Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Smart Trade Conference Initiates Efforts to Fix California’s Economy

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

On March 28th the Smart Trade Conference sponsored by the Coalition for a Prosperous America brought together a broad spectrum of local business executives to discuss CPA’s strategic agenda to fix America’s economy by reforming U. S. international economic policies to enhance the global competitiveness of domestic manufacturers and farmers to promote genuine economic recovery and create family-sustaining private sector jobs.

Ian Fletcher, CPA’s Senior Economist, began with the following chart showing that the     U. S. trade deficit from 1960 to 2010 has resulted in a total $5.85 Trillion in U. S. global losses requiring net U. S. foreign borrowing/asset sales of $1.6 Billion per day.

He emphasized that trade deficits are real money, saying that when America receives goods from abroad, we must pay with:  a) goods we produce today, b) goods we produced yesterday, or c) goods we will produce tomorrow.  We are going more and more into debt because we are losing the manufacturing capability to produce goods today that we can use to pay for goods we receive from abroad.  America has already lost the following industries:  Fabless chips, Compact fluorescent lighting, LCDs for monitors, TVs, and handheld devices like mobile phones, electrophoretic displays, Lithium, ion, lithium polymer and NiMH batteries, Advanced rechargeable batteries for hybrid vehicles, Crystalline and polycrystalline silicon solar cells, Inverters and power semiconductors for solar panels, Desktop, notebook and netbook PCs, Low-end servers, Hard-disk drives, Consumer Networking gear such as routers, access points, and home set-top boxes, Advanced Composites used in sporting goods and other consumer gear, Advanced ceramics and Integrated circuit packaging.

Mr. Fletcher said that from the early 1800s until after WW II, the Untied Stated was a protectionist nation in order to protect and grow its domestic manufacturing industry, as initially recommended by our first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.  As a free-market capitalist country, the United States is competing against the state-controlled capitalism of China and Japan.  He concluded by pointing out that it’s not just cheap labor that is the problem.  The U.S. is actually now a laggard in manufacturing wages among developed nations.   Germany has much higher wages than the U. S. and doesn’t have a trade deficit problem with China as we do.

Next, CPA’s President Michael Stumo went into more detail on the trade deficit problem stating that our trade deficit set records in the last decade.  Net imports hollow the U.S. economy and slow growth.   He explained that GDP is the sum of “consumption,” “investment,” “government spending,” and “net exports.”  Thus, our net imports subtract from our GDP.

The trade deficit equals lost jobs– ten thousand jobs are lost for every one billion in trade deficits.   In February 2011, the real unemployment, that is, the U-6 measure, which also includes marginally attached workers and involuntary part-time workers, totaled 24.7 million Americans.

The trade deficit equals low quality jobs because we have trade deficits in virtually all industrial sectors, from low tech to high tech to green tech.   Agriculture has also ceded domestic market share to imports.  We are creating low wage, low benefit jobs. Our loss of manufacturing means that workers move from manufacturing to service jobs for an average 40% pay cut.

Mr. Stumo said that the primary problem is our failure to recognize and neutralize foreign state capitalism. The Chinese government owns over 50% of its economy, using currency manipulation, value added taxes, strategic subsidies, indigenous innovation, and other means to maintain trade imbalances.  Japan, Germany, South Korea and others have versions of state-managed capitalism to maintain net exports.  Tariffs are a very small part of the issue.  The “Washington Consensus” version of free trade focuses upon lower tariffs.  But, lower tariffs do not address the many ways state-managed capitalism causes our trade deficit.  State-managed capitalism is the 21st Century problem.  The U.S. has failed to even articulate this problem, even as we lose jobs, wealth and innovation.  We need a national trade and economic strategy designed to produce more of what we consume, balance trade, and neutralize state capitalism.

Then, he explained that border adjustable taxes (BAT) are a hidden foreign export subsidy whenever exporters receive a government tax rebate upon export.   BATs are hidden tariffs because the U.S. goods pay the tax when entering the foreign country.  A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption – as opposed to income, wealth, property or wages.  It is s a tax only on the “value added” to a product, material or service, from an accounting view, at every stage of its manufacture or distribution.  Over 150 countries have a VAT but the U.S. does not.  VATs are “border adjustable” and average about 17%.  He said this means that virtually all foreign countries tax our exports with their VATs, when our goods cross into their country.  While those countries tax their domestic production as well, they rebate their 17% VAT when their companies export.

Mr. Stumo said that VATs are the biggest trade problem for the U.S. globally. They are an essentially a tariff on U.S. exports, and foreign VAT rebates are also a subsidy facilitating foreign exports to us.  Trade agreements do not address VATs when tariffs are lowered.  The World Trade Organization allows VATs.  During the last 40 years, the U.S. has lowered tariffs and other countries lowered tariffs.  However, other countries implemented and raised their VATs. The net result is that other countries replaced tariffs with VATs but the U.S. did not.  No trade barrier costs us more money.  No other foreign trade tactic costs the U.S. economy more.  Our exports are double taxed – once in the U.S. and once upon arrival at a foreign country’s shores.  Foreign sales to us are partially tax free.  Foreign countries rebate the VAT upon export, and the U.S. does not apply the tax at our border.

Mr. Stumo concluded his remarks with a brief discussion of the currency manipulation problem.  Foreign currency manipulation is trade cheating because it is both a tariff and a subsidy.  The U.S. economy cannot produce jobs and wealth without addressing this problem.  China’s state managed economy, poses the biggest problem to the U.S., making up 1/3 of our trade deficit.  China’s currency is at least 35% undervalued.  Our exports cost 35% more than they should to the Chinese.  Their sales to us are 35% less than free market value.  China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore have manipulated their currency values.  Our government has not protected U.S. economic and national security interests by neutralizing this practice.

He said that the U. S. has the discretion, under WTO rules, to apply its trade laws to offset the injurious effect of any subsidy, but the U. S. Trade Representative has refused to include trade agreement provisions that neutralize currency manipulation or other massive non-tariff barriers.  Reciprocal tariff cuts matter very little when state-managed economies have many other modern tools to game the system, including currency cheating, border taxes, free credit, indigenous innovation requirements, and other tactics to hobble U. S. producers.  The persistent failure of high level diplomatic efforts to solve this problem underscores the futility of negotiating without leverage.  CPA is urging Congress to act to address this problem.

Mr. Dave Frengel, Director of Government Affairs at Penn United Technologies, Inc. was the last speaker.  He told the story of how CPA was founded in 2007.  At that time a group of domestic manufacturing members of the National Association of Manufacturers successfully pushed for a controversial vote on NAM’s International Economic Policy Committee endorsing congressional legislation that would hold China and other nations accountable for currency manipulation.  The vote was eventually overturned by NAM’s Executive Committee and Board of Directors because the Executive Committee and Board of Directors is dominated by the large multinational corporations, many of which have manufacturing operations in China and other foreign countries.  The overturn of the vote led to a confrontation between a group of NAM’s domestic manufacturing members that supported the vote and NAM’s president.  Some of these companies subsequently left NAM.  He said that when some agricultural and labor leaders heard about his group of domestic manufacturers who were battling the multinationals in the NAM, they invited his group to join them for a “Globalization” conference in Colorado Springs to see if there was common ground for all of them to work together on trade reform.  It turned out that there was a huge amount of high middle ground.  As a result, his company was part of the group that founded CPA to address currency manipulation and other trade issues hurting American manufacturers.  If you would like to receive CPA’s Trade reform blog, you may sign up at www.prosperousamerica.org

During the Q & A session, Senator Mark Wyland’s field rep, Donna Cleary, suggested that CPA schedule a follow-up summit to address other problems to fix California’s economy.  The response was positive, and several people volunteered to help plan the summit.  All of the San Diego County Supervisors, California legislators, and Congressional representatives had been invited to attend or send a representative, but only Donna Cleary showed up.  In subsequent conference calls, a tentative date of October 10, 2012 has been set.  Persons interested in sponsoring and planning this summit, may contact CPA’s State Chair, Michele Nash-Hoff at michele@savingusmanufacturing.com or Sara Haimowitz, Program Development Director, at sara@prosperousamerica.org

 

Posted in Economy, Manufacturing | No Comments »

American Manufacturing Has Declined More Than Most Experts Have Thought

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

A new report released by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) presents a strong case that manufacturing has declined more during the last decade than it did during the Great Depression of the 1930s.  It’s gratifying to finally see a well-respected non-partisan “think tank” release a report based on empirical data that corroborates what those of working in the manufacturing industry have experienced, about which I have been speaking and writing since 2003.

One of the main points of the report is that during the Great Depression, we lost 30.9% of manufacturing jobs, but in the decade of 2000-2010, we lost 33.1% of manufacturing jobs.  It becomes more serious when you realize that in the Great Depression, manufacturing accounted for 43% of jobs lost and 34% of all jobs at the time, but now manufacturing only represents about 11% of all jobs, but nearly one-third of the job loss.  This percentage loss represents 5.7 million manufacturing jobs. The report states, “On average, 1,276 manufacturing jobs were lost every day for the past 12 years.   A net of 66,486 manufacturing establishments closed, from 404,758 in 2000 down to 338,273 in 2011. In other words, on each day since the year 2000, America had, on average, 17 fewer manufacturing establishments than it had the previous day.”

When you understand the multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs, creating 2-3 supporting jobs, this loss of manufacturing jobs represents 11 to 17 million jobs.  The report states, “In fact, in January 2012 there were more unemployed Americans (12.8 million) than there were Americans who worked in manufacturing (just under 12 million).”  No wonder we have the high local, state, and federal deficits that we are experiencing ? there are fewer taxpayers and more benefit collectors.

The two million manufacturing jobs we lost during the Great Recession was added to the over 3.7 million we had already lost.  After the recession ended, the report states “just 166,000, or 8.2 percent, returned. That leaves 91.8 percent of jobs to be recovered.  At the rate of growth in manufacturing jobs in 2011, it would take until at least 2020 for employment to return to where the economy was in terms of manufacturing jobs at the end of 2007.   In reality…U.S. manufacturing has been in a state of structural decline due to loss of U.S. competitiveness, not temporary decline based on the business cycle.”

It’s obvious that with unemployment at 8.3 percent, “all those jobs have not been recreated in other industries.”  If manufacturing declines further, there are no guarantees that other jobs will appear to replace those lost in manufacturing.  The authors validate what I’ve written in my book and previous articles:  “manufacturing jobs pay more; manufacturing is a source of good jobs for non-college-educated workers; and manufacturing is the key driver of innovation—without manufacturing, non-manufacturing innovation jobs (for example, research and design) will not thrive.”

For years, most economists, experts, and government officials have said that the decline in manufacturing is a natural outcome of our transformation from an industrial society to a post-industrial society. “This decline is often cited by defenders as “normal” and in line with what is happening in other countries. In this “post-industrial” view, advanced nations are transitioning from factories to services; the greater and faster the loss of manufacturing, the more successful nations are in mastering the transition.”

The authors concede that there is “some truth to the post-industrialists’ view.  Advanced economies naturally see manufacturing jobs contribute to a smaller share of total employment, since manufacturing productivity is typically higher than non-manufacturing productivity.  But normally the loss is modest and gradual, in contrast to the United States where in the last decade it was sudden and steep.”  In addition, “advanced nations do lose some lower-value-added, lower-skill, commodity-based manufacturing to lower-wage nations.   But …they also increase their demand for the higher-value-added products that developed nations should naturally produce…the process of global integration does not and should not naturally lead to the deindustrialization of developed economies, but rather to the transformation of their industrial bases toward more complex, higher-value-added production.”

These same experts have denied that manufacturing has been in decline, arguing that manufacturing became incredibly productive just like agriculture did a century earlier so that fewer workers are needed in the industry.  The authors state that “Virtually everyone makes the argument that massive manufacturing job decline is a sign of success: manufacturers are using technology to automate work and to become more efficient…Manufacturing is like agriculture” has been the dominant story.  The United States produces more food than ever, but because farming has become so efficient, it requires a very small share of U.S. workers to grow and harvest the food. So while manufacturing productivity growth may be tough on workers, job loss is seen as a sign of strength, not weakness.”

It’s true that job loss could be result of increased productivity, but what these experts have ignored is that manufacturing’s share of the Gross Domestic Product (GD) declined from 15% in 2000 to 11.0% in 2009.   While manufacturing has declined as a share of GDP in the United States and some other nations, such as Canada, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom,” it is stable or even growing in many others (including Austria, China, Finland, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.)”

The ITIF report dispels the myth that increased productivity is the reason for the job loss with a review of the productivity of various manufacturing industry sectors, showing that in 2010, “13 of the 19 manufacturing sectors (employing 55 percent of manufacturing workers) were producing less than they there were in 2000 in terms of inflation-adjusted output.”

In addition, the authors assert that “the government’s official calculation of manufacturing output growth, and by definition productivity, is significantly overstated.  ” Correcting for biases in the official data, ITIF finds that from 2000 to 2010, U.S. manufacturing labor productivity growth was overstated by a remarkable 122 percent. Moreover, manufacturing output, instead of increasing at the reported 16 percent rate, in fact fell by 11 percent over the period.”  This was during a period when the U. S. GDP increased by 17 percent.

Besides, the report states that “it is not clear how productivity could be the culprit behind the large share of job loss in the 2000s when manufacturing labor productivity (as measured by the official value added data) was not substantially different in the 1990s than it was in the 2000s.  During the 1990s, manufacturing jobs fell by one percent, while labor productivity increased by 53 percent. In the 2000s, manufacturing jobs fell by 33 percent while productivity increased by 66 percent…the 2000s productivity number is actually significantly overstated, even more so than the 1990s figure. Adjusting for bias in the data, the actual productivity growth in the 2000s was just 32 percent.”

The authors provide evidence that “there are serious problems with how the U.S. government measures manufacturing output that cause it to significantly overstate output and, by extension, productivity.   In order to see how productivity and output are overstated, it is necessary to understand both concepts.”

Their explanation is too complicated to consider in this short article, but is well worth reading in the report.  They conclude “that there are substantial upward biases in the U.S. government’s official statistics and that real manufacturing output and productivity growth is significantly overstated. The most serious bias relates to the computers and electronics industry (NAICS 334)—its output is vastly overstated. Correcting for these statistical biases, we see that the base of U.S. manufacturing has eroded faster over the past decade than at any time since WWII, when the United States began compiling the statistics.”

I can substantiate this conclusion from my experience as a manufacturers’ representative for American companies who perform fabrication services, such as plastic and rubber molding, metal stamping and casting, machining, and sheet metal fabrication for other American manufacturers.  While many of the manufacturers in my sales territory of southern California may still be assembling their products in the U. S., many of the components and subassemblies they are using have been produced offshore.  Obviously, it takes fewer American workers to produce the end product because part of the work was actually done by foreign workers.

The problem is that there is no way for the government to track the value of the components and subassemblies that have been produced elsewhere from the value of the product that is sold by the American company. Therefore, the value of the whole product is counted as American productivity without deducting the value of the parts produced outside of the U. S.  You can see how American productivity becomes inflated.

I hope this report will convince the majority of economists, experts, and government officials recognize that manufacturing is truly in serious decline so that they will look at what are the main reasons:  outsourcing manufacturing offshore and the economic warfare being waged by China against the U. S.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Outsourcing | No Comments »

“What does the economy have to do with national security?”

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

Most people in the United States would define national security as military readiness, homeland defense, and generally protecting American interests at home and abroad.  They don’t recognize that the economy has an effect on our national security.  This is the main purpose of the book “Economic Security:  Neglected Dimension of National Security?” edited by Dr. Sheila Ronis for the Center for Strategic Conferencing, Institute for National Strategic Studies and published by the National Defense University Press in the fall of  2011.

Other questions she considered are:  “But how does the United States remain strong? What does that mean in a world of globalization? How do we even define what national security is in such a complex and interdependent world?  Can we survive, let alone remain a superpower, if we no longer control any means of production?  If we remain a major debtor nation?  If we continue our dependence on unstable countries for our energy supplies?  If we invest insufficient amounts of our resources in research and development, science and technology?  Or if we perceive the training and education of people as a cost as opposed to an investment?”

This report was the result of a conference held on August 24–25, 2010, by the National Defense University.  The conference explored the economic element of national power.  Over two days, several keynote speakers and participants in six panel discussions explored the complexity of this subject and examined the major elements that define the economic component of national security.

The panels and keynote presentations looked at the economic element of national power from different system views, including the role of debt, the government, industrial capability, energy, science, technology, and human capital—create a systemic view of what could be done to improve an understanding of the economic element of national power. Selected papers from the conference that represent these views comprise this volume, edited by Dr. Sheila Ronis, Director of the Master of Business Administration/Master of Management Programs at Walsh College and President of The University Group, Inc., a management consulting firm and think tank specializing in strategic management, visioning, national security, and public policy.  Dr. Ronis has chaired the Vision Working Group of the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) in Washington, DC, which has been tasked by Congress to rewrite the National Security Act of 1947. As a Distinguished Fellow at PNSR, Dr. Ronis is responsible for the plan and processes to develop the Center for Strategic Analysis and Assessment, to provide the mechanism to conduct foresight studies and the development of the grand strategies that would follow—the kind of studies that would look at an entire system, such as the economy and its relationship to national security.

Dr. Ronis begins with a definition of national security that “can include anything that adds to the strength of the Nation,” such as “the strength of our nation’s infrastructure, our strong societal and moral codes, the rule of law, stable government, social, political, and economic institutions, and leadership.”  It also includes “our nation’s schools and educational programs to ensure a knowledgeable citizenry and lifelong learning—a must for a democracy.”  Then, it also “requires investments in science, engineering, research and development, and technological leadership. We cannot be strong without a viable way to power our cities, feed ourselves, and move from one place to another. Most of all, a strong economy is an essential ingredient of a global superpower.”  Without a strong market-based economy we would quickly lose our superpower status.  We need to have a strong base of globally competitive products and services that produce jobs. The “economy must include sound government policies to promote responsible choices and reduce our debt, and grand strategies for energy and environmental sustainability, science and technology leadership (at least in some areas), human capital capabilities, manufacturing, and the industrial base.”   “And…National security goes to the very core of how we define who we are as a people and a free society. It concerns how we view our world responsibilities.”

Dr. Ronis states that there can be no question of the need to include the economic viability of our nation as a major element of national security because “without capital, there is no business; without business, there is no profit; without profit, there are no jobs.  And without jobs, there are no taxes, and there is no military capability.  The viability of a nation’s industrial infrastructure, which provides jobs for its people, creates and distributes wealth, and leverages profits, is essential. Without jobs, the quality of peoples’ lives deteriorates to a point where society itself can disintegrate.”

Chapter one is a transcript of the comments made by opening keynote speaker David Walker, U. S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008, and  Founder and CEO of the Comeback America Initiative.  When he started at the GAO, it didn’t have “a strategic, integrated, forward-looking, and outcome-based strategic plan.”  They put such a plan in place at GAO during his tenure, and he said, “It is the closest thing that exists to a strategic plan for the Federal Government, but the GAO is in the legislative branch. So we need one for the executive branch. It needs to be led by the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and hopefully, eventually it will be.”

He stated, “Things like savings, critical infrastructure, investments in basic research, educational outcomes, and healthcare outcomes are key leading indicators, and in all of these areas, we are below average for an industrialized nation.”  He contends that if the economic element of national power is neglected and misunderstood, nothing will be more dangerous to the Nation than the national debt and its unintended consequences for generations to come.  Last year government represented 25 percent of the economy, above the recent average of 21 percent. “But if we do not reform our existing entitlement programs and other aspects of government, it will represent about 40 percent of the economy by 2040, and that does not count state and local governments.”

He stated that the composition of the budget has changed dramatically in the last four decades.  “Forty years ago, it was dominated by defense at 42 percent.  Today, it is dominated by social insurance programs, which grow faster than inflation and grow faster than the economy even when the economy is growing. Forty years ago, when Congress came to town, they got to decide how 62 percent of the budget would be spent, of which today defense is about half of the discretionary budget.  Now they decide how about 38 percent gets spent, and if we continue on our status quo, do nothing, let-it-ride policy, it will go down to 18 percent by 2040.  This obviously is an imprudent and unsustainable course.”  He points out that if you count our unfunded Social Security and Medicare debt, our total debt is $62 trillion, not the $14 trillion we hear about.  He states that if the total debt is taken into consideration, we are worse off than Spain,    and only three years away from becoming like Greece.  His arguments are alarming and are critical for policymakers and every citizen to understand.   In conclusion, he provides a common-sense approach to making the tough choices and changes we need to make before it’s too late to get our financial house in order.

In chapter two, John Morton traces the historical roots of the economy and its role in enabling the superpower status of the Nation.  Mr. Morton is a Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform. He is also the Strategic Advisor to DomesticPreparedness.com and a consultant to Gryphon Technologies. He states, “Today, America sustains that position primarily through two elements of its national power: its peerless military and its dollar currency, upon which the international monetary and economic system is largely based. A third element initially enabled that hegemony in the 1940s: the national economy—that is, the Nation’s industrial might. Much of that element is no longer present today.”  He presents a brilliant analysis of how American industry was the foundation of America’s becoming a superpower from the Civil War to the present day and how the alliance of government, science, industry, academe, and the military forged the national security establishment, later called the defense industrial base.  He proposes that the United States needs an economic grand strategy in order to continue America’s role in the world, which is based on its military and economic prowess and capability.

In chapter three, Keith Cooley explains his approach to an energy plan, which includes a grand strategy that, if enacted, will support the Nation’s future.  Mr. Cooley is Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the advisory firm Principia, LLC.  He previously was President and CEO of NextEnergy, an accelerator for alternative energy businesses and technologies. He paraphrases the International Energy Association definition of energy security as simply “the assurance of the uninterrupted supply of energy at an affordable price, while respecting environmental concerns.” His chapter addresses the notion of energy security as national security from four points of view that are, in his opinion, strategic priorities:

  • Priority 1: creating strong civic, business, and political leadership to quickly implement needed changes that assure energy and national security for this country.
  • Priority 2: developing and sustaining an alternative energy capability
  • Priority 3: migrating to alternative (sometimes called “clean”) energy sources
  • Priority 4: widespread increased dependence on domestic energy efficiency

He states, that “no 21st-century economy can be secured without a steady supply of energy. Without adequate energy to power contemporary civilization, there is no security at all.”  He concludes by urging “action on energy security issues at the highest levels of government, industry, and civic engagement. We have many examples to draw lessons from both here and abroad that can inform our actions. But we must act; we must engage. It is the only path available for our survival.”

In chapter four, Louis Infante offers his approach to energy security.  Mr. Infante is the Executive Director, Government and Military, for Ricardo, Inc., an independent automotive engineering consulting company, where he is responsible for strategy development and enactment in the military and government markets.  He advocates a National Energy Security Initiative administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) and joined by every government department with responsibilities that will be affected by energy—in essence, practically all departments.”  He describes a specific model that the U. S. could use to manage the complexities of its entire energy system. “This initiative would include mechanisms to improve the research and development policymaking decisions and strategies to make them real.”  He recommends that “U.S. leadership must overcome barriers to establishment of a national policy on energy that prescribes an endgame and the plan to achieve it.”  He concludes that “the National Energy Security Initiative will provide the coordinating efforts in planning and technology R&D that can assure success in the redevelopment of the U.S. energy system. And it can start within DOD as a first application of success.”

In chapter five, Myra Howze Shiplett, Wendy Russell, Anne M. Khademian, and Lenora Peters Gant address the complex set of issues of whether a nation can be an economic or military superpower without a plan to ensure it has people with the right knowledge and capabilities throughout its society.  They point out, “In 2010, America was “ranked 12th in the number of 24- to 35-year-olds with college degrees . . . among 36 developed nations” compared to “sixth in post-secondary educational attainment in the world among 25- to 60-year-olds.” Also, a major problem is that “Nationwide, only about 70 percent of students earn their high school diplomas” with lower rates for minority students ? “only 57.8 percent of Hispanic, 53.4 percent of African American, and 49.3 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native students.”  They discuss the five steps needed for the “Architecture of the High School Educational Future” and a new kind of graduate education that will produce “practitioners/scholars” with the skill sets needed for public service.  They conclude that “A vibrant, growing economy that provides jobs for America’s citizens is an essential component of our national security. A critical success factor for such an economy is a well-educated workforce, equipped to deal with the complexities of the 21st century…The security of our nation demands this commitment.”

In chapter six, Carmen Medina explores the many issues that surround what it means to have innovation as a major element of a nation’s economy.  Carmen Medina retired from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in February 2010 after over 30 years of service. Her last assignment was as Director of the Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI), where she developed and managed CIA’s first agency-wide Lessons Learned Program. First, she explores some definitions of innovation: “technology-based that leads to new industries”, as opposed to “social innovation, which refers to changes in the way people behave,” as well as agricultural innovation, “defined as the application of knowledge of all types to achieve desired social and economic outcomes.”  She states that “The capacity for innovation has been the primary catalyst of U.S. economic growth. Indeed, capitalism essentially is built on innovation and the concept of creative destruction. Going forward, innovation will be even more critical to U.S. economic prosperity.”

She identifies a problem, stating “There is, however, no doubt that the U.S. capacity for innovation has declined in relative and absolute terms over the last 20 years or so.  Our standing has consistently declined.”  In addition, “the emergence of the BRIC economies—those of Brazil, Russia, India, and China—will fundamentally alter the world economic map by 2020.”  The conclusion of this chapter is that “It is probably impossible for the United States to have a robust economy and remain a superpower if its companies lose their ability to be innovative.

Very often, important White Papers, reports, and books are ignored by the mass news media, but this is one book that every elected official from the president down to local legislators should read.  The current situation is alarming, and we have a limited amount of time to address these issues if we want to stop our slide into becoming a third-world nation.  Manufacturing, innovation, energy security, and an educated citizenry are necessary to maintain freedom as a democratic republic.   As the report concludes, “To be successful in addressing a complex system, we need to integrate all major elements of national power: diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and so on… The entire world expects the United States to remain a leader. We cannot do this unless we are strong. And we cannot be strong unless we plan for and shape our future as a Nation with a sound economy.”

Posted in Economy, Education, Energy, Manufacturing, National security, Training | No Comments »

Will the AME, NAM and NACFAM Alliance Revitalize Manufacturing?

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

The Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME) is joining with leading organizations, such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the National Council For Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM) to form an alliance to revitalize manufacturing and grow the economy, while improving the standard of living of all citizens in North America.  These organizations are inviting public and private sectors to come together to build on the NAM study, A Manufacturing Renaissance: Four Goals for Economic Growth.

The AME white paper “Challenges Facing the Manufacturing Industry…” states “The strategy calls for putting people, schools, businesses and the government to work; producing literate career-ready citizens capable of joining the workforce; and enabling manufacturers to once again lead the designing, building and exporting of quality products and services around the globe.” The top three priorities are:

  • Build a better educated and trained workforce
  • Promote product and process innovation, as well as research and development
  • Improve global competitiveness for companies

AME advocates that each priority “must be considered in developing public policies that support the revitalization of the manufacturing sector, and policy-makers must consider these elements in shaping future public policy and legislation.”   The goal is to help companies and our education systems transform themselves by using more innovative processes to become more competitive to put people back to work in making things in America.

I  strongly agree with AME’s viewpoint that we need to revitalize American manufacturing because “manufacturing is very critical to economic growth, prosperity and a higher standard of living.”  This is because manufacturing jobs have a multiplier effect-? every manufacturing job creates three to four other jobs.  Manufacturing creates more wealth than any other sector in the economy.  “Manufacturing pays higher wages and provides greater benefits, on average, than other industries. It performs almost two-thirds of private sector research and development, creates the highest number of jobs to support the industry while serving the surrounding communities, and contributes to more than 50 percent of the country’s total exports.”

The White Paper notes that we’ve lost nearly six million manufacturing jobs in the United States since January 2000, for an average of about 54,000 per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  We also lost 56,190 manufacturing facilities from 2001 to 2010, or about 15 per day.

AME has issued a call for action to policy-makers, industry professionals and academic leaders to play critical roles in revitalizing the economy through the rebirth of manufacturing jobs.  To do this, we need to ensure the supply of educated citizens, necessary physical infrastructure, and a favorable tax and regulatory framework that fosters increased collaboration between public and private sector partners.

AME has been leading the “Revitalization of Manufacturing” initiative, wherein AME and their allied organizations have been reaching out to policy-makers nationwide, and encouraging them to join or develop efforts focusing on local and state job creation.  AME states that “itt is imperative that policy-makers recognize the importance of an industry that has been the backbone of the North American economy.  To date, AME has received more than 400 signatures of support from state and federal policy-makers, industry trade associations and operations executives representing manufacturers across North America.”

AME advocates “a renewed emphasis on making businesses more competitive by developing the educational and training infrastructure to produce qualified individuals to fill these new opportunities.”   To accomplish these initiatives, AME is joining with leading organizations to adopt the three priorities by:

Reforming public education to produce career ready citizens – Parents, teachers and business leaders need to recognize that other nations are both out-educating us and out-competing us.  Some of the ongoing initiatives by manufacturing organizations to help reform public education are:

  • The Manufacturing Institute’s Roadmap to Education Reform for Manufacturing, a comprehensive blueprint for education reform
  • American Productivity and Quality Center’s (APQC) Education North Star program that helps school districts do more with less by transforming education through process and performance management
  • Career Pathways,  a program that encourages students to consider a career in manufacturing and help prepare them by using the Manufacturing Pathway Map

Last fall, I wrote about a number of programs sponsored by other organizations to interest and prepare youth for careers in manufacturing in the article, “How Can we Attract Youth to Manufacturing Careers?”

Establishing consortiums of like-minded individuals with the same mission to help sustain and grow businesses through sharing technology and innovative ideas.  AME recommends that businesses “grow a culture that achieves results through engaging their people” to “develop pragmatic, working-level leaders who can pull it all together.”  In addition, businesses “need to foster rapid advancement of technology and innovation by establishing regional consortiums to help bring jobs back home.”

“AME Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati Consortium is the first building block of the AME Consortia network, and the organizations plans to deploy at least 10 more in 2012.  AME also has alliance partners, like the Virginia Business Excellence Consortium.”

Reshoring by making better informed business decisions  to keep and bring jobs back home – the Reshoring Initiative was founded by Harry Moser in 2010.  He is collaborating with AME to promote reshoring as part of the “Revitalization of Manufacturing” initiative.  AME recommends that companies use the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis tool Mr. Moser developed “to effectively compare total cost of local and offshore sources, enabling them to make informed business decisions. ‘We are committed to changing the sourcing paradigm from ‘off-shored is cheaper’ to ‘local reduces the total cost of ownership,’ said Moser.”

Redeploying Training Within Industry (TWI) programs to train or retrain workers to have the skills to work in advanced manufacturing jobs to revitalize manufacturing and re-energize the economy.  First created during WWII to replace workers who left the factories and went off to war, the TWI programs were revived in 2001 by the Central New York Technology Development Organization, a member of the U.S. Manufacturers Extension Partnership (MEP), after which the TWI Institute was formed to oversee the global deployment of the program.

AME’s White Paper only identifies the TWI programs, but I wrote about training programs sponsored by other organizations, such as the Society of Manufacturing Engineers’ Tooling U and The Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International in my article, ”What’s Being Done to Address the Lack of Skilled Workers?

In order to be more globally competitive, AME recommends that companies use Lean Certification, an internationally recognized certification process developed by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), AME, Shingo Prize, and the American Society for Quality (ASQ), which establishes the standard for continuous improvement and Lean practices.

The White Paper states that at its 2012 national board meeting, “AME reaffirmed its commitment to helping small-and medium-sized businesses create more manufacturing jobs, and the organization’s strategic plans address the challenges facing manufacturing by formulating counter-measurements to address them with its public and private alliance partners.”

In conclusion, the White Paper states, …the public and private sectors must come together to build an integrated plan supportive of these initiatives, especially NAM’s Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and Competitiveness and Roadmap to Education Reform for Manufacturing; the LEARN Act; and the Reshoring Initiative.  These will ultimately revitalize the industry and grow the economy.”

I have repeatedly said in my book and blog articles that it will take the efforts of the public and private sectors, as well as individual Americans, to first save and then revitalize American manufacturing.  I agree that these strategies will be beneficial, but they will not be enough to accomplish this goal.   First of all, I do not agree that the challenges to accomplish this goal are the “four major challenges on which its future depends and has been failing to meet… globalization, the revolution in information technology, the nation’s chronic deficits and its pattern of energy consumption” that are quoted from Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum’s book, That Used to Be Us, How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back.

These are all realities that must be addressed, but they are not the main challenges that face America’s manufacturing industry.  The main challenge can be summed up in one word:  China.  By this I mean China’s predatory mercantilism in the form of currency manipulation, export subsidies, theft of intellectual property, product “dumping,” export restrictions on raw materials, and more recently, technology transfer and rare earth hoarding.

As long as companies that are members of AME, NAM, and NACFAM, such as Westinghouse, General Electric, and Caterpillar, choose to close factories in the United States to offshore manufacturing to China for the illusion of selling to the 1.3 billion Chinese consumers, we will continue to lose manufacturing jobs.

As long as these organizations and their member companies advocate so-called free trade policies and are afraid to stand up to China’s predatory mercantilism and urge our elected officials to demand that China adhere to the terms of its admission into the World Trade Organization, our huge trade deficits will continue to escalate.

These companies must stop being Chinese apologists and appeasers just to add more profit to their bottom line.  They need to realize that complying with China’s demand for technology transfer in order to build or establish a plant in China is destroying the future of their own companies.

Now is the time for action.  The best thing that AME, NAM and NACFAM members could do is to take a pledge to not close any more plants in the U. S. to set up manufacturing in China.  Then, we would really be able to revitalize American Manufacturing.

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Trade Policy, Training | No Comments »

Will President Obama’s Blueprint Save American Manufacturing?

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

In his State of the Union address, President Obama laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

I share the President’s believe that “this is a make or break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it.  Manufacturing is the foundation of the middle class, and we are losing the middle class because of the loss of manufacturing jobs.  I’ve seen the middle class eroding for decades because manufacturing and the good jobs the industry provides began leaving our shores long before the recession.  Too many manufacturers have sourced all of most of their manufacturing offshore, especially in China.  It’s the loss of manufacturing jobs that is keeping unemployment so high and creating budget deficits at the local, state and federal level.  People who are working pay taxes that generate revenue for our government whereas the unemployed create expenses to government for their “safety net.”

The President’s blueprint has one section covering manufacturing titled, “Manufacturing: Create New Jobs Here In America, Discourage Outsourcing, And Encourage Insourcing,” so let’s examine the points one by one to see if they will make enough difference to “save American manufacturing.”

1.        Remove tax deductions for shipping jobs oversees and providing new incentives for bringing them back home:  It’s been outrageous that we’ve been giving tax incentives to companies to outsource manufacturing offshore by allowing companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses and reduce their taxes in the United States.  This proposal would eliminate deductions for moving their operations offshore and give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back to the U. S. to create jobs for Americans.  Eliminating this tax incentive for outsourcing offshore is one of the recommendations mentioned in my book.

2.        Target the domestic production incentive on manufacturers who create jobs here at home and double the deduction for advanced manufacturing:  This proposal would reform the current deduction for domestic production by more narrowly focusing it on manufacturing activities, expanding the deduction for manufacturers, and doubling the deduction for advanced manufacturing technologies from its current level of 9 percent to 18 percent.  This proposal would benefit manufacturers utilizing advanced manufacturing technologies, but I see no reason why it shouldn’t apply to all domestic manufacturing and why oil production should be eliminated from this deduction.

3.       Introduce a new Manufacturing Communities Tax Credit to encourage investments in communities affected by job loss:  “The President is proposing a new credit for qualified investments that help finance projects in communities that have suffered a major job loss event … would provide $2 billion per year in incentives for three years.”  For example, if a major employer closes a plant or substantially reduces the workforce with a mass layoff, the tax credit would support qualified investments in the affected community that would improve local economic growth.   This proposal would help communities that lose manufacturing companies or suffer mass layoffs, but would have no effect in preventing manufacturers from leaving or closing plants.

4.       Provide temporary tax credits to drive nearly $20 billion in domestic clean energy manufacturing: The President is proposing to extend the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit tax credit for investment in domestic clean energy manufacturing to ensure new windmills and solar panels will incorporate parts that are produced and assembled by American workers.  However, the U.S. solar industry filed a trade case at the Department of Commerce late last year alleging dumping and unlawful subsidies by China.  Until we address China’s currency manipulation and dumping of products including solar panels and windmill parts, America’s clean energy industry will remain at a competitive disadvantage to China.  Senate bill 1619 that passed the Senate last fall, and H. R. 639 waiting for a vote in the House would be a good start in addressing China’s currency manipulation.  Unfortunately, President Obama has indicated he would veto the bill if passed.

5.      Reauthorizing 100% expensing of investment in plants and equipment: The President is proposing to extend for all of 2012 a provision that allows businesses to expense the full cost of their investments in equipment, spurring investment in the United States.   This provision was part of the Bush administrations tax cuts and will sunset at the end of this year unless it is extended.  It needs to be extended well beyond the end of this year for it to have any real impact in benefitting manufacturers.

6.      Closing a loophole that allows companies to shift profits overseas: Corporations right now can abuse the tax system by inappropriately shifting profits overseas from intangible property created in the United States.  The President is proposing to close this loophole.  This is one of the several steps we need to take to incentivize companies to maintain manufacturing in the U. S. or bring manufacturing back from overseas.

At the same time the President is calling for immediate enactment of this plan, he is pushing forward on a framework for corporate tax reform that would encourage even greater investment in the United States, while eliminating tax advantages for outsourcing.  This framework would include:

Making companies pay a minimum tax for profits and jobs overseas and investing the savings in cutting taxes here at home, especially for manufacturing: The President is proposing to eliminate tax incentives to ship jobs offshore by ensuring that all American companies pay a minimum tax on their overseas profits, preventing other countries from attracting American business through unusually low tax rates.  The savings would be invested in cutting taxes here at home, especially for manufacturing.

This would only encourage more companies to reincorporate in tax haven countries to avoid paying any corporate taxes in the U. S., which has the second highest rates in the world.  A better plan would be to reduce corporate taxes down to the globally competitive 25 percent so that corporations will have less incentive to avoid paying U. S. taxes by building facilities in foreign countries.

Making permanent an expanded Research and Experimentation Tax Credit: The President is proposing to make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent, while enhancing and simplifying the credit.  Again, this is one of the recommendations in my book and would encourage manufacturers to keep R&D in the United States as only research and experimentation performed in the United States is eligible.
Simplify the tax code and close loopholes:  The Fact Sheet states that over the last 30 years since the last comprehensive reform, the tax system has been loaded up with special deductions, credits, and other tax expenditures that help well-connected special interests, but do little for our country’s economic growth.  The President’s framework will close these loopholes and simplify the tax code so businesses can focus on investing and creating jobs rather than filling out tax forms.  As I mentioned in a recent article, the Department of Treasury issued a report in 2007 that made many recommendations of how to simplify the tax code and close loopholes.  We don’t need to “reinvent the wheel” to study how to simplify the tax code.  Let’s just implement some of the previous recommendations immediately.

Cracking down on overseas tax avoidance and loopholes:  The Fact Sheet states that the President has taken strong steps to crack down on overseas tax evasion and loopholes, including signing into law the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which targets tax evasion by U.S. citizens holding investments in foreign accounts, as well as measures to crack down on abuse of foreign tax credits  that have allowed multinational companies to inappropriately reduce the amount of taxes they paid in the U. S.
The Fact Sheet touts the tax incentives that President Obama signed into law in the last three years that have helped manufacturers, but he actually only signed legislation extending the tax cuts and tax incentives through 2012 that were originally passed by Congress under the Bush administration.  These tax cuts and incentives will end in 2013, if not extended again, and far higher taxes will be imposed under certain provisions of the Affordable Health Care Reform Act of 2010.

One of the big reasons manufacturers and other types of businesses are sitting on millions of dollars in corporate profits without expanding plants, buying new equipment, and hiring more workers is the fear of the higher taxes and health care costs they are facing in 2013 as a result of the Health Care Reform Act.

Therefore, a careful review of the President’s blueprint shows that it doesn’t do enough to save American manufacturing.  The few beneficial policies will be more than undone by the tax increases and regulations that will take effect in 2013 and thereafter.  What we need is an all encompassing national manufacturing strategy if we truly want to provide enough incentives to retain or bring back manufacturing to the U. S. and discourage corporations from outsourcing their R&D and manufacturing overseas.

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

Why is it Important to Lower Corporate Tax Rates?

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Last fall the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI and the National Associations of Manufacturers Manufacturing Institute released a report on their analysis of production costs in the United States relative to its top nine trading partners ? Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, Germany, United Kingdom, Korea, Taiwan, and France.  The report revealed that on a trade-weighted basis, the U. S. tax rate is 8.6 percentage points higher than its trading partners in the 2011 cost study, considerably higher than the 5.6 percentage points of the first cost study in 2003.

While the U. S. federal and state combined tax rate has remained the same, every other country in the study has lowered corporate tax rates at least once since 1997, and most countries have done so several times.  The result is that the U.S. rate is now second-highest to Japan in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  The increase in the foreign advantage since the 2008 tax study is due to rate reductions in Canada (36 percent to 31 percent), Germany (38.4 percent to 29.4 percent) and Taiwan (25 percent to 17 percent).

If you think that a reduction in corporate tax rates would only benefit the large, multinational corporations doing business globally, think again.  According to last MAPI/MI report, “Facts About Modern Manufacturing,” produced in 2009, 95 percent of the 286,039 manufacturers were companies of under 100 employees.

It isn’t just manufacturing corporations and their trade associations that recommend a reduction in corporate taxes.  On July 26, 2007, the Treasury Department hosted a conference on Global Competitiveness and Business Tax Reform that brought together distinguished leaders and experts to discuss how the U.S. business tax system could be improved to make U.S. businesses more competitive. As a follow-up to this conference, on December 20, 2007, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released a 121-page report titled “Approaches to Improve the Competitiveness of the U.S. Business Tax System for the 21st Century.”

The report acknowledges that, “Globalization … has resulted in increased cross-border trade and the establishment of production facilities and distribution networks around the globe. Businesses now operate more freely across borders and business location and investment decisions are more sensitive to tax considerations than in the past.” Further, as globalization has increased, “nations’ tax systems have become a greater factor in the success of global companies.” The report notes, “Many of our major trading partners have lowered their corporate tax rates, some dramatically.”

In the 1980s, the United States had a low corporate tax rate compared to other countries, but now has the second highest. Japan has the highest corporate tax rate at 39.54 percent. According to the OECD, Ireland’s tax is lowest at 12.5 percent, while most of the other major industrial nations have corporate tax rates ranging from 19 to 30 percent.

The Treasury Department says, “As other nations modernize their business tax systems to recognize the realities of the global economy, U.S. companies increasingly suffer a competitive disadvantage. The U.S. business tax system imposes a burden on U.S. companies and U.S. workers by raising the cost of investment in the United States and burdening U.S. firms as they compete with other firms in foreign markets.”

The report states that the U. S., tax system “discourages investment in the United States” and “may also slow the pace of technological innovation.  The pace of innovation is a key determinant of economic growth, and innovation tends to take place where the investment climate is best…Given this interplay between innovation and capital accumulation, allowing     U. S. corporate taxes to become more burdensome relative to the rest of the world could result in a cumulative effect in which U. S. firms fall increasingly behind those in other nations.”

The study concludes that the current system of business taxation in the United States is making the country uncompetitive globally and needs to be overhauled. A new tax system aimed at improving the global competitiveness of U.S. companies could raise GDP by 2 to 2.5 percent.  Rather than present particular recommendations, the report examines the strengths and weaknesses of the three major approaches presented:

Replacing the business income tax system with a Business Activity Tax (BAT)

  • The BAT tax base would be gross receipts from sales of goods and services minus purchases of goods and services (including purchases of capital items) from other businesses.
  • Wages and other forms of employee compensation (such as fringe benefits) would not be deductible.
  • Interest would be removed from the tax base – it would neither be included as income nor deductible.
  • Individual taxes on dividends and capital gains would be retained.  Interest income received by individuals would be taxed at the current 15 percent dividends and capital gains rates.

Broadening the business tax base and lowering the statutory tax rate/providing expensing

  • The top federal business tax rate would be lowered to 28 percent.
  • If accelerated depreciation were retained, the rate would drop only to 31 percent.
  • Acquisitions of new investment could be partially expensed (35% could be written off immediately)

Specific areas of our current business tax system that could be addressed

  • Multiple taxation of corporations (corporate capital gains and dividends receive deduction)
  • Tax bias favoring debt finance
  • Taxation of international income
  • Treatment of losses
  • Book-tax conformity

If the business tax rate were lowered to 31 percent, it would mean that the United States would have the third highest tax rate, while a 28 percent corporate tax rate, would mean the United States would have the fifth-highest tax rate.  The report acknowledges that these lower rates might not be enough as other countries are continually changing their tax systems to gain competitive advantage.  The Treasury Department study says, “Thus, it remains unclear whether a revenue neutral reform would provide a reduction in business taxes sufficient to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses.”

The Executive Summary also comments on the importance of individual income tax rates. Roughly 30 percent of all business taxes are paid through the individual income tax on business income earned by owners of flow-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations). These businesses and their owners benefited from the 2001 and 2003 income tax rate reductions. This sector has more than doubled its share of all business receipts since the early 1980s and plays a more important role in the U.S. economy, accounting for one-third of salaries and wages. Moreover, flow-through income is concentrated in the top two tax brackets, with this group receiving more than 70 percent of flow-through income and paying more than 80 percent of the taxes on this income.

The Executive Summary concludes that “now is the time for the United States to re-evaluate its business tax system to ensure that U.S. businesses and U.S. workers are as competitive as possible and Americans continue to enjoy rising living standards.”

Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Treasury Department haven’t been addressed by Congress in legislation in the more than four years since the report was released.

At the same time that we address the corporate tax rate, we need to close a huge tax loophole that multinational corporations are enjoying at the expense of American workers and which is a big incentive for U. S. firms to invest abroad in countries with low tax rates.

In June 2006, James Kvaal, who had been a policy adviser in the Clinton White House and was then a third-year student at Harvard Law School, published a paper “Shipping Jobs Overseas: How the Tax Code Subsidized Foreign Investment and How to Fix It.”  In this well-researched paper, Kvaal points out that “American multinationals can defer U.S. taxes indefinitely as long as profits are held in a foreign subsidiary.  Taxes are only due when the money is returned to the U.S. parent corporation.  The result is like an IRA for multinationals’ foreign investments: foreign profits accumulate tax-free.  U.S. taxes are effectively voluntary on foreign investments.”

There’s no rule saying American companies ever have to bring that money home.  As long as they reinvest earnings overseas, they pay only the host country’s (usually lower) tax rate.  Many companies just put the money they make overseas back into their foreign operations, which means more economic growth for other countries, and less here at home.  Kvaal wrote that “when multinationals choose to return profits to the U.S. they can offset any foreign taxes against their U.S. tax. … As a result, the effective tax rate on foreign non-financial income is below 5 percent, well below the statutory rate of 35 percent.”

He recommends changing the tax code to a “partial exemption system” that “would tax foreign income only if a foreign government failed to tax it under a comparable tax system. As a result, all corporate income would be taxed at a reasonable rate once and only once.” He opines that this system would reduce incentives to invest in low-tax countries, simplify the taxation of corporate profits, and reduce tax competition by removing the benefit of tax havens. He urged immediate action “to ensure that our tax code no longer exacerbates incentives to move offshore.”

The importance of low tax rates to the success of start-up companies is emphasized by Henry Northhaft, CEO of Tessera Corporation, in his book Great Again, co-authored by David Kline. They wrote, “… lower tax rates on the last dollar earned encourage individuals and businesses to work harder, take more entrepreneurial risks, and expand their operations because they can keep more of the fruits of that added labor or activity … a reduction in the marginal tax rate of 1 percentage point increases the rate of start-up formation by 1.5 percent and reduces the change of start-up failure by more than 8 percent. … Tax rates don’t just influence how much investment and growth a firm will choose to undertake.  In an increasingly globalized economy, they also profoundly affect where a business will chose to invest or expand … the relative tax and regulatory burdens on U.S. start-ups have grown exponentially, whereas those on European and other foreign ventures have declined sharply.”

Nothhaft “As a result, America now has the highest corporate rate in the world (with the lone exception of Japan). At 39.2 percent, it’s more than 50 percent higher than the OECD average of 25.5 percent. … A number of empirical studies by OECD economists and others have discovered that the best “revenue-maximizing” tax rate – the rate that brings in more total revenues than either a lower or a higher tax rate – is around 25 percent.”

Comprehensive tax reform is needed because under the current system multinational corporations are favored over domestic companies.  Taxes can foster economic growth or hinder it.  Our domestic economic growth is being hindered by the current tax system and must be addressed by Congress in the near future if we want to help American compete successfully in the global economy and create more jobs.

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

What Could We Do Right Now to Create Jobs?

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

There are numerous ideas and recommendations on how we could create jobs that range from the cautious to the extreme.  Most job creation programs proposed by commentators, politicians, and economists involve either increased government spending or reductions in income or employment taxes at a time of soaring budget deficits and decreased government revenue.  Other recommendations would require legislation to change policies on taxation, regulation, or trade that would be difficult to accomplish. Many of these solutions involve borrowing money or taking money from one group of citizens or a future generation to give to another.  Let’s start with what we as individuals can do from the viewpoint of entrepreneurs, business owners, employees, and consumers.

If you are an entrepreneur starting a company, find a niche product for which customers will be willing to pay more for a “Made in USA” product.   Plan to sell your product on the basis of its “distinct competitive advantage” rather than on the basis of lowest price.  Select your suppliers from American companies as this will create jobs for other Americans.

If you are the owner of an existing manufacturing company, then you could do a Total Cost of Ownership analysis for component parts that you are having made offshore to see if you could “reshore” some of all of them to be made in the United States.  Check out www.reshorenow.org for a TCO worksheet estimator to conduct your analysis.  Also, you could choose to keep R&D in the United States or bring it back to the United States if you have “offshored” it.    Every manufacturing job you keep or bring back to the United States will create an average of three to four support jobs for other Americans.  If you are a service company, you could choose to keep your customer service department in the United States or bring it back if it is “offshored.”  If enough manufacturing is “reshored” from China, we would drastically reduce our trade  $600 billion trade deficit .  We could create as many as three million manufacturing jobs, which would, in turn, create 9 – 12 million total jobs, bringing our unemployment down to 4 percent.

If you are an inventor ready to get a patent or license agreement for your product, select American companies to make parts and assemblies for your product as much as possible.  There are some electronic components that are no longer made in the U. S., so it may not be possible to source all of the component parts with American companies.  As I’ve written previously, there are many hidden costs to doing business offshore so that in the long run you may not save as much money as you expect by sourcing your product offshore.  Don’t forget about the danger of having your Intellectual Property stolen by a foreign company that will use it to make a copy-cat or counterfeit product sold at a lower price than your product.

If you are fortunate enough to have a regular, stable job, do everything in your power to contribute to the success of your company.  Do your job to the best of your ability.  Be willing to learn new job skills to increase your value to your employer.  No matter what your job, adopt the marketing mindset where you realize that everyone in a company is part of the marketing team regardless of their job function.  Every interaction that a customer or potential customer has with anyone in a company influences his or her opinion about doing business with that company.  Even though you are being paid by your employer, it’s actually your company’s customers that provide you with a job.

You may not realize it, but you have tremendous power as a consumer.  Even large corporations pay attention to trends in consumer buying, and there is beginning to be a trend to buy ‘Made in USA” products.  Pay attention to the country of origin labels when you shop and buy “Made in USA” products whenever possible.  Be willing to step out of your comfort zone and ask the store owner or manager to carry more “Made in USA” products.   If you buy products online, there are now a plethora of online sources dedicated to selling only “Made in USA” products.   Each time you choose to buy an American-made product, you help save or create an American job.  There is a ripple effect in that every manufacturing job creates three to ten other manufacturing jobs, depending on the industry.  If 200 million Americans bought $20 worth of American products instead of Chinese, it would reduce our trade imbalance with China by four billion dollars.  During the ABC World News series called “Made in America,” Diane Sawyer has repeatedly said, “If every American spent an extra $3.33 on U. S.-made goods, it would create almost 10,000 new jobs in this country.”

Now, let’s consider what Congress could do to create jobs.  First, Congress must enact legislation that addresses China’s currency manipulation.  Most economists believe that China’s currency is undervalued by 30-40% so their products may be cheaper than American products on that basis alone.  To address China’s currency manipulation and provide a means for American companies to petition for countervailing duties, the Senate passed S. 1619 last fall.  Even though the corresponding bill in the House, H. R. 639, had bi-partisan support with 231 co-sponsors, GOP leadership bottled up the bill in committee and prevented it from being brought up for a vote, so the session ended without action to address this serious issue.  The 112th Congress lasts two years, starting in Jan 2011 and ending December 2012, so there is the opportunity for the bill to be voted on this year.

We  voters need to pressure our elected representatives in the House to pass this bill this year so that American products can compete against Chinese imports.  It’s an obvious fact that if American companies can increase sales of their products, then they will be able to hire more workers.

Second, Congress should pass legislation allowing American corporations to “repatriate” income earned by plants in foreign countries at a reduced tax rate of 5-5.5% if the income is permanently reinvested in the United States.  This would bring nearly 1.2 billion dollars of monies back to the U. S. to be invested in R&D, plants, equipment, and hiring workers.

Third, Congress should strengthen and tighten procurement regulations to enforce “buying American” for all government agencies and not just the Department of Defense.   All federal spending should have “buy America provisions giving American workers and businesses the first opportunity at procurement contracts.  New federal loan guarantees for energy projects should require the utilization of domestic supply chains for construction.  No federal, state, or local government dollars should be spent buying materials, equipment, supplies, and workers from China.

My other recommendations for creating jobs are based on improving the competitiveness of American companies by improving the business climate of the United States so that there is less incentive for American manufacturing companies to outsource manufacturing offshore or build plants in foreign countries.  The proposed legislation would also close tax loopholes and prevent corporations from avoiding paying corporate income taxes.  They are:

  • Reduce corporate taxes to 25 percent
  • No negotiation or ratification by Congress of any new Free Trade Agreements
  • Make capital gains tax of 15 percent permanent
  • Increase and make permanent the R&D tax credit
  • Eliminate the estate tax (also called the Death Tax)
  • Improve intellectual property rights protection and increase criminal prosecution
  • Prevent sale of strategic U.S.-owned companies to foreign-owned companies
  • Enact legislation to prevent corporations from avoiding the U.S. income tax by reincorporating in a foreign country
  • Change the tax code to a “partial exemption system” to eliminate incentives for companies to move offshore by taxing all corporate income at a reasonable rate once

In this election year, it is unlikely that legislation proposing any of these recommendations would have a chance of being passed by Congress.  The problem is that no Democrat would want to allow any credit to go to a Republican, which might help them win re-election, and no Republican would want to allow any credit to go to a Democrat, which might help them win re-election.   We will need to wait until after the 2012 election before we have any hope of such legislation being considered.

Finally, the Obama administration is considering a high-level task force to manage China trade enforcement issues. Such a task force is desperately needed and long overdue.  The challenge will be to ensure that the task force has the authority to take bold steps to lower our trade deficit with China.  Holding China accountable for their compliance with terms of their membership in the World Trade Organization would be a major step in helping American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace to be able to succeed, grow and create jobs in America instead of China.

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

What are the Republican Candidates’ Economic Plans to Create Jobs?

Monday, January 9th, 2012

Every Republican candidate has an economic plan they say will create jobs.  The truth is that the ability of any president to directly create private sector jobs is very limited, but he can set the focus and present a plan that his/her administration can follow and solicit the support of Congress and the American people to approve and implement his plan through legislation and funding.  The legislation that Congress passes and the President signs can either help or hinder the private sector to create jobs.  The funding that Congress allocates provides the fuel to accomplish the plan.

Most of us are familiar with the old adage that small businesses create up to 80 percent of all jobs; however, the new Census Bureau database called Business Dynamics Statics shows that it’s not so much small businesses that create jobs as it is new businesses.  In his book, Great Again, CEO Henry Nothhaft wrote, “all the major innovations that powered the American economy to unrivaled prosperity over the last fifty years – from semiconductors and personal computers to software, biotech, and the Internet – were all created by small start-ups.  So were all of the 40 million new jobs created in this country since 1977…”

However, not every new business has the potential to grow and produce a significant number of jobs.  As Rodney Stark wrote in The Victory of Reason, the basis economic fact is “all wealth derives from production.  It must be grown, dug up, cut down, hunted, herded, fabricated or otherwise created.”   Because of the jobs multiplier effect, businesses that manufacture a product, whether it’s a hardware or software product, have the highest potential for creating jobs as they grow and succeed.  However, these companies will only create American jobs if they manufacture their products or perform their services in the United States.

Most of the plans of the Republican candidates’ plans involve cutting taxes, cutting government spending, reducing the size of government, eliminating burdensome regulations, and repealing what they consider onerous legislation.  Do their specific plans provide a platform to create jobs from production?  Do their plans provide incentives to manufacture products in America?  If they don’t, what should their plans include?

Since all of the Republican candidates recommend reducing corporate taxes, let’s examine why this would be beneficial for creating jobs.  Right now, American corporations are at a disadvantage compared to other countries:  our tax rates are the second highest in the world next to Japan’s, averaging 35 percent at the federal level.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has conducted a number of empirical studies by OECD economists and others that discovered the best tax rate that maximizes revenue and compliance is 25 percent.  The studies found that high corporate income tax rates have the most harmful impact on long-term growth and lowering tax rates can lead to significant productivity gains in the very companies that have the most potential to contribute to economic growth.

Governor Mitt Romney and Ron Paul propose reducing corporate tax rates to 25 percent; Governor Perry proposes a reduction to 20 percent; Rick Santorum to 17.5 percent; while Newt Gingrich proposes a reduction to12.5 percent.  There were no specific recommendations on former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman’s campaign website on reducing corporate taxes.  He seems to base his American Jobs Plan predominantly on increasing free trade through additional free trade agreements.

Three candidates, Governor Romney, Governor Perry, and Rick Santorum propose to create immediate jobs by allowing corporations to “repatriate” profits being held offshore by foreign subsidiaries or divisions at a reduced rate of 5 to 5.5 percent.  Over 1.2 trillion dollars could be brought back to America in a matter of days that would provide capital for investment in plants and equipment in the U. S. and hiring more workers to run the equipment.

Currently, the U. S. operates under what is known as a “worldwide” tax system, meaning that business income is taxed at the U. S. rate regardless of whether the income is earned within American borders or overseas.  American companies pay the corporate tax in the host country, and when profits are repatriated back to the U. S., they pay the difference between what was paid to the host country and what would have been owed under the U. S. rate. Our higher corporate tax rate provides an incentive for companies to keep their profits offshore and not repatriate them.   The U. S. is now the only country in the OECD that adheres to the “worldwide” tax system while imposing a corporate tax rate above 30 percent.  A reduced rate for “repatriation” of corporate profits was provided by the Bush administration in 2004, and corporations have been hoping for the opportunity to do so again.  To prevent this problem in the future, Governor Romney and Governor Perry propose switching to a “territorial” tax system in which income is taxed only in the country where it is earned.

In order to succeed and grow, businesses, and especially manufacturers, need to make long-range plans on allocating funds for R&D and capital investment.  Thus, businesses would benefit by making the R&D tax credit permanent and either reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax.  Governor Romney, Governor Perry, and Newt Gingrich support eliminating the capital gains tax altogether; Ron Paul proposes cutting and simplifying the corporate capital gains tax and Rick Santorum proposes to reduce it to 12 percent.  They all support increasing and making permanent the R&D tax credit.  In addition,  all the Republican candidates support eliminating the  Estate Tax, aka the Death Tax, which especially hurts small, family owned businesses where the heirs frequently have to sell the business to pay the Estate taxes instead of maintaining the business for the next generation of their family.

All of the above proposals for changing tax policies are included in the ten immediate recommendations for saving American manufacturing in chapter 10 of my book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved?  Why we should and how we can.  Only one candidate, Governor Romney, has included my top recommendation in his campaign economic plan:  enact legislation to address China’s foreign currency manipulation.  He also proposes to “direct the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China does not quickly move to float its currency.”  Some criticize this proposal by saying it would start a trade war.  What they don’t understand is that we are already in a trade war, and China is winning.

We need a president who recognizes that currency manipulation is just one of the tactics China is using in their economic warfare with the United States.  Other tactics they use have been described in my previous blogs and are well documented in the writings of Ian Fletcher, Senior Economist for the Coalition for a Prosperous America in his book, Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What should replace it and Why, and CPA’s blog www.tradereform.org.

In his book Great Again, CEO Henry Nothhaft provides additional recommendations of what tax policies should be changed to dramatically help start-up companies:

  • Forgive or defer use taxes levied against start-ups for the purchase of new equipment
  • Reduce or defer the statutory and marginal income taxes paid by start-ups in their first three years of existence
  • Create special tax breaks, capital grants, and incentives for capital-intensive start-ups, especially manufacturing start-ups
  • Provide an innovation tax credit that would give small start-ups half of the money back that they spend on getting a patent

I heartily concur with these recommendations based on my own experience working with start-up companies in business and as a member of the steering committee of the San Diego Inventors Forum (SDIF),

Additional economic proposals of the Republican candidates that would help create jobs would be to repeal the Dodd-Frank act and Sarbanes-Oxley act.  At the very least, we need to exempt firms under $500 million in market value from the costly audit and report requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley.  These onerous requirements have hindered technology-based companies from securing growth funding through the IPO market according to Henry Nothhaft.

Of course, all of the Republican candidates have pledged to play a role as president in the goal of repealing Obama’ Health Care Act, which would add at least $500 billion in taxes to the burden already borne by American individual and corporate tax payers.

I urge every American voter to not just pay attention to the candidates’ sound bites from their ads, debates, and interviews.  Check out their websites and read for yourself what they propose to do as president.  Don’t just vote along party lines.  Make your own personal decision based on facts and gut feelings.  Support the candidate you choose by donating and volunteering.  Join your voice with others who want to create jobs and save American manufacturing.  Besides the Coalition for a Prosperous America already mentioned, check out the American Jobs Alliance, a new independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization.

Posted in Economy, Taxes/Regulations | No Comments »

What are the Positions of Presidential Candidates on Trade?

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

As a candidate for president in 2007-2008, the then-Illinois senator, Barrack Obama talked a good game.  In December 2007 at the Des Moines Register debate, he pledged “there’s no doubt that NAFTA needs to be amended. “  At a June 2008 speech in Flint, MI, he said, “If we continue to let our trade policy be dictated by special interests, then American workers will continue to be undermined, and public support for robust trade will continue to erode.”

But as president, Obama’s flip-flops on trade rank up there with the best moves of an Olympic gymnast.  He pushed hard for passage of the trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama, all based fail NAFTA template.  He has instructed his team at the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to spearhead the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement involving nine Pacific region nations, including Vietnam and Brunei, two undemocratic countries with serious and well-documented human and labor rights problems.

So how about the Republicans?  Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, has the most detailed position on trade of all the GOP candidates.  Romney supports the free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama that were passed by Congress and signed by Obama.  He also calls for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in addition to new FTAs with nations such as Brazil and India.

However, Romney would get tough with China by imposing “targeted tariffs” or economic sanctions for unfair trade practices or misappropriated American technology.  He would also designate China as a currency manipulator and instruct the Commerce Department to impose countervailing duties.  Romney would also pursue the “formation of a ‘Reagan Economic Zone.’ This zone would codify the principles of free trade at the international level and place the issues now hindering trade in services and intellectual property, crucial to American prosperity and that of other developed nations, at the center of the discussion.”

Not much can be said for Newt Gingrich on the subject of trade and jobs. The once-powerful House speaker wants to make “mutual trade”–neither free trade nor protectionism–the country’s goal,” whatever that means.  Back in 2006, Gingrich felt that protectionism helps China and India challenge U.S. supremacy.  Writing on his website, he said, “In the US, there exists a coalition of union leaders who prefer protection over competition. This liberal coalition complains about companies’ outsourcing jobs while insisting on corporate taxes that encourage companies to go overseas. They prefer that government impose on business obsolete, absurd work rules, even though these raise costs, lower productivity, and make America less competitive in the world market. The challenge to American economic supremacy from 1.3 billion Chinese and more than 1.1 billion Indians is vastly greater than anything we have previously seen.  India’s embrace of capitalism and China’s bizarre combination of Marxist-Leninist government and free market initiatives will create a future where one-fourth of the world’s markets will be controlled by these countries.  Those who advocate economic isolationism and protectionism are advocating a policy that could help China and India surpass the US in economic power in our children’s or grandchildren’s lifetime.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s plan for “Energizing American Jobs and Security” on his campaign website makes no mention of trade issues.  However, in his 2010 book Fed up!, Perry says “I see an America where the innovation and hard work of the American people creates still more opportunities, jobs, and wealth. I see a nation that is not cowering to the prospect of a united Europe or an ever-growing China and India, but rather welcomes those markets and many others as opportunities for the entrepreneurial and industrious spirit of the American people. I see a world where free trade opens up more doors and where people embrace trade’s benefit to both America and the rest of the world.”

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann pledges to cut spending and the size of government, reduce taxes, and repeal onerous legislation, such as ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank Act.  The first of the 11 points of her “American Jobs, Right Now” blueprint is to repatriate the foreign earnings of American corporations to create immediate jobs, but the other ten points make no mention of trade issues.  However, she voted for the Peru FTA in 2007, her first year in the House, and she backed the Korea, Colombia and Panama FTAs this year.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum pledges to negotiate five Free Trade Agreements and submit them to Congress in the first year of his presidency.  During his tenure in Congress, Santorum voted for Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and all of the free trade agreements of the George W. Bush era including CAFTA, Chile, Oman and Singapore.  All of these votes resulted in Senator Santorum compiling a perfect 100% rating from the CATO Institute, the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, one of the Koch brothers that own the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is another candidate whose economic planks are standard Republican positions.  To understand Paul’s views it is best to look at his quotes and votes. During his two stints in Congress, Paul voted against NAFTA and free trade agreements with Australia, CAFTA, Chile, Peru and Singapore.  In addition, Paul voted to withdraw from the WTO and to not renew the “fast track” authority for the president to negotiate FTAs because he feels it cedes power from Congress to the executive branch.

In his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul explained his opposition to FTAs as threats to American sovereignty, saying “I opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, both of which were heavily favored by the political establishment.  Many supporters of the free trade market supported these agreements. Nearly six decades ago when the International Trade Organization was up for debate, conservatives and libertarians agreed that supranational trade bureaucracies with the power to infringe upon American sovereignty were undesirable.”

Jon Huntsman is selling himself as an unabashed free trader. The former Utah governor boasts of leading trade missions overseas that helped grow his state’s exports, and he touts his appointment as deputy U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush as giving him experience in helping to negotiate trade agreements across the globe. Like Romney, Huntsman would push for completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and he would initiate FTAs with Japan, India, Taiwan and other nations. Huntsman also supports the Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations.

In contrast, Buddy Roemer has taken a hard line against Free Trade Agreements and China. In a September 1, 2011 speech in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, the former Louisiana congressman and governor unveiled his jobs plan where he slammed open trade with China as the “biggest disaster for the American economy.”  He claims to be “the only presidential candidate who is speaking the truth about global free trade.”   To level the playing field on trade, Roemer called for an elimination of the foreign tax credit for taxes paid to a foreign country.   In addition, he proposed the elimination of tax deductions for business expenses and costs of goods sold for companies that buy goods or services outside the United States.  Only businesses that employ American workers and buy American products would be allowed these tax deductions.  He also called for importers to pay the government an adjustment fee “equal to the unfair advantage they gain from importing goods from foreign countries to the United States.”

It’s a shame that the Republican candidate with the best position on trade has garnered less than 1% support in the polls so that he isn’t being included in the debates with the other Republican candidates.  This is the same position that Congressman Duncan Hunter occupied in the 2008 election when he was the only candidate on the right side of the trade issue and supported American manufacturing.  He wasn’t included in the 2008 debates so millions of people missed out on hearing his message.

When are Americans going to wake up to what is really causing the lack of jobs in the United States?  The real culprits are free trade agreements with Mexico, China, and other countries, as well as the outsourcing of manufacturing offshore..  They have led to the loss of nearly six million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.   Since manufacturing jobs create an average of three to four other jobs, we’ve really lost 18 to 24 million jobs.  We need to review our unilateral free trade agreements with China and other countries that only seem to benefit other countries at the cost of jobs and even whole industries in the United States.  We need to let all the candidates for president know that we don’t want any more free trade agreements.  We need to let them know that we want them to support the American manufacturing industry and stop giving our wealth and jobs to foreign countries.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Trends that are Changing the Future

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

A trend is a pattern of gradual change in a condition, output, or process that moves in a certain direction over time.  There are many trends that have occurred this year, but some are changing the way we work and conduct business.   We will take a look at just a few of them that are beginning to have an impact and could dramatically impact our lies if they continue in the future.

Biomimicry:  Humans have always looked to nature for inspiration to solve problems. One of the early examples of biomimicry was the study of birds to enable human flight.  The Wright Brothers, who created and flew the first airplane in 1903, derived inspiration for their airplane from observations of pigeons in flight.

The term biomimicry was popularized by scientist and author Janine Benyus in her 1997 book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Biomimicry is defined in her book as a “new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems”.  Today, biomimicry is changing the way we research, invent, design, develop, and manufacture products.

The San Diego Zoo started its biomimicry programs in 2007, and the Zoological Society of San Diego recently partnered with Point Loma Nazarene University on an economic impact report looking into the feasibility of bringing another spoke into the region’s burgeoning green economy.  The report titled Biomimicry: An Economic Game Changer and estimated that biomimicry would have a $300 billion annual impact on the US economy, plus add an additional $50 billion in environmental remediation.

“The completed report articulates a compelling case for making the San Diego region a global biomimicry hub,” said Randy M. Ataide, executive director of the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University.  “Biomimicry could represent a revolutionary change in our economy by transforming many of the ways we think about designing, producing, transporting and distributing goods and services.”

An informal alliance to transform an esoteric concept into what they hope is the beginning of a future industry cluster has formed the Biomimicry Bridge (Business, Research, Innovation, Development, Governance and Education).  A memorandum of understanding to facilitate growth of the Bridge organization has been in place since 2008 between the San Diego Zoo, the City of San Diego, CONNECT, UC San Diego, San Diego State University, Point Loma Nazarene University, and the University of San Diego.

“The key to biomimicry is the value we place on natural systems and species,” said Paula Brock, chief financial officer for the San Diego Zoo. “Biomimicry offers an opportunity to bring successful economics together with conservation. We hope this study will inspire new companies and entrepreneurs to focus upon the development of this field.”

A key finding of the report is that biomimicry holds the potential to attract sizable capital inflows, driven by the prospects of rapid growth and high rates of return, and that venture capital potentially could flow into the field at a pace at least equal to that of biotech, estimated to be about $4.5 billion in the U.S. in 2010.

The San Diego Zoo and San Diego Zoo Safari Park house nearly 8,000 animals representing 840 species, and the San Diego Zoo’s accredited botanical garden has close to 40,000 species.  Allison Alberts, chief conservation and research officer for the San Diego Zoo, said “We are poised to offer the opportunity to be a living laboratory in helping biomimicry-based businesses grow.”  She added that the inspiration that comes from studying animals and plants could also be a revenue generator for the zoo. The study determined that the zoo is the only facilities-based provider of biomimicry services in the world and a natural to drive research and commercial applications.

A range of businesses in the region already are incorporating aspects of biomimicry in the design of products or ones they have on the drawing boards, said Ruprecht von Buttlar, director of finance and commercialization programs at CONECT, which serves as a networking group for investors, entrepreneurs and high-tech and life sciences professionals.

The San Diego Zoo’s Biomimicry website features a page on the latest news, research, and development of biomimetic products, a few of which are:

GreenShield: An environmentally friendly stain-resistant fabric finish inspired by lotus leaves:

Mirasol®, a display innovation by Qualcomm, mimics the microstructure of a butterfly’s wing to generate color without pigment in their handheld display technologies:

Biomatrica has developed DNA and RNA preservation technology based on the process in nature called anhydrobiosis:

Columbia Forest Products developed PureBond by manipulating soy proteins to behave like mussel byssal threads. Is the only urea-formeldehyde (carcinogen) free plywood glue on the market:

Cloud Computing: Cloud computing has become one of the hottest buzzwords in technology and  its birth as a term can be traced “to 2006, when large companies such as Google and Amazon began using ‘cloud computing’ to describe the new paradigm in which people are increasingly accessing software, computer power, and files over the Web instead of on their desktops.  It is an expansion of what has been known as software as a service (SaaS) in which cloud computing providers deliver applications via the internet that are accessed from web browsers and desktop and mobile apps, while the business software and data are stored on servers at a remote location.

This type of data center environment allows companies to get their applications up and running faster, with easier manageability and less maintenance, and enables IT to more rapidly adjust IT resources (such as servers, storage, and networking) to meet fluctuating and unpredictable business demand.

Cloud computing is all the rage. “It’s become the phrase du jour,” says Gartner senior analyst Ben Pring, echoing many of his peers. The problem is that (as with Web 2.0) everyone seems to have a different definition.

On the Hyland blog, Glenn Gibson offers a simpler definition:  “The Cloud” is a term used to describe a wide range of technologies, which are accessible through high-speed connections to the internet and private networks.

Cloud computing is at an early stage, with a growing number of providers large and small delivering a variety of cloud-based services, from full-blown applications to storage services to spam filtering.  Today, for the most part, IT must plug into cloud-based services individually, but cloud computing aggregators and integrators are already emerging.

Cloud computing is a long-running trend with a far-out horizon.  This year, TechAmerica San Diego added the new category of SaaS/Cloud for the first time at the 2011 High Tech Awards held on October 28th.    Four companies were finalists, and the winner, ServiceNow develops and delivers a comprehensive suite of cloud-based services for enterprise IT management. For a single low subscription price, ServiceNow customers have access to nearly 20 native applications built on a common, extensible platform. ServiceNow supports all common ITIL processes including incident, problem, change, request fulfillment, service level management and others.  The three other finalists were:  Kyriba, Syntricity Inc., and The Active Network.

Cloud computing is also changing the way manufacturing companies can become ISO Certified at a price affordable for companies as small as less than 25 employees and under $1.5 million in sales.   ION Quality Systems provides an innovative Quality Management System designed to revolutionize businesses. Their customizable management tools, experience, and exemplary customer service make them a partner in quality assurance. They can prepare you to get your AS9100, ISO 9001:2008 or other certification more efficiently, economically, and effectively than a traditional quality system in as little as 90 days.

However, there are concerns about the cyber security of cloud computing, and the June issue of National Defense magazine featured an article on “Cloud Computing Trend Sparks Compliance Concerns.”   Because the Obama administration has focused on cloud computing for future information technology needs, there is concern that “data stored in the cloud must always be accessible from any location, thereby increasing hacker vulnerability and the need ? without degrading fast encryption and decryption ? for robust measures to deflect security breaches.” This same cyber security concern was the focus of a symposium on “CLOUD.GOV?

The Promise, Limits, and Reality” held by the San Diego chapter of the National Defense Industry Association on October 11-13, 2011.

Social Media:  Social networking is not new; social networks have been around for far longer than people have been online. Everyone has belonged to social networks, and they still participate in social networks whether they know it or not.  What is new is social media that provides online social networking.  In addition to the more popular, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, there are Foursquare, Yelp, Groupon, and Living Social.   The BLÜ Group – Advertising & Marketing has published a free social media guide to help businesses of all sizes, particularly small and mid-sized businesses, connect with customers and potential customers, stay engaged with them, and ultimately grow their bottom line.

LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter:  Most of us have been adding to our social media network to expand business opportunities, express opinions, and keep connected with people who change from one job to another.  Now, it is literally changing the way people conduct business, and view customers’ opinions and product ideas.  .

In the September 2011 issue of Industry Week, the article “Fueling Auto R&D with Social Media,” reported that Kia Motors Corporation  “decided to modify the seat design for their 2012 Optima as a result of a groundswell of complaints from consumers and automotive writers percolating on the Internet.”  Kia uses business intelligence software to monitor online comments about it vehicles and determined that it was bigger problem than they realized and needed to be fixed before the next major change in the model in a few years.

Ford also pays close attention to what people say about its products on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, and elsewhere on the internet.  Nissan Motor Company is also trying to grow it fan base on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to leverage the maximum impact when it launches new models.  Nissan is also using social media as a research tool.  In August 2011, Nissan invited its more than 300,000 Facebook fans to suggest names for a new optional interior package for the Nissan Cube.  Eric Marx of Nissan said using social media to make ”real business decisions it absolutely the future. “  A cottage industry is emerging to aggregate the vast amount of online comments into actionable data.  Nielsen Online’s BuzzMetrics software promises to deliver consumer insights and real-time market intelligence, and WiseWindow’s MOBI (Mass Opinion Business Intelligence) software to predict consumer purchasing intent and behavior.

According to one of my friends that owns a staffing agency, LinkedIn is actually changing the way people seek and are being recruited for jobs.  Having a good LinkedIn profile can mean the difference between being hired or not.

Recruiters are searching the LinkedIn database to find candidates for specific positions.  They can use the free, “Advanced People Search” function available to all LinkedIn members. They can search members and activities within specific LinkedIn groups, and many others are using a paid service called LinkedIn Recruiter that provides significantly more search functionality.

In addition, similar to the way job seekers sign up for “job alerts” to get notified via email whenever a new job gets posted that meets a certain set of criteria, recruiters can also sign up for candidate alerts to notify them of new candidates who fit their requirements.

Unemployed people and those seeking better jobs need to learn how to optimize their LinkedIn profile to align with this process of job search and recruiting.  According to Marci Reynolds, CEO of J2B Marketing, a “Job Seeker 2 Business,”™ there are many things a job seeker can do to optimize their profile to help ensure that they “show up in the appropriate search results, show up higher than other candidates (LinkedIn SEO), and stand out among the search results. Some of her tips are:

  • Your profile should be 100% “complete,” per LinkedIn standards
  • Include a detailed work history, with clear job titles and well written job descriptions that describe both your responsibilities and your key accomplishments
  • Make sure your “industry” selection is tied to the job you want, not the job you had.
  • Make sure you have some recommendations from your connections
  • Use a professional, flattering profile photo that looks like you already have the role you’re seeking
  • Use a headline to effectively market your skills and abilities. Your LinkedIn headline is like your personal tagline

Klout: If you’re new to Twitter and haven’t heard of Klout, you will soon. Klout is the gold standard for measuring your influence on Twitter.  Klout uses several measurements to come up with a Klout Score for each and every Twitter user.

The Klout Score measures influence based on your ability to drive action. Every time you create content or engage you influence others. The Klout Score uses data from social networks in order to measure:

  • True Reach: the number of people you influence. When you post a message, these people tend to respond or share it.
  • Amplification: how much you influence people. When you post a message, how many people respond to it or spread it further? If people often act upon your content you have a high Amplification score.
  • Network Impact: the influence of the people in your True Reach. How often do top Influencers share and respond to your content? When they do so, they are increasing your Network score.

Klout assigns a number between 0 and 100 to represent how influential you are on Twitter.  This number may seem arbitrary, but it’s important for several reasons.

Firstly, Klout is a much better measurement of how “well” you’re doing on Twitter than your follower count. Not all followers may really be interested in what you have to say, so using this to measure your Twitter success is not a great strategy.  Klout uses a robust suite of different measurements – which includes engaged follower count – to come to one single Klout Score.

Secondly, Klout is important because it’s the standard measurement for influence in social media, and knowing your Klout score shows that you know a thing or two about tweeting.

Thirdly, focusing on increasing your Klout score will make you a better tweeter.  Klout emphasizes things like getting retweets and using @mentions to engage with your community. So if you change your Twitter strategy to try and increase your score, you will likely end up tweeting more frequently, replying to more users, and sharing more retweetable tweets.

There are several other contenders for influence measurement on Twitter, but Klout is the most talked-about, well-known influence measure out there, so it’s a good idea to familiarize yourself with it so you can join in the conversation.

Reshoring: Reshoring simply means returning manufacturing to America from offshore.

To help accelerate this trend, there is a new initiative with a plan to efficiently reduce our imports, increase our “net exports” and regain manufacturing jobs in a non-protectionist manner.  The Reshoring Initiative was founded by Harry Moser, retired president of GF Agie Charmilles LLC, a leading machine tool supplier in Lincolnshire, Illinois.  The Initiative shows how outsourcing within the United States can reduce a company’s Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of purchased parts and tooling and offer a host of other benefits while bringing U.S. manufacturing jobs home.

Harry Moser said, “Reshoring breaks out of the waiting-for-policy-decisions problem, the economic zero-sum-game and the increases in consumer prices and assures that the pie grows to the advantage of all Americans.  Reshoring also focuses on the manufacturing sector that has suffered so many job losses for decades and the Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that offer the best potential for job growth.”

The Initiative documents the benefits of sourcing in the United States for large manufacturers and helps suppliers convince their U.S. customers to source local.  Archstone Consulting’s 2009 survey showed that 60% of manufacturers use “rudimentary total cost models” and ignore 20% of the cost of offshoring.   If a manufacturer is not accounting for 20% of their costs to offshore, offshoring may not be the most economical decision.  In tough economic times and stiff global competition, no company can afford this.  To help companies make better sourcing decisions the Reshoring Initiative provides:

  • A free Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) software that helps manufacturers calculate the real offshoring impact on their P&L
  • Publicity to drive the reshoring trend
  • Access to NTMA/PMA Contract Manufacturing Purchasing Fairs to help manufacturers find competitive U.S. sources.

Manufacturing companies can reshore to:

  • Reduce pipeline and surge inventory impacts on Just-in-time operations
  • Improve the quality and consistency of products
  • Cluster manufacturing near R&D facilities, enhancing innovation
  • Reduce Intellectual Property and regulatory compliance risk
  • Reduce Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

The Initiative has received increasing visibility and influence: recognition by Industry Week magazine through inducting Harry Moser into its 2010 Manufacturing Hall of Fame, inclusion of the TCO concept in Cong. Wolf’s (R VA) “Bring Jobs Back to America Act” (H.R.516); numerous webinars; dozens of industry articles; presentations in major industry and government policy conferences in Chicago and Washington, DC; and coverage by CBS, CNBC, WSJ, USA Today and the Lean Nation radio show.

The Initiative is succeeding in changing OEMs’ behavior. Companies have committed to reshore after reading Initiative articles.  Fifty-seven representatives from large manufacturers and 113 custom U.S. manufacturers attended the May 12, 2011 NTMA/PMA Contract Manufacturing Purchasing Fair, where OEMs found competitive domestic suppliers to manufacture parts and tooling.  Sixty-four percent of the OEMs brought back to the U. S. at least some work that was currently offshored.

Of all the trends mentioned above, the Reshoring Initiative has the potential to provide the most benefit for America as a whole by reducing our trade deficit and providing increased job opportunities jobs for the millions of unemployed.   Let’s embrace these present trends to create a better future!

?

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, General, Reshoring | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »