent. The U-6 rate includes “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.”

In a recent article, business reporter Jonathan Horn of the San Diego Union-Tribune noted, “the unemployment rate fell in part because people dropped out of the labor force ? they either retired or left the labor force. Last month, the number of unemployed persons fell 383,000 to 8.7 million. However, less than one-third of people out of work found jobs; the rest stopped looking. The percentage of Americans who are either working or looking for work fell back to a 37-year low last touched in September.”

The January 6-11, 2015 edition of the San Diego Business Journal’s reported that manufacturing jobs in San Diego increased by 3.3 percent from November 2013 through November 2014, for a total of 97,400 industry jobs, up by 3,100 jobs. However, we still have a long way to go to get back to the 122,600 manufacturing jobs in the San Diego region we had at the end of 1999.

Two manufacturing sectors led the job growth in San Diego: shipbuilding and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones.) General Dynamics’ Nassco division has contracts for five commercial tankers and one Navy ship and plans to “add about 300 additional jobs to the shipbuilder’s staff, bringing the total workforce to about 3,500.” General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc’s “local employment grew 9 percent year over year to 4,843 as of June 2014.”

In this same article, I was quoted as saying, “For those with skills and experience in a particular industry, things were definitely trending up in 2014…This (2014) has been a year when people could find jobs.” I’m also quoted as saying, “San Diego greatly diversified its economy following the previous major recession in the early 1990s, and that’s made a huge difference in the past several years…One of our strengths is that we’re not hurt as much from the lack of new defense programs.”

Looking Back at 2014

The R&D tax credit that had expired December 31, 2013 was extended for 2014, but has now expired again as of December 31, 2014. The R&D Tax Credit was originally introduced in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 sponsored by Rep. Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth. The credit has expired eight times and has been extended fifteen times. The frequent expiration of this tax credit creates unnecessary uncertainty for business investment planning. The R&D Credit Coalition, National Association of Manufacturers, and many other business groups recommend that this tax credit be made permanent.

One bright spot on the national scene is that a bill requiring a National Strategic Plan for Manufacturing authored by Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) became law right before Christmas. Three of Lipinski’s previously authored bills had passed the House three times over the past five years, but failed to either pass or be considered in the Senate. This bill was included in legislation that passed both houses and was signed into law by the President. U.S. Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Chris Coons (D-DE) and Mark Pryor (D-AK) introduced the language in the Commerce, Science and Justice Appropriations bill passed by the Senate.

Rep. Lipinski stated, “After many years of hard work, my bipartisan legislation to boost domestic manufacturing and American jobs by. The bill requires that at least every four years the president works with public and private stakeholders to produce and publish a plan to promote American manufacturing. In addition, every year the president’s budget blueprint will have to contain an explanation of how it promotes the most recent manufacturing strategy. This bill guarantees that Washington has to pay attention to what can be done to help manufacturers and workers. Getting this provision into law can really make a difference by leading to economic growth, increased American security, and more middle class jobs that pay hard-working Americans a good wage. I look forward to finding many more “Made in USA” labels on products we see in our stores and online.”

In June 2013, I wrote an article criticizing an earlier version of this bill, H.R. 2447, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013, and was contacted by Rep. Lipinski’s Chief of Staff to discuss my criticisms. I am anxious to see whether or not the current language included in the Commerce, Science and Justice Appropriations bill addressed these criticisms.

In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to launch four new manufacturing institutes this year, for a total of eight institutes launched so far on an original goal of creating 15 manufacturing innovation institutes. On December 11th, President Obama announced that” the government will invest more than $290 million in public-private investment for two new Manufacturing Innovation Hub Competitions.

One will be in smart manufacturing at the Department of Energy and one in flexible hybrid electronics at the Department of Defense. Each institute will receive $70 million or more of federal investment to be matched by at least $70 million from the private sector for a total of more than $290 million in new investment.”

“The Department of Defense will lead a competition for a new public-private manufacturing innovation institute in flexible hybrid electronics…The Department of Energy will lead a competition for a new public-private manufacturing innovation institute focused on smart manufacturing, including advanced sensors, control, platforms, and models for manufacturing…” The press release invites interested applicants to find more information on the manufacturing innovation institute competitions at www.manufacturing.gov.

While funding manufacturing institutes may have a long-term benefit similar to funding research at other government institutions, there are actions that President Obama and Congress could take that would have a more immediate benefit on the manufacturing industry and create more jobs, such as making the R&D tax credit permanent, addressing currency manipulation by our foreign trading partners, easing taxes to repatriate corporate profits, and actually doing comprehensive tax reform. Let us hope that the economic predictions of a better 2015 than 2014 will come true and that more manufacturing jobs will be created by even more companies returning manufacturing to America.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Taxes/Regulations | No Comments »

Idea Jam Explores Future of Jobs in San Diego

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014

On November 7, 2014, I attended the “Idea Jam – Innovating for the Future” session put on by the Pacific Center for Workforce Innovation in San Diego. The purpose of the session was to identify the major challenges to the San Diego workforce in the coming years and to generate audience participation in visioning exercises to explore new and innovative workforce development ideas. The event was held at Colman University, and major sponsors were SDG&E, Qualcomm, the Eastridge Group, Point Loma Nazarene College, and Cal State University, San Marcos.

To get our creative juices flowing, Master of Ceremonies, Susan Taylor, San Diego’s TV news icon, introduced Futurist Speaker, Thomas Frey, of the DaVinci Institute as the keynote speaker. It is difficult to do justice to his very visual presentation of images of break-through technologies, but his statements alone created much food for thought about the future. He stated, “We are a backward-looking society…the future gets created in the mind. The future creates the present…Visions of the future affect the way people act today.” He rhetorically asked, “What are the big things that need to be accomplished today?

He continued, “Catalytic innovation creates entirely new industries, like electricity did…Most successful companies today are in the second half of the bell curve…the steel industry had its peak employment in the 1980s.”

It was a shock to hear him state that “Two billion jobs will disappear by 2030…Every time you download a mobile app, you are eliminating a piece of a job.” In answer to his own rhetorical question, “Where will our next generation’s jobs come from, he answered, “from new industries that don’t exist now.” He added, “As you raise the bar for our achievement, we create the new norm.”

“Software is heating the world,” he proclaimed. “In 2030, there will be 100 trillion sensors in the world. Information is being parsed into small things.” He cited some of the new enhanced objects such as: Amazon’s Track Car, the Asteroid Moon Micro-imager Experiment (amie) For Smart-1 Mission, the Vitality Glow Cap for medication management, the Ambient Umbrella by Ambient Devices, Mimo’s Baby monitor, the flying Nixie camera (a tiny wearable camera on a wrist band in which the wrist straps unfold to create a quadcopter that flies, takes photos or video, then comes back to you), the Philips biometrics coffee maker that can recognize users via their fingerprint and make coffee just the way that individual likes it, and the Pintofeed, calling itself the “first intelligent pet feeder”

He explained that “we are entering the age of hyperawareness and the quantified self with products such as printable skin sensors, smart body watches, brain hacking, transcranial brain stimulation.”

Frey stated, “3D printing is changing the world. The new HP 3D printer has 30,000 spray nozzles and can utilize over 200 materials. The iBox Nano is now the world’s smallest, least expensive 3D resin printer. Even shoes can be 3D printed, and Contour Crafting has developed a type of ceramics printing that could be used in construction. Whole walls can now be made by 3D printing, and a company in China was the first company to print a small house for under $5,000. The goal is to print an entire house in one day. In the future, you may live in a printed house…Bio printing can now print skin, veins, organs like a liver, limbs, and an exo skeleton, and there is a pill printer that chemprints antibiotics.” He quoted Chris Anderson, former editor of WIRED magazine and now cofounder and CEO of 3DRobotics, as saying, “3D printing is going to be bigger than the internet.”

“We need to prepare our children for jobs that don’t exist and technology that hasn’t been invented, he declared…By 2030, the average person will have to ‘reboot’ their career six times in their lifetime. To do this, we need to frame our work to train people in a faster way…By 2020, half of all traditional colleges will disappear.”

To facilitate this rapid training, he shared that the DaVinci Institute now offers 11-13-week courses in such topics as 3D printing, web design, game design and development and becoming a drone pilot.” He concluded by saying, “The fastest way to create new jobs is to eliminate the old ones out of existence.”

In California, the community college system is already providing this type of accelerated, focused training through their certificate programs in such subjects as multimedia, web design, web server maintenance and security, and culinary arts. It will be relatively easy to add new training topics to the curriculum to meet future needs.

After Mr. Frey’s predictions of the future, a panel of business leaders discussed what is happening in their industries and what new industries should we focus on. Jeff Nichols from Sempra Energy stated that “San Diego is the nexus of cyber security…Delivering electricity and water is synergistic, so there are opportunities to putting these two together.”

Dr. Ed Abeyta from the University of California, San Diego said, “We need to teach skill sets in a non-university setting but he hasn’t seen an online program that successfully replaces teaching in person.” He added, “We need micro-credentials that you could earn rapidly.”

Matt Grob of Qualcomm said, “The companies that change fastest are the small, startup companies. San Diego is very well placed in the robotics industry…UCSD is starting an incubator for robotics” With regard to training, he said, “A combination of a person and a computer are better than a computer or a person alone.”

In answer to the question, how do we prepare for the change and foster the culture of change in others? Dr. Abeyta responded, “Humanity had its core values before technology came, and we must instill those in our children. We need to marry the technology with our core values. It is not about getting the answer; it is Are we asking the right questions?” Dr. Smith of West Health commented, “We can teach how to think and not what to know.”

The last half of the morning was spent in an idea jam session by small table groups to come up with two ideas: most innovative and most likely to succeed. After lunch, the following panel of judges discussed the ideas developed by the audience: Molly Cartmill, Sempra Energy, Michael Alston, Qualcomm, and Mary Walter-Brown, Voice of San Diego. After presenting all of the ideas for the 17 different tables, the audience voted on the best ideas for both categories. The best ideas were:

Most Likely to Succeed

“Tinder, but for networking and mentoring.” (Note: Tinder is a matchmaking mobile app that uses GPS technology, in which users can set a specific radius have the option to match with anyone that is within that distance.)

“Industry developed after school programs to build skill sets and networking for specific career areas.”

“Change the hiring process from resumes to problem solving practices.”

“Retool community centers and libraries to be career path hubs.” (my idea at my table)

Most Innovative:

“Programmer boot camps for under-served communities integrated with soft and life skills.”

“Establish a mentoring program for retired professionals to share advice and knowledge to persons in transition”

“Implement playgrounds of interests at schools to help students see the possibilities i.e. Maker Spacers & digital playgrounds.”

“Geolocation app that reveals available parking, especially in downtown SD via satellite, with timer alerts”

When I think of the fact that I am now on my fourth career path, I can see that six career paths is a realistic prediction for the future. Just like continuous improvement is one of the tools for becoming a Lean company, continuous learning will be a prerequisite for everyone who wants to keep working during their even longer productive lifetime in the future. My definition of success has been to learn something new to the point of proficiency, so I can highly recommend continuous learning to others. It’s what makes life interesting, challenging, and fun!

Posted in Economy, Education, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing, Technology | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »