Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Manufacturing in Golden State Summit shows how to make California Thrive

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014

On March 19th, over 100 business leaders met at the community center of the City of Brea in Orange County for the “Manufacturing in the Golden State – Making California Thrive” economic summit. The summit was hosted by State Senator Mark Wyland in partnership with the Coalition for a Prosperous America and many other regional businesses and associations. The purpose of the summit was to discuss how our national trade policies and tax policies are harming California manufacturers and what policies should be changed to help them grow and thrive.

After State Senator Wyland welcomed attendees, Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, provided an overview of the schedule for the day.

I provided an overview of California manufacturing in which I briefly discussed the history of manufacturing in California, pointing out that California is the 8th largest market in world and ranks first in manufacturing for both jobs and output. Manufacturing accounts for 12.5 % of the California’s Gross State Product and 9% of California jobs. California leads the nation in monies spent on R&D, and California companies received over 50% of all Venture Capital dollars invested in the U. S. in 2011. California’s high-tech exports also ranked first nationwide, totaling $48 billion in 2011.

California dropped to 50th in ranking for its business climate by the Small Business Entrepreneur Council Survival Index of 2013 because of its high personal and corporate income & capital gains taxes, its high gas and diesel taxes, high state minimum wage, high electric utility costs, high workers’ compensation costs, and stringent environmental and air quality regulations.

As a result, California lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since the year 2001, which represents 33.3% of its manufacturing industry. I mentioned that all of us had undoubtedly heard the latest ad by Texas Governor Rick Perry touting that 50 California companies had relocated to Texas in the last two years.

I then moderated a panel of the following local manufacturers, who gave their viewpoints of the challenges of doing business in California:

  • Bob Lane, President, laneOPX
  • Dana Mitchell, President, Advanced Mold Technology Inc.
  • Tim Nguyen, President, Alva Manufacturing
  • Nick Ventura, Co-founder WearVenley.com

Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Ventura highlighted the difficulty in competing against Chinese prices and finding skilled workers. Their other comments provided examples of some of the above-cited disadvantages of doing business in California.

Dr. Greg Autry, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, led off the national panel with the topic of “Currency Valuation and National Security Concerns with the Current U.S. Trade Regime.” He began by showing the falsity of classical  assumptions behind “free trade” by Ricardo and Hume ? absolute advantages are non-transferable, there are no externalities, such as pollution and military expenses, trade is in kind, there are no fiat currency distortions, and no strategies that are time constrained.

Autry then discussed the currency manipulation models of Japan and China, showing how China’s currency manipulation affects our national security. While China has adjusted the valuation of their renminbi (yuan) slightly since they drastically devalued it in 1994, it has still not reached the level that it was at that time. To keep their currency valuation low they either keep the dollars they get from their trade surplus in reserve or buy U. S. Treasury bonds. The dollars they earn from our trade imbalance and the interest they earn from buying our debt in the form of bonds has funded the dramatic buildup of their military.

Our technical superiority in military systems will not assure our national security any more than the technical superiority of Nazi Germany’s aircraft and tanks did for them. Economic superiority is what matters. The manufacturing industry of the U. S. out produced Germany during WWII and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Autry stated, “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 and experienced machinists.” He concluded that we cannot rely on China to produce what we need for our military and defense systems. 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.

Next, Michael Stumo presented “Can Consumption Taxes Create Jobs and Help Regain American Prosperity?” He said, “America has no strategy to win… in terms of being a successful producing and exporting nation. Growing exports, expanding two-way trade, and establishing global supply chains makes us losers.Unilateral trade disarmament makes us losers.We should want to win and not be ashamed of pursuing our national interest.”

Stumo described the math about how a consumption tax could reduce our income tax burden, include imports in our tax base, and shrink the trade deficit, and increase U.S. production while maintaining progressivity. He explained that our national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) equals Consumption plus Investment plus Government Procurement plus Net Exports (Total exports minus Total Imports). Because our imports exceed exports, our economy is smaller than it would be if the U.S. balanced trade.

More than 150 countries have a form of consumption tax, either a goods and services tax (GST) or a value added tax (VAT), with an average 17% level. These countries rebate these taxes on their exports, which is a subsidy. The taxes are “border adjustable” because they act as a 17% tariff on our goods sent to other countries.

After NAFTA, Mexico replaced its tariff reduction by establishing a 15% VAT, and Central America did the same, establishing a 12% VAT after CAFTA. Other countries use consumption taxes to offset income, payroll, or other employer taxes to help their manufacturers be more competitive in the global marketplace or to offset other costs like national health care or pension programs.

These border adjustable consumption taxes have been a causative factor in increasing our trade deficits with our trading partners, which was $471.5 billion in 2013, $318 billion with China alone. CPA advocates changes in U. S. trade policy to address this unfairness which tremendously distorts trade flows. The goal of a U. S. consumption tax should be:

  • Neutralize foreign tax (tariff/subsidy) advantage
  • Reduce non-border adjustable taxes: Income and/or Payroll
  • Replace them with border adjustable consumption taxes like a GST
  • Be revenue neutral
  • Be distribution/progressivity neutral
  • Minimize fight over exemptions, deductions, and location of profits

Pat Choate (Economist; Author, Saving Capitalism: Keeping America Strong) covered the importance of protecting Intellectual Property to the future of American manufacturing. He said that the U. S. is the most innovative country in the world, issuing more patents than any other country, and California represents 25% of all U. S. patents. Choate highlighted how our current trade policies do not address patent infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and the outright theft of our trade secrets by China and other Asian countries. The intellectual property clauses of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would exacerbate the problems already created by the passage of the America Invents Act in 2012 converting the U. S. from a “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” that has hurt our innovation. Any future trade agreement must address intellectual property theft.

The next speaker was Mike Dolan, Legislative Representative for the Teamsters, who has long experience working for Fair Trade (fighting expansion of the job-killing NAFTA/WTO model). If we build and maintain a strong bipartisan mobilization, we can stop Fast Track trade authority from being granted to the President and stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreements from being passed. Dolan called the TPP “NAFTA on steroids” said that TTIP is just as bad. Dolan concluded that the path to victory on sensible trade policy is not possible without the Coalition for a Prosperous America and the constituencies it represents — small business, particularly in industries that are sensitive to trade fluctuations, family farmers and ranchers, working families and “trade patriot” activists including Tea Party groups.

Keynote speaker Dan DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel Corporation, spoke about “Seizing the Opportunity.” He led off by shocking the audience with facts about the real state of our economy and our unemployment rate. By December 2013, we still had not reached the level of employment that we had when the recession began in December 2007 although 72 months had passed. We lost 8.7 million jobsfrom December 2007 to the “trough” reached in February 2010, but because our recovery has been much slower than the previous recessions of 1974, 1981, 1990, and 2001, the gap in recovery of jobs compared to these recessions is actually 12,363 jobs.  

In contrast to the misleading U-3 unemployment rate of 6.7% for December that is reported in the news media, the U-6 rate was 13.1%.  The government’s U-6 rate is more accurate because it counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” However, the actual unemployment is worse because the participation in the workforce has dropped from 66.0% to 62.8%. In other words, if the December 2013 Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate was back to the December 2007 level of 66.0%, it would  add 7.9 million people to the ranks of those looking for jobs.The manufacturing industry lost 20% of its jobs, and the construction industry lost 19% of its jobs.

Unemployment Data Adjusted For Decline in Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate
(Adjusted For Decline from December 2007 Level Of 66.0% to 62.8% in December 2013)

Reported Unemployed U.S. Workers 10,351,000
Involuntary Part-time workers 7,771,000
Marginally Attached To Labor Force Workers 2,427,000
Additional Unemployed Workers With 66% CLF Participation Rate 7,896,000

 
Unemployed U.S. Workers In Reality 28,445,000
Adjusted Civilian Labor force 162,833,000
Unemployment Rate In Reality 17.5%

We got in this position from 1970 until today because of failed trade policies allowing mercantilism to win out against true FREE Trade. We bought into wrongheaded economic opinions that America could become a service-based economy to replace a manufacturing-based economy. Manufacturing supply chains are the Wealth Creation Engine of our economy and the driver for a healthy and growing middle class! The result has been that manufacturing shrank from over 30% to 9.9% of GDP causing the destruction of the middle class. It created the service/financial based Bubble Economy (Dot.com/Enron/Housing/PONZI scheme type financial instruments.)

In addition, we have had 30 years of massive increases in inefficient and unnecessary Government regulations. These regulations, for the most part, in the past have been put in place by Congress and the Executive Branch. However, today they are increasingly being put in place by unelected officials/bureaucrats as they intentionally by-pass Congress.

American’s prosperity in the 20th century arose from producing more than it consumed, saving more than it spent, and keeping deficits to manageable and sustainable levels. Today, America’s trade and budget deficits are on track to reach record levels threatening our prosperity and our future.

Creating jobs must be our top priority, and we need to create 26-29 million jobs over the next 4-5 years. There are four steps we can take to bring about job creation:

  • Achieve energy independence,
  • Balance our trade deficit,
  • Rebuild our infrastructure for this century.
  • Rework American’s regulatory nightmare

We need to recapture American independence through investment in our country’s people, infrastructure, and energy independence, and by reversing the deficit-driven trends that currently define our nation’s economic policy. In conclusion, DiMicco said, “Real and lasting wealth IS, and always has been, created by innovating, making and building things — ALL 3 ? and servicing the goods producing sector NOT by a predominance of servicing services!”

Now is the time for all Americans to put aside their political differences and work together to restore California to the Golden State it once was and restore the United States to the land of opportunity it once was.

Posted in Economy, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

The Innovation Act Would Squash American Innovation

Tuesday, February 11th, 2014

Sometimes well-meaning legislation is passed that has unintended consequences that are harmful. This is the case for the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, passed by a 325 – 91 vote in the House of Representatives on December 5, 2013, The next step is consideration by the U.S. Senate of four similar bills that have been proposed: S. 1720 (Leahy D-VT), S. 866 (Schumer D-NY), S. 1013 (Comyn R-TX), and S. 1612 (Hatch R-UT). What is the purpose of this new Act and how would it have harmful unintended consequences?

The intended purpose of the Innovation Act is to curb frivolous lawsuits for patent infringement by so-called “patent trolls,” a derogatory term defined by Wikipedia  as “a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Related, less pejorative terms include patent holding company (PHC) and non-practicing entity (NPE).”

However, the Patent Freedom organization states, “NPEs are not all cut from the same cloth. Some inventors choose not to pursue the development, manufacturing, and sales of their inventions. They may lack the resources to do so, or the interest, passion, and commitment that such an effort requires. Instead, they may seek to license their inventions to others who can use them to deliver better products and services, often with the assistance of those with experience in this area. Or they may choose to sell the patents outright…. some entities buy patents with the express purpose of licensing them aggressively. For instance, about 25% of “parent” NPEs tracked by Patent Freedom are enforcing only patents that they had acquired. Another 60% are asserting patents originally assigned to them, and the remaining 15% are asserting a blend of originally assigned and acquired patents”

The Innovation Act would create additional requirements as part of the legal process associated with patent infringement under United States law. Some of the provisions are paraphrased below:

  • Requires specificity in patent lawsuits – requires specified details concerning each claim of each patent was allegedly infringed.
  • Makes patent ownership more transparent with a “Joinder” clause requiring patent plaintiffs to name anyone who has a financial interest in the patent being litigated.
  • Makes the loser pay – “if a losing plaintiff cannot pay, the bill would allow a judge to order others who had a financial stake in the plaintiff’s lawsuit to join the lawsuit and pay the costs of an unsuccessful patent lawsuit.”
  • Delay discovery to keep costs down – gives time to allow the courts to address legal questions about the meaning of patent claims with the goal of reducing legal costs and allow more frivolous lawsuits to be resolved before defendants have incurred large legal bills.
  • Protect end users – allows technology vendors to step into the shoes of their customers and fight lawsuits against trolls on their customers’ behalf in cases where restaurants, supermarkets, airlines, casinos, real estate agents and other brick-and-mortar businesses are being sued for using technology such as Wi-Fi instead of the manufacturers of the equipment.

Proponents say that” in the two years since the AIA was enacted, patent litigation has exploded. More and more firms are acquiring broad patents not to use the technology but rather to extract licensing fees from companies that infringe the patents accidentally…so a number of industry groups that weren’t traditionally involved in patent debates have begun agitating for patent reform.”

The proposal enjoys broad support from some in the technology sector. Internet companies such as Google have been a driving force behind the bill. Microsoft had opposed one of the provisions of the Bill, but is now expressing support for the legislation after that provision was removed.

Opposition to Innovation ACT

Opponents say that the Innovation Act as currently written weakens our patent system and will have unintended consequences on U.S. inventors. These additional changes to the patent system will result in a shift in the balance of patent ownership, favoring large and better financed companies over startups, investors and inventors who have been responsible for some of the most historic and groundbreaking discoveries in our nation’s history.

The Biotechnology Industry Group (BIO) did not support the Innovation Act because it believed that it would undermine biotech research and innovation. Daniel Seaton noted on BIO’s Patently Biotech blog, “the Act would ultimately make it more difficult for patent holders with legitimate claims to protect their intellectual property…Provisions in the legislation would erect unreasonable barriers to access justice for innovators, especially small start-ups that must be able to defend their businesses against patent infringement in a timely and cost-effective manner, and without needless and numerous procedural hurdles or other obstacles.”

Joe Panetta, President and CEO of Biocom, San Diego’s biotechnology organization, expressed similar sentiments, stating, “Not only does H.R.3309 fail to adequately address the abusive litigation practices it aims to curb, but it would place burdensome and unnecessary requirements and penalties on all patent holders. The bill is likely to inadvertently harm the world’s greatest innovation system by limiting legitimate patent holders’ ability to assert their rights.”

The Independent Inventors of America against Current Patent Legislation, representing independent inventors and small patent-based businesses across the country disputes the claim that patent infringement litigation has escalated. Their January 2014 petition states “The Government Accounting Office Report required by the America Invents Act finds that there is no ‘patent troll’ problem. Data supporting the claim of billions of dollars of reported cost cannot be verified and actually represent primarily voluntary and court directed license agreements for valid patents. In addition, analysis of patent litigation shows that the number of patent suits relative to the number of patents issued today remains consistent over the 200 plus year history of the patent system with the exception of a short period prior to the Civil War when the rate was higher than it is today. The reports supporting this latest round of legislation are simply not valid.”

They argue that “what is being characterized as a “patent troll,” and the target of the proposed legislation, is really an investor. As individual inventors and small patent-based businesses, we need investors to practice and protect our inventions. A patent is sometimes the sole asset we can leverage to attract that investment. Damaging investors therefore damages inventors.”

Their main reasons for objecting to the Act are:

Loser Pays – would significantly increase the risk and cost of defending a patent and “could be fatal to a large percentage of inventions.”

“Joinder” clause – allows investors to be personally liable for legal fees if inventor loses lawsuit, so this would severely limit investment in new technologies.

Patent Term Adjustment – eliminates a patent adjustment for a delay in patent issuance caused by the U. S. Patent Office (Note: Patents are granted for 17 years, but if it takes five years to get a patent, the patent term would be only 12 years instead of 17.)

The petition states, “This legislation will levy grave harm upon independent inventors and small patent-based businesses, as well as the investors we need to help commercialize new technologies and to protect our inventions.” They “stand firmly against the proposed legislation and any future legislation that would weaken the American Patent System.”

Members of the governing body of the San Diego Inventors Forum, of which I am a member, signed the petition. Adrian Pelkus, SDIF President, stated, “The Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) horrifies me with the path that allows corporations to beat up on small inventors…Financial ruin for inventors will be extremely easy due to the nature of startups, meaning most inventors could lose their fledgling businesses disputing challenges to issued Intellectual Property.

To dissuade investors by increasing risk that the IP in the project they are investing in will be challenged (perhaps even frivolously just to stop them from progressing to market) will grind innovation to a standstill.

At a time when we need American ingenuity and investors to rebuild our economy, taking steps to diminish our rights as inventors is un-American, economically dumb and intellectually suicidal. Stifling innovation in a technologically based society is a sure path to economic ruin which is why the USPTO system was originally designed to reward not punish the inventor. We must not allow big multinational corporations the ability to squash. Any and all actions to stop this bill must be enacted.”

Gary Klein, V. P. Public Policy, of San Diego’s CONNECT organization, stated why they oppose the Act:  “A startup company’s main asset is its intellectual property. Most investors’ first question to startups is about how their technology is protected. The Innovation Act that passed the House has several provisions – fee shifting, covered business methods, joinder rules, discovery and customer stay – that will have some very serious adverse consequences for small/startup companies, universities and research institutions, as well as companies who use licensing as a business model.”

Join us in signing the petition and contact your Senator to ask them to oppose all of the similar bills that have been introduced in the Senate.

Posted in Economy, Innovation, Manufacturing | 1 Comment »

Should California Copy Ohio’s Economic Development Policies?

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Ohio’s Governor and economic development agencies may not be visiting California companies to woo them back to Ohio as Texas Governor Rick Perry has been doing, but I would say the answer is “yes” to this question. California would do well to emulate the successful economic development policies of central Ohio surrounding its capital city of Columbus.

Recessions usually didn’t affect this region very much, but the Great Recession was different. In 2009, business leaders formed Columbus 2020 to address the effects of the recession on the 11-county region surrounding the state capital. It is now a private, nonprofit entity incorporated as both a 501(c) (6) and a 501(c) (3) (Columbus 2020 Foundation) and has become a collaboration between business leaders, government, and educational institutions. Its mission is to generate opportunity and build capacity for economic growth throughout Central Ohio.

To achieve this mission, the founders set the following goals to achieve by the year 2020:

  • Add 150,000 net new jobs
  • Increase personal per capita income by 30 percent
  • Add $8 billion of capital investment
  • Be recognized as a national leader in economic development

The plan to achieve these goals is:

  • Retain and expand the companies and industries that call the Columbus Region home today
  • Attract major employers to establish operations in the Columbus Region
  • Create more commercial enterprises by leveraging research assets and entrepreneurs
  • Improve civic infrastructure that enhances the economic development environment

In my interview with Kenny McDonald, CEO of Columbus 2020, he said, “The key factor of our success was starting with the vision of the business leaders that formed Columbus 2020 and having corporate leaders that are willing to engage in the process. You need both vision and engagement. There has been a real partnership between business, government, and educational institutions.”

He added, “We take a holistic view of trade and investment, as many of the companies in the region have a global footprint, and take time to understand what is driving business. The business climate has improved, especially for companies that sell in the U. S., and we’ve noticed that many companies are reshoring back to the US as part of their strategy to regionalize. The U. S. has never been more competitive, and our markets remain attractive, while there remains instability elsewhere in the world. Companies that had a plant in China or India to export to the U. S. are bringing production back to the U. S., to sell to the U. S., while some companies are bringing back work to export to other countries.”

He said, “Honda of America, which has a significant presence in the Columbus Region, recently announced that they were planning to export more to countries outside of the U. S. Honda’s supply chain and other companies that are part of the global automotive supply chain are evidence of the trend to regionalize. It’s been recommended that foreign companies, especially mid-size companies, regionalize by having a plant in the U. S. to reduce risks that disrupt the supply chain.”

The region has a population of only 2 million, but has 15 Fortune 1000 companies, such as Cardinal Health, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Big Lots, L Brands (including Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works, Express, and Nationwide.)

There is a special industrial park, the Personal Care and Beauty Campus, built up near Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works, where all of types of companies in their supply chain are located, representing about 2,000 jobs.

Middle market companies are also an important part of the Columbus Region economy. There are 1,313 businesses that have between $10 million and $1 billion in annual revenue. Even though they represent only 2.3 percent of business establishments in the Region, they employ 15.4 percent of the private sector workforce and have an outsized presence in manufacturing, headquarters and back office functions, and other key industries.

The Columbus Region is home to 63 colleges and university campuses with a total enrollment of nearly 150,000 students and more than 22,000 annual graduates. It is also home to the largest concentration of PhDs in the Midwest, and has more PhDs than the national average. The Ohio State University – the state’s flagship university and one of the country’s leading research institutions – has more than 56,000 students at its main campus in Columbus.

Businesses in the Columbus Region benefit from:

  • No personal property tax
  • No inventory tax
  • No state corporate income tax

Ohio offers the following tax incentives:

  • Job Creation Tax Credit
  • Ohio Enterprise Zone Program
  • Community Reinvestment Areas
  • Research and Development Investment Tax Credit

Ohio also offers several unique loan and grant programs as additional incentives for companies to relocate in the region.

The chart below shows the largest manufacturers in the Columbus region:

COMPANY INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES
Honda of America Mfg. Inc. Automotive 9,433
Whirlpool Corporation Appliances 2,344
TS TECH Co, Ltd. Automotive 2,078
Abbott Nutrition Food & Beverage 2,055
Emerson Electric Co. Utilities 1,720
Worthington Industries Inc. Steel 1,390
Ariel Corporation Energy 1,265
Boehringer Medical 1,250
The Anchor Hocking Co. Glass 1,202
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. Lawn Care Products 1,165
Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Machinery 1,146
Commercial Vehicle Group Automotive 1,125
Owens Corning Corporation Automotive 1,011
Lancaster Colony Corporation Food & Beverage 856
Mettler-Toledo International Precision Instruments 800
Jefferson Industries Automotive 750
Cardington Yutaka Technologies, Inc. Automotive 725
Columbus Castings Steel 700

As a result of these policies, Columbus is now ranked as the 8th most affordable location in the U. S. for corporate headquarters. The cost of doing business is half the cost of New York City, Los Angeles, and Silicon Valley. For all of these reasons, Columbus has become the state’s largest and fastest growing city.

Columbus 2020 is well on the way to not only achieving, but exceeding these goals by 2020 as shown below:

JOB CREATION CAPITAL INVESTMENT PERSONAL PER CAPITA INCOME
As of August 2013, more than 53,000 jobs have been created in the Columbus Region since Columbus 2020’s founding in 2010. As of December2013, $3.71 billion of capital investment has been added to the Columbus Region since 2010. As of 2012, personal per capita income in the Columbus Region has increased 10.8 percent since 2010, from $38,547 to $42,728.

California’s Governor Brown and the State legislature should review what the Columbus 2020 organization has accomplished in revitalizing the economy of central Ohio. California’s manufacturers would love to benefit from having no corporate income tax and no inventory tax, as well as having a Job Creation Tax Credit and a Research and Development Investment Tax Credit. 

The new hiring tax credit and partial exemption of certain property from California’s sales and use tax are meager benefits being offered to manufacturers as part of Assembly Bill 93 and Senate Bill 90 that went into effect January 1st. Our California legislature needs to “stop fiddling while Rome is burning,” so that we will be able to stem the tide of companies moving out of California and add more than the pitiful 7,900 manufacturing jobs we have added since 2010 after losing  over 625,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001.

 

 

Posted in Economic Development, Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Reshoring | No Comments »

Has NAFTA Benefited Americans?

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

By this question, I mean the American people, not America, our country, nor American corporations. There can be diplomatic benefits to trade agreements, such as strengthening our relationships with countries that are allies in the world’s political arena. There can be benefits to American-based global corporations to open doors to new markets in specific countries. These are two of the reasons touted by “free trade” proponents as benefits to negotiating trade agreements.

To discern the answer to the title’s question, let us examine whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has benefited Americans as a whole. NAFTA was negotiated under President Bill Clinton and went into effect in January 1994. The agreement was supposed to reduce market barriers to trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico to reduce the cost of goods, increase our surplus trade balance with Mexico, reduce our trade deficit with Canada, and create 170,000 jobs a year. Twenty years later, the fallacy of these supposed benefits is well documented.

According to the report “NAFTA at 20” released this month by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, “More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries.”

Major corporations such as General Electric, Caterpillar, and Chrysler announced they would add jobs for increased sales to Mexico; instead they eliminated jobs. For example, General Electric testified before Congress saying, “We are looking at another $7.5 billion in potential sales over the next 10 years. These sales could support 10,000 jobs for General Electric and its suppliers. In reality, “General Electric has eliminated 4,936 U.S. jobs since NAFTA due to rising imports from Canada and Mexico or decisions to offshore production to those countries.”

The report also documents the fact that “the small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus with Mexico turned into a massive new trade deficit and the pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly.” According to Census Bureau data, in 1993, the non-inflation adjusted U.S. trade surplus with Mexico was $1.6 billion, and in 2013, the U. S. trade deficit had grown to $50.1 billion. The non-inflation adjust U. S. deficit with Canada grew from $4.4 billion in 1994 to $7.4 billion in 2013. Together the Mexico and Canada inflation-adjusted trade deficits “have morphed into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion.”

Most people do not understand how trade deficits hurt them. They do not realize that when our country imports more goods than it exports, we go in debt as a country to pay for these goods. We then have to borrow money or increase taxes to have enough money to run our government. This is why we now have a nearly $17 trillion national debt. As individuals, we would soon go bankrupt if we did not earn enough money to pay our bills and had to keep borrowing money, but the government can just keep printing money. The problem with printing more money is that the value of the dollar keeps going down, so each of us has to work harder to make more money to try to keep our pay equal to what we earned previously.

According to the Coalition for a Prosperous America, trade deficits also diminish the U. S. Gross Domestic Product since GDP equals the sum of Consumption, Investment, Government Procurement, and Net Exports (Exports – Imports). Our trade deficit in 2011 alone shaved an astounding 4% from overall U. S. GDP.

Our efforts to keep our earnings of equal value have not succeeded because the report states, “NAFTA has contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growing income inequality.” What this means is that as Americans lost their higher paying manufacturing jobs, they had to compete with the glut of other Americans for the non-offshorable, lower paying, low-skill jobs, in retail, hospitality, and food service. “According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced a wage reduction, most of them taking a pay cut of greater than 20 percent.” The result is an increasing gap between the rich and the poor and a shrinking middle class.

Manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the middle class; these jobs raised the average daily wage between 1900 and 2000 from $2.50 a day to $96.00 a day. If we lose the majority of our manufacturing industry, we will lose our middle class.

We were supposed to realize the benefits of lower prices as consumers, but in contrast, the report states, “Despite a 188 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA, the average nominal price of food in the United States has jumped 65 percent since the deal went into effect.”

As a result, our “average annual U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA stands at $800 million, more than twice the pre-NAFTA level.” American ranchers and cattlemen have been hurt by the 130 percent increase of beef imports from Mexico and Canada since NAFTA took effect, “and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.” U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages, resulting in a loss of jobs for Americans at U. S. food processing plants.

The report was a revelation to me about an unintended consequence of NAFTA ? the dramatic increase of illegal immigrants to the U. S. in the past 20 years. According to the report, the increased export of subsidized U. S. corn to Mexico resulted in the destruction of “…the livelihoods of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and about 1.4 million additional Mexican workers whose livelihoods depended on agriculture.”

The report quotes an exposé, “Trade Secrets,” by John Judis in the April 9, 2008 issue of New Republic, which stated. “Wages dropped so precipitously that today the income of a farm laborer is one-third that of what it was before NAFTA. As jobs disappeared and wages sank, many of these rural Mexicans emigrated, swelling the ranks of the 12 million illegal immigrants living incognito and competing for low-wage jobs in the United States.”

As a result, “The desperate migration of those displaced from Mexico’s rural economy pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States following NAFTA’s implementation.”

Prior to NAFTA, jobs at maquiladora factories were responsible for a growing middle class in cities such as Tijuana and Tecate in Baja California, Mexico. The report states that “Real wages in Mexico have fallen significantly below pre-NAFTA levels as price increases for basic consumer goods have exceeded wage increases. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods as on the day that NAFTA took effect.”

The lower wages at Mexican maquiladoras since NAFTA explains why Mexico is now benefitting from “nearsourcing,” which is returning manufacturing from China where wages have risen 15-20% year over year for the past five years. Taking into consideration the other costs and hidden costs of doing business offshore that comprise a Total Cost of Ownership analysis; Mexico is now more competitive than the coastal areas of China’s manufacturing industry.

Of course, the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico is another factor in the downward pressure on wages in the United States. Today, only 1.9 million hourly workers make $20 per hour, which is a marker for jobs that provide a middle-class standard of living, down 60% since 1979, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In conclusion, we can clearly see from the well-documented evidence that NAFTA has not benefited the American people. It may have benefited American corporations that expanded their sales in Mexico or moved manufacturing to Mexico to increase their profits. However, I am sure that none of the American company owners of the more than 60,000 manufacturing firms that have closed since 1994 or the nearly one million American workers who lost their jobs because of NAFTA would say they benefited from this trade agreement.

The last thing we need is another free trade agreement such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that has been negotiated behind closed doors by the Obama Administration for the past three years. We can’t afford the loss of more American jobs. What we need are trade policies that will help American manufacturers and address the predatory mercantilist policies of China, Japan, Korea, and other countries with regard to government subsidies, currency manipulation, product dumping, and intellectual property theft. We need to have balanced trade as recommended by the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) in their issue paper, “21st Century Trade Agreement Principles.” As chair of the newly formed California chapter of CPA, I would welcome your support and involvement to rebuild American manufacturing, create more higher-paying manufacturing jobs, and reduce our trade deficit and national debt.

Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Trade, Trade Policy | 2 Comments »

San Diego Manufacturing Trends

Wednesday, January 15th, 2014

From 2000 to 2011, the U. S. lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and 57,000 manufacturing firms closed. U.S. Department of Commerce shows that “U.S. multinational corporations… cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.”

Over the last three years, we have finally seen a growth of about 526,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide for a 4.59% growth rate, but California has lagged behind the nation at only a 0.63% growth rate for 7,900 jobs gained. Mainly due to the effects of sequestration on our military/defense industry, San Diego continued to lose manufacturing jobsin 2013, losing more than 2,000 jobs from February – November.

Offshoring has been major cause of slow economic growth after Great Recession and the high unemployment has exacerbated local, state and federal budget deficits. This has resulted in a weakened middle-class, declining innovation, and lower sales levels in weakened home market.

“Reshoring”/Resurgence of “Made in USA”

A September 2003 report prepared for the U. S. Congress U. S.–China Committee on Economic and Security Review Commission, by Peter Nolan of the University of Cambridge stated, “A ‘‘herd herd ‘mentality to participate in the ‘‘Chinese miracle’’ developed among global giant corporations… Global corporations now view China as central to their long long-term strategy.”

A Stone Associates interview with Technology Forecasters (10/21/03) corroborated the fact that some companies were following this “herd mentality” in migrating to China even when it didn’t make economic sense:  “There is a herd mentality with OEMs in China China—sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t—not always rational decision… People tell their bosses what they want to hear hear—(going to China) gives a boost to the stock valuation, but you really have to do the analysis on a case by case basis.”

Now, the offshore supply chain dynamics are changing:

  • Oil prices – tripled in the last 5 years raising shipping costs
  • Labor rates rose about 15-20% year-over-year for last 5 years in China
  • Component/material prices increasing
  • Automation/robotics in U.S. has increased productivity
  • Political instability in China – Labor riots/strikes
  • Risk of disruption from natural disasters
  • U.S. $ declining

Most companies don’t look beyond quoted unit price to make a decision of which vendor to select. They don’t do a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis, which simply stated, is an estimate of direct and indirect costs. The 13th edition of the APICS (supply chain organization) dictionary says:  “In supply chain management, the total cost of ownership of the supply delivery system is the sum of all the costs associated with every activity of the supply stream.”

The Reshoring Initiative was founded by Harry Moser, former CEO of GF Agie Charmilles in 2010. The goal is to change the sourcing mindset from “offshored is cheaper” to “local reduces the Total Cost of Ownership” and train OEMs and suppliers on why to source local and how to use TCO Calculator. Free Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) software is provided for OEMs and suppliers/unions.

Sourcing is slowly moving back to the United States. The 2012 MIT Forum for Supply Chain Innovation Reshoring Study revealed:  61% of larger companies surveyed “are considering bringing manufacturing back to the U.S” and 15.3% of U.S. companies stated that they are “definitively” planning to re-shore activities to the U.S. In April 2012 www.mfg.com stated that 40% of contract manufacturers had done reshoring work this year.

Manufacturing Jobs / Year

*Estimated / **Calculated 

The Reshoring Initiative has calculated reshoring’s share of manufacturing job growth since Jan. 2010 is:

Job growth: ?500,000

Reshored jobs: ?80,000

Reshoring % of total: ?15%

Now in 2013, more companies are moving their services and manufacturing operations back to the United States. Nationally, General Electric and Whirlpool have moved some appliance manufacturing back to the U. S. Caterpillar moved operations from China to Mexico and the US. Locally, EcoATM, 451 Degrees, and Solatube have reshored by moving manufacturing back to San Diego County. Some of the parts, assemblies, and products that are not cost effective to come back to the U. S. are going across the border to Baja California, Mexico, and major contract manufacturers in Tijuana, Mexico, such as Sumitronics, are experiencing significant reshoring.

The demand for “Made in USA” goods seems to be increasing and is helping the resurgence of American manufacturing in certain areas, especially true in the apparel industry. Indeed, many consumers like the quality perception boost associated with “Made in USA” labels certifying that these goods were in fact made in America. American made items are also growing in popularity because our production costs are declining while Chinese labor is actually increasing.

Offshore outsourcing will continue indefinitely. The desirable” locations for outsourcing will change over time, and the purely financial benefits of lower cost will erode over time. The challenge is to keep as much as possible within the United States, and if more companies would utilize the TCO estimator worksheet, it would help maintain and return manufacturing to America.

Additive Manufacturing

Additive Manufacturing has been hailed by ‘The Economist’ as the catalyst of ‘the third industrial revolution’ and is projected to have a significant impact on manufacturing in the near future. It has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. Currently about 28% of the money spent on 3D printing of parts is for final products, but it is predicted to rise to 50% by 2016 and to 80% by 2020.

The major Additive Manufacturing methods are:

  • Stereo lithography
  • 3D printing
  • Laser sintering
  • high powered laser fuses powered metals into fully dense 3D objects, layer by layer
  • Fused-deposition modeling
  • A plastic or metal wire is unwound from a coil, supplying material to an extrusion nozzle to form success layers

San Diego is blessed with hundreds of design engineering and product development companies, many of which have one or more types of Additive Manufacturing equipment. There is also a service bureau for Additive Manufacturing in Poway, Solid Concepts, which has all of the types of equipment. A few of the engineering design/product development companies with which we are familiar are:

A Squared Technologies

Clarity Design

DD Studio

D&K Engineering

Dynapac Design Group

Expertise Engineering

Fallbrook Engineering

Flex Partners

Leardon Solutions

Koncept Design

Redpoint Engineering

Triaxial Design

In addition, there is the MakerPlace in San Diego, which inventors and entrepreneurs can think of it as their “dream” garage shop for developing and producing their own products. It is a place where they can use a variety of fabrication equipment & tools to work on projects:  Woodworking, metalworking, electronics, embroidery, sewing and specialty tools such as 3D printers, laser cutters and engravers. There are even

“incubator” offices upstairs for businesses to operate out of the same building as the fab shop.

Training to meet Manufacturing Skills Gap

In 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics estimated that 2.8 million, nearly a quarter of all U.S. manufacturing workers, were 55 or older. The improvement of the manufacturing industry has been a mixed blessing because as more skilled workers are needed, the supply is limited because baby boomers are retiring or getting close to retirement. “The oldest baby boomers turned 65 on Jan. 1, 2011, and every day thereafter for about the next 19 years, some 10,000 more will reach the traditional retirement age, according to the Pew Research Center.” What makes the situation worse is that there are not enough new ones to replace them because the subsequent generations were smaller and fewer chose manufacturing as a career.

This has resulted in an insufficient number of workers trained for advanced manufacturing jobs. Modern manufacturing is highly technical and requires understanding and proficiency in a wide variety of competencies. In the past 15 years, the manufacturing industry has evolved from needing low-skilled production-type assembly workers to being highly technology-infused. Thus, it is more of a skills gap in the specific skills needed by today’s manufacturers than a shortage of skilled workers.

A key component has been the development of the (National Association of Manufacturers) NAM-Endorsed Manufacturing Skills Certification System—a system of stackable credentials applicable to all sectors in the manufacturing industry. In June 2011, President Obama announced that the Skills Certification System was the national talent solution for closing the skills gap and addressing this key issue for American manufacturers. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Education Foundation leads in encouraging youth to get involved in manufacturing technologies through STEM-related activities in the K–12 levels, as well as supporting and advancing the Certification System for manufacturing skills.

San Diego is fortunate to have more opportunities for training in manufacturing skills than many other regions as shown below:

  • San Diego City College – AA degree in Manufacturing Technology, Machining Certificate
  • SDCCD Continuing Education Center – metal fab, welding, plasma cutting
  • Miramar College – biotech/biomedical lab technicians
  • Mira Costa College – Machining Certificate
  • San Pasqual High School – two year machining program
  • Chaparell High School (Charter) – two year machining program
  • Quality Controlled Manufacturing Inc. – machining training and apprenticeship
  • Workshops for Warriors (non-profit) – machining, sheet metal fab, welding, programming

Licensing vs. starting a company

As a member of the steering committee for the San Diego Inventors Forum (SDIF), I have noticed that in the last two years, more inventors are planning to license their technology vs. starting a company (probably about 70%) compared to about 50% previously). However, this trend doesn’t hold true for CONNECT’s Springboard program for entrepreneurs according to Ruprecht von Butlar. In an interview, he said, “The demand for the Springboard program has stayed consistent over the past few years, but the composition has changed ? more technology, biotech/biomedical, and life science. All of the entrepreneurs in their program have either already formed companies or plan to form companies rather than licensing their technology.”

I also interviewed Dr. Rosibel Ochoa, Executive Director of the UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering von Liebig Entrepreneurism Center, and she said they have 30 teams in their program, and all of them plan to start companies rather than licensing their technology.” The Center serves UCSD professors, graduate students, undergraduate students, and alumni. The professors are the only persons more interested in licensing their technology rather than leaving UCSD to be part of a team to start a company.

The difference between the Inventors Forum and the other two programs may be the fact that most of the inventors coming to our meeting in the past two years have been in the “Baby Boom” generation, now between the ages of 48 – 68, and they may realize by now that they don’t have the entrepreneurial skills to found and develop a company. Also, many of them are serial inventors, who enjoy the technical part of inventing a new product, and then want to go on to working on their next invention. Many of the under 40 inventors seem to be more interested in starting a company.

Outlook for 2014

Positives:

–     Reshoring is creating more manufacturing jobs and generating more regional GDP

–     Additive manufacturing is accelerating development of new products

–     Broad access to skills training is available in San Diego

Negatives:

–     Unknown economic impact of Obamacare for manufacturers because of employer mandate

–     Possibility of full sequestration being restored to pay for extending unemployment benefits

If the current military/defense budget remains in effect without the restoration of full sequestration that affected San Diego adversely last year, this year should be better than 2013 for local manufacturers. All of us in San Diego’s manufacturing industry certainly hope so.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Training | No Comments »

What is a Secret to the Success of Indiana Manufacturers?

Tuesday, November 5th, 2013

Many companies in Northern Indiana were hit hard by the recession and the dramatic downturn in the auto industry, but some manufacturers were able to weather the storm, recover rapidly, and resume good growth well before the rest of the country. Manufacturing in the U.S. is undergoing a renaissance, and Indiana ranks as the top state where manufacturing contributes the most to the nation’s total economic output. For example, Northeast Indiana’s medical device companies control 34 percent of the worldwide orthopedic market, translating into $12 billion in revenues. They are market share leaders in the $37 billion orthopedic and biologics industry, and combined together, they control 60 percent of the worldwide hip replacement market and 64 percent of the worldwide knee replacement market. Three companies shared their stories with me in recent interviews.

Micropulse Incorporated

I interviewed Brian Emerick, CEO, who founded Micropulse in 1988 and is the sole owner of the company. The company now manufactures from a state-of-the-art 100,000 square foot facility with over 200 employees next to the farmhouse where it was originally started.

Micropulse prototypes and manufactures the most demanding instruments and implants in the medical device industry. They don’t have their own product line and make custom parts for OEMs. They are a contract manufacturer selling to the orthopedic industry. About 50% of their business is spine related, and the rest is a mix of hip, knee, and other joint implants.

Their employees have been trained in “Lean manufacturing” principles and tools using the local Manufacturing Extension Program and courses at the local community colleges. They have several Black Belts now on staff, and they do regular Kaizen events and utilize Six Sigma practices and tools. Their quality system is certified to ISO 13485.

Brian said, “We started being impacted by competition from offshore, especially China about 10 years ago, but business is coming back. Some of our bigger customers like Johnson & Johnson and Zimmer set up plants in China. We do more work with smaller companies that don’t have their own plants in China because the quality requirements for implants are too stringent to use Chinese contract manufacturers.”

They were flat in 2009 during the recession, but the orthopedic industry as a whole was down about 25%. They have great customers and started growing again in 2010. Their growth since has been about 10% per year. They recovered by not buying much and cutting expenses.

They spend about $2 million per year buying new equipment and updating software systems. They are considering adding another 60,000 sq. ft. within the next 18 months.

Brian said, “The secret to our success is the employees that make up our team. We have a solid workforce with very low turnover and have quality customers.”

C&A Tool

Richard Conrow founded C&A Tool in 1969 in a garage in Churubusco, Indiana as a tool and die operation with 10 employees. C&A Tool is a poster child for the manufacturing revival in the U.S. As a privately held company, C&A Tool has continued to add jobs, machinery and square footage each year. Having sustained 44 years of economic ups and downs, the company has grown to employ more than 530 people with 750,000 square feet of manufacturing space.

I interviewed Rob Marr, V. P., who said, “Our services are contract machining and high precision grinding. We don’t have our own products, but do a lot of prototype and development for our customers.” They bought Direct Laser Sintering equipment to be able to do Additive Manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, which utilizes 3D CAD data to produce a part. In the case of C&A Tool, the parts are metal, not plastic, made by Direct Laser Sintering. This technology produces metal prototypes and production parts in a matter of hours.

Their main markets are:  orthopedics for instruments and implants, automotive, electric motors, fuel systems, and aerospace. The company currently has four facilities and has invested in new capabilities, adding new equipment to support jet engine, power generation and industrial markets. This market mix means that they are ISO 9001:2008 certified, as well as TS949, AS 9100, and ISO 13485 certified.

Training the next generation of manufacturers is critical for the future. Rob is passionate about educating the manufacturing workforce, the general public, and his local community that manufacturing is not the dark and dingy days of our forefathers. For the past 36 years, C&A Tool has partnered with the local high schools to offer part time jobs to more than 60 students during the school day that allow them to have on the job training and transition from the classroom to the workplace more seamlessly. In addition to training high school students, the company brings in math teachers to show them the real world of manufacturing.

They have been impacted by competition from offshore, especially China, but have been getting business back for a couple of years. They compete more with Europe than China because of their high precision machining and grinding.

They were impacted by the recession, particularly their automotive business. During part of 2009, their business was down by 40%. New development was down, but they didn’t lay off any one and even bought another facility in 2009. They did not do anything special to recover, just continued their business culture.

They focus on investing heavily in capital equipment and software every year, even during the recession. They buy new equipment as their motto is “to maintain an excess capacity of square footage and equipment, even if it doesn’t have the customer base to support the investment at the moment to be able to take advantage of new opportunities.”

Rob said, “The secret to our success is that our founder laid a foundation for the company with the right people and equipment. We have evolved over the years. It really comes down to the people and allowing them to succeed and learn from their mistakes. We do what’s right by investing in people and equipment so our employees can take pride in their work and we elevate the industry.”

Forest River Inc.

Forest River was founded in 1996 by Peter Liegl. He foresaw an RV company dedicated to helping people experience the joy of the outdoors by building better recreational vehicles. After purchasing certain assets of Cobra Industries, the company started manufacturing pop-up tent campers, travel trailers fifth wheels and park models.

Continually growing, Forest River now operates multiple manufacturing facilities throughout the Midwest and West coast producing motorized Class A, B and C vehicles, travel trailers, fifth wheels, pop-up tent campers, park model trailers, destination trailers, cargo trailers, commercial vehicles, buses, pontoons, restroom trailers and mobile offices.

They were acquired in 2005 by Berkshire Hathaway, but Mr. Liegl has remained the CEO. Forest River shares 80-81% of the industry with two other companies, leading with a 35% market share.

Doug Baeddert, GM of 14 operating units, said “We don’t sell direct to the public; we sell through dealers focused on their main markets of recreation, commercial businesses for vehicles, pontoons, and mobile offices, and municipalities for buses and restroom trailers.”

Their plants are non-union, and 85% of all production occurs in Indiana. The industry is an assembly-based industry not a vertical industry. They rely on their suppliers and are basically an “assembler” of parts, components, and assemblies that are manufactured by their vendors. For example, many of their wood assemblies are made by small Amish wood shops that are located in Northern Indiana.

They have not been impacted by offshore competition for their products, but over the last 15 years, the imported content of their vehicles has grown. It reached a peak a couple of years ago and is leveling off now.

Doug said, “In 2008-2009, there was a 33-34% reduction of manufacturing of RVs industry-wide. The consolidation of companies has been healthy and good for the financial stability of our industry. There has also been a consolidation of dealers so there are about one-third fewer dealers than prior to the recession.”

During the recession, they didn’t cut any salaried or sales personnel because they weren’t top heavy. They downsized some of the production workforce, but not significantly. They haven’t noticed any effect from sequestration nationwide, and their growth is up 40% this year.

They don’t have a formal budget for investing, but they are continually doing new product design and improving their existing products. Each division is autonomous in product development and is very entrepreneurial, innovative, creative, and visionary in their design work for new products. They can make minor changes from concept to prototype in as little as three days. However, a major technology change, particularly vehicles, can take up to a year.

Doug said, “The secret to our success is the right leadership of our founder, Pete, our people, our products, and our processes. We give enough rope to our people to succeed or fail and have a very low turnover.”

In answer to my question about their secret to success, they all said their core competency as a company is the talent and expertise of their people from management on down the line, not just their equipment or facilities. My own experience in business and as a writer has convinced me that it is the team of people that make up a company that is the key to its success or failure. These stories are examples of achieving the American dream of being a successful entrepreneur.

 

Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Training | No Comments »

Second Annual Manufacturing Day Celebrates American Knowhow

Tuesday, September 24th, 2013

The mission of Manufacturing Day 2013 on Friday, October 4th is to highlight the importance of manufacturing to the nation’s economy, address common misperceptions about manufacturing by giving manufacturers an opportunity to open their doors, and show what manufacturing is — and what it isn’t.

Manufacturing Day has become an annual national event after its inaugural year in 2012 that is executed at the local level supporting hundreds of manufacturers across the nation that host students, teachers, parents, job seekers and other local community members at open houses designed to showcase modern manufacturing technology and careers.

In its first year, more than 240 events were held in manufacturing facilities in 37 states and more than 7,000 people participated. This year’s celebration will feature open houses, public tours, career workshops and other activities to increase public awareness of modern manufacturing. Events also will introduce manufacturers to business improvement resources and services delivered through the MEP’s network of hundreds of affiliated centers across the country.

By working together during and after Manufacturing Day, manufacturers will begin to address the skilled labor shortage they face, connect with future generations, take charge of the public image of manufacturing, draw attention to the many rewarding high-skill jobs available in manufacturing fields, and ensure the ongoing prosperity of the whole industry.

This year’s Manufacturing Day is being co-produced by the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association, International (FMA), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), Industrial Strength Marketing which is a leading industrial B2B marketing agency, and the Manufacturing Institute. The national media partner for the event is the Science Channel.

“Manufacturing Day is a great opportunity to shift Americans’ perception that it is not our grandfather’s manufacturing anymore and to showcase the tremendous career opportunities manufacturing has to offer,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “This day is an engaging way to attract young people and get them excited about pursuing a career in a technology-driven, innovative environment that will also provide a good-paying job. We encourage all manufacturers and manufacturing associations to get involved and share what we already know—manufacturing makes us strong.”

A long list of trade associations and private companies have joined the effort as sponsors that includes Shell and the Alliance for American Manufacturing at the Gold level, The Association of Manufacturing Excellence, Precision Metalforming Association, SME Education Foundation, Association for Manufacturing Excellence, the Plastics Industry Trade Association, and IHS GlobalSpec at the Silver level, as well as many others at the Bronze level. The long list of endorsers on the website includes my own www.savingusmanufacturing.com organization.

“We’re honored to be a part of Manufacturing Day this year and look forward to helping make it a success,” said Scott Paul, president of AAM. “An innovative and growing manufacturing base is vital to America’s economic and national security, as well as to providing good jobs for future generations.”

“The co-producers could not be more pleased that these organizations and companies, which work on such an integral level with all sectors of the manufacturing industry, are putting their full support behind Manufacturing Day,” said Ed Youdell, president and CEO of the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association. “Their reputation and their reach to professionals in the industry, as well as educators and students, will help generate participation in Manufacturing Day events across the nation.”

The SME Education Foundation sees this is an opportunity for educators and parents to visit local employers with children, particularly those in middle school, to get them excited about the career opportunities available for those who have critically important STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills.

“The SME Education Foundation is dedicated to opening multiple pathways for young people to find fulfilling, high paying careers in manufacturing.  Manufacturing Day is an opportunity to highlight manufacturing as vital to our economy and a career path that helps to growing wealth for the individual and for our nation,” said Bart A. Aslin, CEO, SME Education Foundation.  “Positive national media attention can help to dispel misconceptions about industries that provide safe, clean work environments while manufacturing products that improve standards of living in our global economy.”

Supported by this group of co-producers and industry sponsors, Manufacturing Day is designed to amplify the voice of individual manufacturers and coordinate a collective chorus of manufacturers with common concerns and challenges. The rallying point for a growing mass movement, Manufacturing Day empowers manufacturers to come together to address their collective challenges so they can help their communities and future generations thrive.

From now until Manufacturing Day, October 4th, enter the Manufacturing Day Sweepstakes to win a trip for two to a 2014 race of your choice, courtesy of Shell Lubricants. Eligible races include any of the Sprint Cup Series or Nationwide Series races during the 2014 season. The winner will be selected on October 7, 2013 and will be contacted shortly thereafter to claim their prize. Click here to enter today!

According to the 2012 Public Perception of Manufacturing report by the nonprofit Manufacturing Institute, 80 percent of Americans believe manufacturing is important to our economic prosperity, standard of living and national security. Yet, only 30 percent would encourage their children to go into manufacturing as a career. The hope is that by providing media, educators, parents, and kids with an inside look at the high-tech world of manufacturing this percentage will begin to grow.

With the gap growing each year between the skills students learn in school and those they will need on the job, it is increasingly difficult for manufacturers to find and hire qualified employees. By promoting Manufacturing Day, manufacturing associations and other organizations led by NIST MEP centers and the FMA said they want to remove some of the myths surrounding manufacturing. For example, manufacturing is a solid, long-term career choice for qualified candidates—including the young people who will form the workforce of tomorrow.

Here is a summary of a few reasons why we should acknowledge the importance of manufacturing by observing October 4th as Manufacturing Day that are outlined in greater detail in the chapter on “Why we should save American Manufacturing” from my book Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can:

  • Manufacturing is the foundation of the American economy, and high-paying manufacturing jobs spurred a robust and growing economy and improved our quality of life. Manufacturing jobs were responsible for the lower working class rising into the middle class the last century.
  • Manufacturing is critical to our national defense because American manufacturers supply the military with the essential needed to defend our country. Without a strong manufacturing industry, America could lose future wars.
  • Manufacturing wages and benefits are 25-50 percent higher than non-manufacturing jobs. Only 16 percent of today’s workers earn the $20/hour ? down 60 percent since 1979.
  • United States is the world’s third largest exporter after China & Germany. Manufactured goods make up more than 60percent of U. S. exports, and high-tech products are largest export sector – four times as much as agriculture.
  • Manufacturing supports states’ economies through the taxes they pay. Manufacturing is the largest sector in 10 states, second largest in 9 states, and third largest in 21 states. Losing the critical mass of manufacturing will result in larger state and federal budget deficits. Over 90 percent of all manufacturers are small businesses of less than 100 people.

In my home town of San Diego, Manufacturing Day is being promoted by the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the East County EDC, the San Diego North County EDC, CONNECT, California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC), the Tijuana EDC, and D&K Engineering. The day starts off with:

8 a.m.  Breakfast and Networking
8:30 – 10 a.m. Program
San Diego City College, Corporate Ed Center
1551 C Street, San Diego, CA 92101

Moderator: Mark Cafferty, President & CEO, San Diego Regional EDC

Panelists joining the conversation are:
Stephan Aarstol, Founder & CEO, Tower Paddle Boards
Alex Kunczynski, President, D&K Engineering

Rick Urban, COO/CFO, Quality Controlled Manufacturing Inc.

Chris Wellons, Vice President of Manufacturing, Taylor Guitars

Unfortunately, this event is already sold out, but you can add your name to the wait list at www.october4mfgday.eventbrite.com.

Tours:  Following this Kick-off breakfast, you are invited to tour various local manufacturers who have agreed to open their doors to the community. Further information and registration to attend the tours can be found at www.MFGDay.com. Click on “Attend an Event” to find a tour near you.

To learn more about Manufacturing Day or to sign up to host or participate in one of the events, log on to www.mfgday. Organizations that wish to become involved as official sponsors of this program may email info@mfgday.com.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economy, Education, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Training | No Comments »

“Death by China” Film Shows where all the Jobs Have Gone

Tuesday, August 27th, 2013

Are you wondering where all the good jobs have gone? Why do we have less tax revenues creating an out-of-control Federal budget deficit? Why are you working harder for less money than you did in the 1990s?

Death by China, based on the book by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry, shows how the world’s most populous nation and soon-to-be largest economy is rapidly turning into the planet’s most efficient assassin through its shoddy and even poisonous products and environmental pollution. China’s perverse form of capitalism combines illegal mercantilist and protectionist weapons to pick off American industries, job by job. Meanwhile, America’s executives, politicians, and even academia remain silent about the looming threat. To read my full review of the book, click here.

Director Peter Navarro is an internationally acclaimed expert on U.S.-China relations, a regular contributor on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and the Huffington Post, and a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine. Greg Autry is an entrepreneur, writer, and educator. He has published extensively on business, economics, trade policy, China and space. Greg serves as Senior Economist for the American Jobs Alliance and economist for the Coalition for a Prosperous America. Both Navarro and Autry have testified to the U.S. Congress on China issues.

To Navarro and Autry, the success of the film will be measured by the ability of the public to spur politicians to finally recognize that “the best jobs program for America is trade reform with China – not more empty fiscal and monetary stimulus.”

The film review on “rottentomatoes” states, “Death by China pointedly confronts the most urgent problem facing America today – its increasingly destructive economic trade relationship with a rapidly rising China. Since China began flooding U.S. markets with illegally subsidized products in 2001, over 50,000 American factories have disappeared, more than 25 million Americans can’t find a decent job, and America now owes more than 3 trillion dollars to the world’s largest totalitarian nation. Through compelling interviews with voices across the political spectrum, Death by China exposes that the U.S.-China relationship is broken and must be fixed if the world is going to be a place of peace and prosperity.

The New York Times review states, “The film, based on a book by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry and directed by Mr. Navarro, is blunt as can be in working the premise that the admission of China to the World Trade Organization in 2001 has been catastrophic for the American economy. The influx of Chinese goods has left American manufacturers unable to compete, the film says, and Chinese leaders have been brashly ignoring rules about things like currency manipulation to make sure that their country’s products remain artificially cheap.”

In this review article, Daniel M. Slane of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission said, “American companies cannot compete because they’re not competing with Chinese companies, they’re competing with the Chinese government.”

The New York Post review states, “Narrated by Martin Sheen, the film looks at what it calls America’s increasingly destructive trade relationship with China — we owe them $3 trillion — which goes back to the Asian nation’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. We hear claims that instead of helping both lands, as President Clinton promised at the time, the deal has resulted in the loss of millions of American jobs and the influx here of shoddy, even deadly Chinese products. Death by China gives that nation a black eye for currency manipulation, intellectual-property theft, political persecution and serious environmental pollution.”

Paste Magazine’s review states, “With his Harvard pedigree and his acclaimed credentials, Navarro is an authority on the subject of the U.S.-China trade relationship. Death by China features him along with several geopolitical experts and activists spelling out exactly how and why this nation’s corporate-political nexus sold out the American worker and consumer to the tune of thousands of factories, millions of jobs and trillions in debt owed to the Chinese.

And who’re the losers in this scenario? Interviews with out-of-work factory workers, college graduates and with both Democratic and Republican legislators paint a picture of widespread blight as unemployment destroys communities and consumers find themselves without any choice but to buy Chinese-made goods.”

Navarro commented: “My goal in creating the film is to draw attention to the urgent need for trade reform with China, and to ensure that it becomes a top priority for legislators. We hope to give the highest possible visibility to an issue that is all too often ignored by politicians, journalists and consumers alike – the incredibly corrosive loss of America’s once formidable manufacturing base to a cheating China. The fact that our government has turned a blind eye to China’s deceitful policies has had an enormously negative impact on the American economy and the standard of living of millions of Americans.”

Francesca McCaffery of Blackbook Magazine said, “A truly life-changing, mouth-dropping documentary film…Peter Navarro’s ‘Death by China’ grabs you by the throat and never lets go…But watch this movie, and you will, in turn, start glowing with a newfound, hit-on-your-head awareness.”

The Hollywood Report review points out that “Narrator Martin Sheen warns upfront that it’s important to “distinguish clearly between the good and hard-working people of China, and their repressive Communist government victimizing American and Chinese citizens alike.”

Death by China made its theatrical debut in Los Angeles and New York in June of 2012 and played theatrically in over 50 cities across the U.S. including key manufacturing cities such as Akron, Chicago, Dayton, Detroit, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Youngstown and many more.

This was opposite of the typical course of documentary films being shown at festivals first and then in theaters. Navarro and Autry wanted to open the film in theaters throughout the swing states during the 2012 presidential election to draw attention to the issue China’s exploitation of our economy.

After the election, Death by China made a series of festival appearances through the end of June 2013. All total, the film was shown at more than 25 festivals – from Beaufort, South Carolina; Macon, Georgia; and New York City to Green Bay, Wisconsin; Sedona, Arizona; and San Luis Obispo, California.

As part of its festival activity, the film garnered three best documentary awards from festivals in Beverly Hills, Durango, and Studio City. “It was a Best Doc nominee at the Cape Fear Independent Film Festival, was first runner up at the Myrtle Beach festival, and received a Golden Ace award from the Las Vegas Film Festival.”

Don’t miss the following opportunity to see this film. If you are not located in the region, please check the Death by China website for other screenings. If you or your organization would like to sponsor a screening, please contact Peter Navarro.  Of course, you can also order the DVD to watch on your own TV.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America presents:  A Screening of Death by China, A Documentary Film by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry

When: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013, Doors open 6:00 PM, event starts at

6:30 PM.

Where: AMN Healthcare, 12400 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130 (exit Carmel Valley Road off Int. 5)

Cost: $10.00 (refreshments served)

Agenda

Introduction: Michele Nash-Hoff, Chair, California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America

Film: “Death by China”, directed by Peter Navarro and produced by Greg Autry, CPA Economist

Discussion/Q and A: Greg Autry, Producer, Death by China, Economist, Coalition for a Prosperous America

Following the film there will be a discussion and Q and A to talk about how the Coalition for a Prosperous America is working to build a smart trade policy that will counter China’s, and other nation’s, trade cheating and move manufacturing back to America.

Register today at the CPA site: prosperousamerica.org

For more information, please contact Sara Haimowitz (sara@prosperousamerica.org,)

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

What is the Importance of Unmanned Vehicles to our Economy?

Tuesday, July 16th, 2013

We’ve heard a great deal about “drones” or unmanned vehicles over the last decade of the “war on terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan. While these terms are used interchangeably in the news media, the members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) are quick to point out that the term “drone” was originally coined to refer to pilotless aircraft used for “target” practice by the military while an unmanned vehicle includes the technology on the ground, often with a human at the controls.

The mission of AUVSI is to advance the unmanned systems and robotics community internationally through education, advocacy and leadership. AUVSI represents more than 7,000 individual members and more than 600 corporate members from 60+ allied countries involved in the fields of government, industry and academia. AUVSI members work in the defense, civil and commercial markets.

In March 2013, AUVSI released a report, titled “The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States” to document the economic benefits to the  U.S. once Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are integrated into in the National Airspace System (NAS) after the federal government tasked the Federal Aviation Ad­ministration (FAA) to determine how to integrate UAS into the NAS in 2012. This report estimates the economic impact of this integration and estimates the jobs and financial opportunity lost to the economy if there is a delay in enacting the regulations needed to do the integration.

The report states that “the main inhibitor of U.S. commer­cial and civil development of the UAS is the lack of a regulatory structure.” Non-defense use of UAS has been ex­tremely limited because of current airspace restrictions.

The combination of greater flexibility, lower capital and lower operating costs could allow unmanned vehicles to transform fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management, farming, and oil and gas exploration to name a few. The use of UAS in the future could be” a more responsible approach to certain airspace operations from an environmental, ecological and human risk perspective.”

Present-day unmanned vehicles have longer operational duration and require less maintenance than earlier models and are more fuel-efficient. These aircraft can be deployed in a number of different terrains and may not require prepared runways.

The Executive Summary states, “While there are multiple uses for UAS in the NAS, this research con­cludes that precision agriculture and public safety are the most prom­ising commercial and civil markets. These two markets are thought to comprise approximately 90% of the known potential markets for UAS.”

UAS are already being used in a variety of applications, and many more areas will benefit by their use, such as:

  • Wildfire mapping
  • Agricultural monitoring
  • Disaster management
  • Thermal infrared power line surveys
  • Law enforcement
  • Telecommunication
  • Weather monitoring
  • Aerial imaging/mapping
  • Television news coverage, sporting events, moviemaking
  • Environmental monitoring
  • Oil and gas exploration
  • Freight transport

While there are a number of different markets in which UAS can be used, the report concentrates on the two markets, commercial and civil, with the largest potential. A third category (Other) summarizes all other markets: Precision agriculture, Public safety, and Other.

“Precision agriculture refers to two seg­ments of the farm market: remote sens­ing and precision application. A vari­ety of remote sensors are being used to scan plants for health problems, record growth rates and hydration, and locate disease outbreaks. Such sensors can be attached to ground vehicles, aerial vehicles and even aerospace satellites. Precision application, a practice especially useful for crop farmers and horticulturists, uti­lizes effective and efficient spray techniques to more selectively cover plants and fields. This allows farmers to provide only the needed pes­ticide or nutrient to each plant, reducing the total amount sprayed, and thus saving money and reducing environmental impacts.”

Public safety officials include police officers and professional firefighters in the U.S., as well as a variety of profes­sional and volunteer emergency medical service providers who protect the public from events that pose significant danger, including natural disasters, man-made disasters and crimes.”

If sensible regulations are put in place, authors Darryl Jenkins and Dr. Bijan Visagh foresee few limitations to rapid growth in these industries because these products use off-the-shelf technology and thus impose few problems to rapidly ramping up pro­duction. The parts comprising these unmanned systems can be purchased from more than 100 different suppliers so prices will be stable and competitive. They can all be purchased within the U.S. or imported from any number of foreign countries without the need of an import license. For this report, they assume necessary airspace integration in 2015, which is on par with current legislation.

UAS have a durable life span of approximately 11 years and are relatively easy to maintain. The manufacture of these products requires technical skills equivalent to a college degree so there will always be a plentiful market of job applicants willing to enter this market. “The average price of the UAS is a frac­tion of the cost of a manned aircraft, such as a helicopter or crop duster, without any of the safety hazards. For public safety, the price of the product is approximately the price of a police squad car equipped with standard gear. It is also operated at a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft, such as a helicopter, reducing the strain on agency budgets as well as the risk of bodily harm to the users in many difficult and dangerous situations. Therefore, the cost-benefit ratios of using UAS can be easily understood.”

The authors estimate enormous economic benefits to our country. To calculate the benefits, they forecast the number of sales in the three market categories. Next, they forecast the supplies needed to manufac­ture these products. Then, they forecast the number of direct jobs created using estimated costs for labor. Finally, using these factors, they forecast the tax revenue to the states.

In addition to direct jobs created by the manufacturing process, the authors state that there would be additional economic benefit by the new jobs created and income generated spread to local communities. “As new jobs are created, additional money is spent at the local level, creat­ing additional demand for local services which, in turn, creates even more jobs (i.e., grocery clerks, barbers, school teachers, home build­ers, etc.). These indirect and induced jobs are forecast and included in the total jobs created.”

The economic benefits to individual states will not be evenly dis­tributed. Ten states are predicted to see the most gains in terms of job creation and additional revenue as production of UAS increase, totaling more than $82 billion in economic impact from 2015-2025. In rank order they are:

  • California
  • Washington
  • Texas
  • Florida
  • Arizona
  • Connecticut
  • Kansas
  • Virginia
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania

“The economic projections contained in this report are based on the current airspace activity and infrastructure in a given state. As a result, states with an already thriving aerospace industry are projected to reap the most economic gains. However, a variety of factors—state laws, tax incentives, regulations, the establishment of test sites and the adoption of UAS technology by end users—will ultimately determine where jobs flow.”

The authors conclude:

1. The economic impact of the integration of UAS into the NAS will total more than $13.6 billion in the first three years of in­tegration and will grow sustainably for the foreseeable future, cumu­lating to more than $82.1 billion between 2015 and 2025.

2. Integration into the NAS will create more than 34,000 manufac­turing jobs and more than 70,000 new jobs in the first three years.

3. By 2025, total job creation is estimated at 103,776.

4. The manufacturing jobs created will be high paying ($40,000) and require technical baccalaureate degrees.

5. Tax revenue to the states will total more than $482 million in the first 11 years following integration (2015-2025).

6. Every year that integration is delayed, the United States loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact. This translates to a loss of $27.6 million per day that UAS are not integrated into the NAS.”

They base the 2025 state economic projections on current aerospace employment in the states and presume that none of the states have enacted restric­tive legislation or regulations that would limit the expansion of the technology. Future state laws and regulations could also cause some states to lose jobs while others stand to gain jobs. States that create favorable regulatory and business environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not.

In conclusion, the study “demonstrates the significant contribution of UAS development and integration in the nation’s airspace to the economic growth and job creation in the aerospace industry and to the social and economic progress of the citizens in the U.S.

As the top ranked state and home to UAS manufacturers General Atomics and Northrop Grumman, California has active chapters of AUVSI, and the San Diego region chapter is AUVSI San Diego Lindbergh. Since both General Atomics and Northrop UAS plants are located in San Diego’s north county, in 2012, the North San Diego Chamber of Commerce commissioned the National University System Institute for Policy Research to conduct an economic assessment of the industry’s impact on San Diego’s defense economy. The report is titled, “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:  An Assessment of Their Impact on San Diego’s Defense Economy. The report states, “Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) production neared $1.3 billion in San Diego during 2011, according to analysis of federal government Depart of Defense (DoD) contract spending. UAV spending has grown significantly in San Diego over the past five years, nearly doubling since 2008. This growth parallels the increasing role played by UAVs in the U.S. military and the leadership position San Diego companies occupy in the UAV industry.”

While San Diego is still struggling to emerge from the 2008 national economic downturn, “the bright spot in the San Diego economy in recent years has been defense-related spending. Local defense expenditures grew substantially the past decade while military base operations and payrolls expanded. “Many economic observers, including the National University System Institute for Policy Research (NUSIPR), conclude that absent San Diego’s prowess in defense manufacturing and its role in hosting major military facilities, the local unemployment rate would have been significantly higher.”

At the peak of the recession, civilian unemployment in the county climbed to nearly 11 percent, and todaystill hovers around 9 percent. Companies have shed more than 50,000 jobs in the region. Local wages have fallen the past two years, while per capita income remains well below pre-recession peaks.

The important role of UAVs to the San Diego economy is emphasized by the fact that “UAV contracting activities in 2011 supported 7,135 direct and indirect jobs throughout San Diego County,” and “UAVs now comprise the largest segment of San Diego’s defense manufacturing sector. UAV production comprises more than 12 percent of all DoD contracting activities in San Diego County.” While DoD contracting in San Diego started to decrease in the past three years, UAV activity continued to expand.

“Since 2004, San Diego’s aerospace employment, now primarily focused on unmanned aircraft systems, has increased by 1,200 jobs. Just since early 2010, the sector has added 600 jobs. The two major UAV firms locally, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, each conduct billions of dollars in UAV unclassified contract work in San Diego County. According to Northrop Grumman Vice President Jim Zortman, ‘The center of the unmanned business for aerial vehicles is right here in San Diego.’”

The report states, “Production of UAVs is forecast to double by the end of the decade. Several forecasting firms have predicted the global demand for UAVs will reach $12 billion by 2019, even in the face of significant reductions in U.S. military spending.” There is every reason to believe San Diego is positioned to benefit from this trend given the leadership of Northrop Grumman and General Atomics Aviation in UAV technology.

However, several other states and regions are actively working to attract UAV researchers and manufacturers, and their efforts include the development of specialized educational programs and the preservation of airspace assets. Many states are setting aside dedicated airspace to support the UAV industry. Before the end of this year, the FAA will designate six areas around the country as UAS test sites.

In April of this year, the AUVSI San Diego Lindbergh Chapter joined the San Diego Regional Economic Development Council (EDC), the San Diego Military Advisory Council (SDMAC), the Imperial County EDC, County of Imperial, Holtville Airport, Indian Wells Valley Airport District (IWVAD), and defense contractors including General Atomics, Cubic Corporation, and Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc. to respond to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Screening for Information Request (SIR) and develop an Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Test Range in a partnership with civil and military government agencies, academia, and industry. This coalition has joined an already established entity called the California Unmanned Systems Portal (Cal UAS Portal), which is based in Indian Wells, to create a proposed UAV Test Site that would extend from the NAS China Lake/Edwards Air Force Area, West to the Pacific Ocean, South to the Mexican border, and East to the Arizona border.

If San Diego wants to continue as a leading region for unmanned vehicles, it will be necessary for leaders in the private and public sectors to determine how best to support this industry and influence policymakers to address the high cost of doing business in California that is creating cost pressures on UAS manufacturers’ competitiveness in the worldwide UAS industry. As the report concludes, “Complacency could cause the region [and our country] to lose its leadership position and miss an opportunity to support an industry posed for growth.”

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security | No Comments »

Why our Economy Struggles to Create Jobs

Tuesday, May 14th, 2013

There have been many opinions expounded via TV news shows, radio talk shows, newspapers, and magazines over the last four years as to why our economy has struggled to create jobs after the recession of 2007-2009 more than any other recession since WWII.

The economic collapse of the real estate and financial markets in 2008 had more impact on job losses than the recession of 2000-2001 caused by the dot.com bust because jobs related to real estate and construction represented a much higher component of employment than software/dot.com did at the time. During the recession of December 2007-June 2009, construction employment fell from 7,490,000 to 6,008,000, representing a loss of 1.5 million jobs or 19.8 percent of the construction workforce. It has remained less than 6 million as of April 2013 (Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics).

When consumer demand dropped sharply because of so many people losing their jobs and homes, this eliminated the last thing keeping the domestic market floating on a bubble.

Since then, our economy has limped along at monthly average of a 1.5 to 2 percent growth rate in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is not enough to create the amount of jobs we need. The main reasons why our economy is struggling to create jobs are:

Decline of U. S. Manufacturing

We lost 57,000 manufacturing firms and 5.7 million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we recouped about 500,000 jobs (489,000 or 4 percent) since the low in January 2010.

As I have discussed in both editions of my book and numerous blog articles, this loss of manufacturing firms and jobs was mainly the result of “predatory mercantilism”; i.e., unfair competition/product dumping by China and other Asian nations and the fact that a large number of multinational and American companies outsourced manufacturing offshore and/or set up plants in China and other parts of Asia. These companies literally outsourced American jobs in an attempt to compete with the “China price,” take advantage of less stringent environmental regulations, reduce taxes, and thereby maximize profits.

Transition to Service Economy

In addition to the many reasons previously discussed by myself and others, a key factor was revealed by the in-depth analysis of national and state data presented in the report, “Goods, Services, and the Pace of Economic Recovery” by Martha L. Olney and Aaron Pacitti, Berkeley Economic History Laboratory (BEHL), University of California, Berkeley March 2013.

Their hypothesis was:  Do service-based economies experience slower economic recoveries than goods-based economies? They argue that they do. They conclude that “service-dependent economies experience longer recoveries because they cannot respond to anticipated demand.” Thus, in a service-based economy, the recovery from a recession will take about one year longer than in a goods-based economy.

Why is this? They state, “An economy recovers from a downturn when businesses increase production. Both goods and services can be produced in response to actual demand. But only goods—and not services—can be produced in response to anticipated increases in demand, allowing optimistic forward-looking producers to inventory goods until anticipated buyers appear. Services cannot be inventoried. The more services an economy produces relative to goods, the more production is dependent upon only actual increases in demand, and the slower the recovery.”

Services have to be delivered in real-time by doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, web designers, graphic artists, etc. Even in the industrial realm, services such as engineering design, product testing, shipping, and delivery services are performed as needed. These services cannot be produced ahead of the need and “stored.”

The authors argue that there is a connection between the steady rise of services in the U.S. economy over the last half century and the slower pace of recovery from economic downturns. They state, “…as services become a larger share of output in an economy, more production is dependent on just actual and not also anticipated demand, slowing the pace of recovery from an economic downturn.”

The increase in the services share over the past 60 years has been striking. “In 1950, 40 percent of expenditures for U.S. GDP were for services and service-producing jobs were 48 percent of employment. By 2010, services constituted over 65 percent of expenditures for GDP and service-producing jobs were nearly 70 percent of employment.” The rise in services in the U.S. has led to longer recoveries, causing the current recovery to last about one year longer than it would have a half century ago.

End of NASA’s Manned Flight Program

The official retirement of the Space Shuttle program in 2011 resulted in a 19 percent drop in employment from 2007 to 2010 according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) industrial base assessment of the 536 companies in NASA’s manned space flight supply chain. If this steep a drop in employment occurred before the retirement of the Space Shuttle, it will be far worse by the time of the next assessment now that the program has ended.

Of the 536 companies, 50 percent of them are manufacturing companies, of which 21 percent are based in California, and 9 percent based in Florida. The report said that companies that supplied the Space Shuttle and Constellation launch program are facing “large-scale layoffs and facility closures across both industry and government.”

Near the Kennedy Space Center, more than 7,400 people in Brevard County, Florida alone lost their jobs when the shuttle program ended. The mainly contractor positions cut by NASA accounted for just under 5% of the county’s private sectors jobs. Thousands of formerly well-paid engineers and other workers around the country are still struggling to find jobs to replace the careers that flourished during the space shuttle program.

The machinery and tools used to support a manned space program are in danger of being discarded. In a separate assessment of the space flight industry, BIS found that 52 companies that were major suppliers (Tier I) had 48,623 pieces of tools and machinery, 91 percent of which had been paid for by the government. This classifies them as “Government-Furnished Property” so that the General Services Administration can process them by being transferred, sold, scrapped, or donated.

The danger is that the U. S. government may never be able to re-establish a manned space flight program to support ongoing missions to the International Space Station once the supplier base of the manned space flight program has been decimated. At the present, the U. S. has no way of sending astronauts to space in its own vehicles, and NASA is relying on the Soviet-made Soyuz capsules to send U.S. astronauts to space station. Thus, the United States may never again be a leader of space exploration.

Wind Down of War on Terrorism

The end of the Cold war with the Soviet Union resulted in a major downsizing of the military-industrial complex in the early 1990s, causing the recession of 1991-1992 and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Likewise, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the ramp down of troops in Afghanistan are having a similar effect on the defense/military industry, with a resulting loss of funding for new programs, cutbacks in existing programs, and job loss.

Sequestration

The additional cuts in the Defense Department’s procurement are taking a toll on some critical industries such as ship repair. In February, the Navy canceled all FY 2013 ship repair contracts that had been awarded to San Diego ship repair companies but not yet started. How many companies can survive having all their new contracts canceled?

What can we do?

It is interesting to note that one of the policy recommendations of the authors of the Berkeley report on goods vs. service’ corroborate some that I have presented previously:

“Therefore we believe that industrial policy aimed at restoring the country’s manufacturing sector could be beneficial. For example, tax policy that provides large re-shoring tax credits for goods-producing firms and levies large tax penalties on firms that offshore goods production could increase the share of goods in total output.”

Additional recommendations the authors make are:

  • Targeted investment in public goods and infrastructure would accomplish the same end.
  • Full employment policies and direct job creation programs could be enacted.
  • Targeted and aggressive fiscal spending and an employer of last resort program that guarantees full employment.

The authors conclude, “Longer and slower recoveries place a greater strain on state and federal budgets by decreasing tax revenue and increasing expenditures on automatic stabilizers. States will be forced to cut spending since all states with the exception of Vermont are required by law to run a balanced budget.” We have certainly seen this conclusion take effect as one state after another faces a staggering budget deficit, and our federal deficit has skyrocketed since 2009.

In the past two years, the general public and more economists and policymakers have begun to recognize the importance of U. S. manufacturing. Manufacturing is the foundation of our economy and is crucial to providing the quantity and quality of higher paying jobs we need.

It is high time for Congress and the Obama administration to develop a comprehensive national manufacturing strategy for the United States. Until we make a national manufacturing strategy a top priority, our economy will continue to struggle to create jobs.

 

Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »