Archive for the ‘General’ Category

Why John Stossel is All Wet ? “Buy American” is Smart, not Stupid

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

John Stossel’s blog article on WorldNetDaily® on November 1, 2011, “The stupidity of ‘Buy American,’ is based on a premise so fallacious that one wonders how a usually intelligent commentator like Stossel could have been taken in by it.

The premise is that “we should buy things where they’re cheapest.  That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing these things,” according to the explanation of why “Buy American” is “nonsense” by economist David Henderson of the Hoover Institution.

First of all, “buying things where they’re cheapest” isn’t always the best decision on where to spend your money ? the old adage “you get what you pay for” is more often true.  Most of the everyday items that people buy today at “big box” and other retail outlets are being manufactured in China and other countries in Asia.

What do you get for your money when you buy products that are made in China and other Asian countries?  Clothes and shoes that don’t fit or fall apart, toys that choke or strangle children, baby buggies, strollers, and cribs that maim or even kill, household items that either don’t work properly, cause fires, and explode, and tainted food.  The U. S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission’s website provides a monthly list of products that have been recalled, and month after month, more than 90% are made in China.   For example, there have been eight recalls thus far in November, and seven of the eight products were made in China.  In October, there were 21 product recalls: 12 were made in China, two were made in Taiwan, two were made in Vietnam, two were made in Mexico, and three were made in the U. S.  The products ranged from glass bowls and toys to tents, battery packs, and baby strollers.

Recently, a Senate Armed Services Committee investigation led by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) reviewed more than 100,000 pages of DOD documents and found that U.S. Department of Defense had purchased counterfeit electronic parts (defective and with “back doors”) from China in 1,800 cases, running to more than 1 million parts.

Second, buying cheap goods that are made offshore only creates American jobs if you use the money to buy American products.  If you just buy more products made “offshore,” you don’t create any new American jobs.   About the best it does is keep people who work in wholesale and retail employed.  That’s why tax rebates and refunds haven’t created the jobs that were expected.  Consumers used the extra money to pay down debt, add to savings, or bought the everyday products that are now made mostly in China.

Why does it matter where products are made and why is it smart to “Buy American?”  A  report released in April 2011 titled, “The Importance and Promise of American Manufacturing, Why It Matters if We Make It in America and Where We Stand Today,” co-authored by Michael Ettlinger and Kate Gordon of the Center for American Progress provides the answer to these questions.  The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.

The authors opine that “Manufacturing is critically important to the American economy.  For generations, the strength of our country rested on the power of our factory floors—both the machines and the men and women who worked them.  We need manufacturing to continue to be bedrock of strength for generations to come … The strength or weakness of American

In addition to maintaining our standard of living as Americans, there are several other important reasons why it’s smart to “Buy American.”  They are:

Manufacturing is critical to our national defense ? American manufacturers supply the military with the essentials needed to defend our country, including tanks, fighter jets, submarines, and other high-tech equipment. The same advances in technology that consumers take for granted support the military, particularly soldiers fighting overseas.

The U.S. cannot rely on other countries to supply its military because their interests may run counter to its own.   America cannot risk being held hostage to foreign manufacturers when it comes to products that are essential for its national security and the U.S. military. It is crucial that key components and technologies that are critical to the production of U.S. weapons and the related industrial capacity to produce such items be located within the United States.

Manufacturing supplies millions of jobs ? Manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the U.S. economy and the basis for its middle class. Manufacturing provides high-paying jobs for nearly 12 million Americans.

Manufacturing Jobs Pay Higher Wages than Service Jobs ? Manufacturing wages and benefits are approximately 25 – 50 percent higher than in non-manufacturing jobs.

In an opinion article in Industry Week magazine, John Madigan, a consultant with Madigan Associate, wrote “Jobs paying $20 per hour that historically enabled wage earners to support a middle-class standard of living are leaving the U.S… only 16% of today’s workers earn the $20-per-hour baseline wage, down 60% since 1979.   Service and transportation jobs, per se, cease to exist in the absence of wealth. Rather, they exist and thrive as by-products of middle-class incomes buying products and services.”

Manufacturing Creates Secondary Jobs ? There is a multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs that reflects linkages that run deep into the economy. For example, every 100 steel or automotive jobs create between 400 and 500 new jobs in the rest of the economy. This contrasts with the retail sector, where every 100 jobs generate 94 new jobs elsewhere, and the personal and service sectors, where 100 jobs create 147 new jobs.  It is manufacturers who hire services such as banking, finance, legal, and information technology.

Manufacturing is the Engine of American Technology Development and Innovation ? American manufacturers are responsible for more than two-thirds of all private sector R&D, which ultimately benefits other manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. More than 90 percent of new patents derive from the manufacturing sector and the closely integrated engineering and technology-intensive services.

Manufacturing R&D is conducted in a wide array of industries and businesses of all sizes. The heaviest R&D expenditures take place in computers and electronics, transportation equipment, and chemicals (primarily pharmaceuticals.)

Manufacturing is an incubator for technology and science, which require proximity to facilities where innovative ideas can be tested and worker feedback can fuel product innovation. Without this proximity, the science and technology jobs, like customer service jobs, follow the manufacturing jobs overseas.

Manufacturing Generates Exports — The United States was the world’s first-largest exporter until 1992 when Germany took over this position.   Germany remained number one until 2009 when China surpassed it to become the world’s top exporter, and the United States fell to being the third-largest exporter.  The difference between the top three was small:  Germany exported $1.17 trillion compared to the $1.057 trillion of the U. S., but China’s exports were $1.2 trillion in 2009.

Manufactured goods make up more than 60 percent of the value of U.S. exports, double the level of ten years ago. While agricultural exports amount to about $50 billion a year, manufacturers export about that much each month.  High tech products are America’s largest export sector, and the European Union was the top importer of these goods, followed by Canada, and Mexico.

Manufacturing Supports State Economies ? Manufacturing is a vital part of the economies of most states – even in those areas where manufacturing has declined as a portion of the Gross State Product (GSP). As a share of GSP, manufacturing was among the three largest private-industry sectors in all but ten states and the District of Columbia. Manufacturing is the largest sector in ten states and in the Midwest region as a whole. It is the second largest in nine states, and the third largest in 21 others.

For the past decade, manufacturing corporations paid 30 to 34 percent of all corporate tax payments for state and local taxes, social security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, import and tariff duties, environmental taxes and license taxes.  Since many small manufacturers are not incorporated and pay individual taxes as sole proprietors, the tax revenue generated by all manufacturers is impossible to calculate.

In summary, it’s smart, not stupid to “Buy American” because manufacturing is the foundation of the U.S. national economy and the foundation of the country’s large middle class. Losing the critical mass of the manufacturing base will result in larger state and federal budget deficits and a decline in U.S. living standards. This, in turn, would result in the loss of a large portion of our middle class, which depends on manufacturing jobs. America’s national defense will be in danger, and it will be difficult, if not impossible to maintain the country’s position as the world’s super power.  “Buying American” will help ensure that American manufacturing survives and grows in the global economy.

What Can I do to “save” American Manufacturing?

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

You may feel that there is nothing you can do as an individual to stop the total destruction of American manufacturing and watch the United States go over the precipice. Don’t think this way!   American activist and author, Sonia Johnson said, “We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.” Eleanor Roosevelt echoed this sentiment saying, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Remember that our country was founded by a small group of people that did indeed change the world by forming the United States of America.

Here are suggestions of what each one of us can do:

As a Consumer:  It matters if we buy American-made products.  First, our addiction to imports has helped create our high trade deficit, especially with China, where most of the consumer goods we import are manufactured.  Second, American-made products create American jobs.  Each time you choose to buy an American-made product, you help save or create an American job.

Look at the country of origin labels of goods when you go shopping. Most imported goods are required to have these labels.  Buy the “Made in U.S.A.” even if it costs more than the imported product. It is a small sacrifice to make to insure the well being of your fellow Americans. The price difference you pay for “Made in USA” products keeps other Americans working.

If the product you are looking for is no longer made in America, then avoid countries such as China, who have nuclear warheads aimed at American cities. It would not be an exaggeration to say that American consumers have paid for the bulk of China’s military buildup. American service men and women could one day face weapons mostly paid for by American consumers. Instead, patronize impoverished countries such as Bangladesh or Nicaragua, which have no military ambitions against the United States.

In addition, you will be reducing your “carbon footprint” by buying a product made in America instead of a product that is made offshore that will use a great deal of fossil fuel just to ship it to the United States.

If you have a “Made in USA” appliance that needs repair and all the new ones are imported, have it repaired. If it can’t be fixed, and it is a small appliance that you can live without, then don’t buy a new one.

We Americans buy many things that we really don’t need just because they are so cheap. If a product that you are considering purchasing is an import, ask yourself, “Do I really need this?” If you don’t need it, then don’t buy it.

If you are willing to step out of your comfort zone, you could ask to speak to the department or store manager of your favorite store. You could tell the person that you have been a regular customer for x amount of time, but if they want to keep you as a customer, they need to start carrying some (or more) “Made in USA.” products.  If you buy products on line or from catalogs, you could contact these companies via email with a similar message. Your communicating with a company does have an effect because the rule of thumb in sales and marketing is that one reported customer complaint equals 100 unreported complaints.

If you think that Americans no longer care about where goods are made or have concerns about the safety of foreign products, you may be surprised to learn that poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans prefer to buy American.

A nationwide poll conducted by Sacred Heart University in September 2007 found the following:

  • 68.6 percent of Americans check labels for information like manufacturer, nation of origin and ingredients
  • 86.3 percent of Americans would like to block Chinese imports until they raise their product and food safety standards to meet U.S. levels.3

Buying American has been made even easier by a book by Roger Simmermaker – “How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism” released in March 2008 and updated in 2010.  According to Simmermaker, “buying American” is not just about buying “Made in USA.”  “Buying American, in the purest sense of the term, means we would buy an American-made product, made by an American-owned company, with as high a domestic parts content within that product as possible . . . ‘American-made’ is good. ‘Buying American’ is much better!”

One of our greatest statesmen, Thomas Jefferson, stated, “I have come to a resolution myself, as I hope every good citizen will, never again to purchase any article of foreign manufacture which can be had of American make, be the difference of price what it may.”

Simmermaker has made it easy by listing companies and their nation of ownership. You can see his list of American-owned companies at his website: www.howtobuyamerican.com However, Simmermaker’s website isn’t the only one available. You can also check many other websites, found simply by “Googling” “buy American.” These include:

www.buyamericanmart.com

www.ionlybuyamerican.com

www.madeinusa.org

www.americansworking.com

www.shopunionmade.org

www.MadeInUSAForever.com

www.stillmadeinUSA.com

There are also brick and mortar stores springing up around the country that are either stocking only “made in America” products, such as the American Apparel stores or primarily “made in America” products, such as the Urban Outfitters stores.

As American consumers, you have many choices to live safely and enjoy more peace of mind with American products. It’s high time to stop sending our American dollars to China while they send us all of their tainted, hazardous, and disposable products. If 200 million Americans refuse to buy just $20 each of Chinese goods, that’s a four billion dollar trade imbalance resolved in our favor – fast!

As a Voter:  There’s only one way for manufacturers to find relief from high taxes, burdensome regulations, and unfair trade laws and that’s through Washington, D.C.  Voter apathy is partially responsible for the state of our affairs as a country. Too many people have decided that there is nothing we can do on an individual basis and have even stopped voting.

Americans have been “sold down the river” by politicians on both sides of the aisle – Democrats and Republicans. Democrats profess to support “blue collar workers” and unions, yet NAFTA and the WTO treaties were approved and went into effect under the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. Republicans profess to support business, yet they primarily support large, multinational corporations, rather than the small businesses that are the engine of economic growth in the U.S. and the foundation of the middle class.

In his 2008 book, “Where Have all the Leaders Gone” Lee Iacocca said, “Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind. The most famous business leaders aren’t the innovators, but the guys in handcuffs. And, don’t tell me it’s all the fault of right wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That’s an intellectually lazy argument and it’s part of the reason that we’re in this stew. We’re not just a nation of factions. We’re a people and we rise and fall together.  We didn’t elect you to sit on your butts and do nothing and remain silent while our country is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.  What is everybody so afraid of?  Why don’t you guys in Congress show some spine for a change?”

In a poll asking Americans if they’ve ever contacted their elected representatives, eight out of ten said that they never had. It’s never been easier to contact members of Congress. All you have to do is click on www.house.gov or www.senate.gov and type in your zip code, and you’re automatically directed to your representative. A window automatically pops up where you can type a message to that representative.  It takes less than two minutes, on average.  Well, we now need to let our elected representatives know how we feel about the bad trade laws, bad tax laws, and over burdensome regulations on manufacturers. It’s time to shed apathy, become involved, and vote.

If people whose lives are affected by manufacturing would contact their legislators and tell them they want trade reform and tax reform and would follow up to watch to see how they voted, the results would be amazingly effective.

We cannot afford to export our wealth and be able to remain a first-world country. We cannot lose our manufacturing base and be able to remain a “superpower.” In fact, we may not be able to maintain our freedom as a country because it takes considerable wealth to protect our freedom. You can play a role as an individual in saving our country ? the company you save or the job you save by your actions may be your own.

How Can We Attract Youth to Manufacturing Careers?

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

If we want to attract today’s youth to manufacturing careers, we need to change their perceptions about what the manufacturing industry is like and show them what great career opportunities exist in the industry.  If more people would watch TV programs such as “How it’s Made” and “Made in America,” they would soon realize that manufacturing has changed for the better – it’s cleaner and high tech compared to what it was a generation or two ago.

In a blog article, Derek Singleton, ERP Analyst for Software Advice, wrote, “This means reacquainting youth with the process of designing and building products from an early age – and then providing the creative freedom to build those things on their terms.”  He shared two examples from industry and suggested a third:

  1. Manufacturing summer camps – A recent New York Times article highlighted an innovative summer camp, called Gadget Camp, where teenagers learn how to build things from concept to creation. Attendees are required to design a product through computer-aided design (CAD) technology and oversee the design to completion.
  2. Gamification of manufacturing – Gamification is a hot topic in many aspects of business at the moment – one driven by the idea that adding gaming elements to non-gaming activities encourages action and participation. It’s a movement that seeks to capitalize on our youth’s obsession with video games as well as our competitive nature. According to Diana Miller and Simon Jacobson’s recent Gartner First Thing Monday Morning newsletter, Invensys has been using 3D gaming technology to teach new hires how to operate oil refinery equipment for the past few years. In the same vein, Siemens recently released Plantville, a program designed to teach manufacturing processes and technologies to young people and new hires.
  3. Restore shop classes to our high schools – The elimination of these courses from our school systems has inevitably had a negative impact on the way we view making a living with our hands. We can all learn from building something with our hands because it teaches us a different way to think. And more importantly, hands-on learning through shop classes helps young people move an idea from concept to creation – which is useful regardless of one’s future occupation.  (quoted with permission)

The good news is that more than one non-profit organization has recognized the need to introduce the opportunities of engineering and manufacturing careers to middle school age youth because by high school, students may already be on a different career track.  The benefits of summer camps for middle school youth is why the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International (FMA) sponsored the Gadget Camp mentioned above.  FMA sponsors the Nuts, Bolts and Thingamajigs Foundation (NBT) whose mission is to nurture the tinkering spirit.

NBT and the National Association for Community College Entrepreneurship (NACCE) have partnered together to launch a unique summer camp program that combines elements of manufacturing and entrepreneurship—how things are made and how businesses develop. The summer camp will eventually develop into a national program with as many as 300 locations across the United States.

FMA also offers grants for manufacturing summer camps at numerous locations across the country.  Each camp is aimed at changing the image of manufacturing for youths. Through partnerships with nonprofit organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, FMA provides guidelines on the basic structure of how a camp should be conducted.  The organizations then use their community resources to develop the camps based on local manufacturing needs.

The camps provide a positive hands-on experience so young people will consider manufacturing as a career option. They target youths at the critical level of early secondary education, exposing them to math, science and engineering principles, and giving them opportunities to see the technology being used in industry and the high level of skills that will be required from the workforce.

Campers design and build a product experiencing the start to finish satisfaction of creating something they can show off with pride. Throughout the process, they learn how to do CAD design and operate various kinds of manufacturing machinery under the close supervision of expert manufacturing trainers.

They also tour local manufacturing facilities learning what kinds of jobs exist, what skills and training are required, and how those businesses developed. They have the opportunity to hear directly from local manufacturing company owners how they started their businesses, applying basic entrepreneurship principles to understand how a single product idea becomes a business.

Another non-profit organization with similar goals is Project Lead The Way® (PLTW).  The list of PLTW sponsors includes such companies as:  BAE Systems, Biogen Idec, Boeing, Caterpillar, Chevron, General Atomics, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Qualcomm, Solar Turbines.  Non-profit sponsors include the Girard Foundation, the McCarthy Foundation, and TechAmerica (formerly AeA).

PLTW has been working since 1997 to promote pre-engineering courses for middle and high school students. PLTW forms partnerships with public schools, higher education institutions, and the private sector to increase the quantity and quality of engineers and engineering technologists graduating from our educational system.  The PLTW curriculum was first introduced to 12 New York State high schools in the 1997-98 school years. A year later, PLTW field-tested its four unit Middle School Program in three middle schools. Today, the programs are offered in over 1,300 schools in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

The Society of Manufacturing Engineers Education Foundation is one of the major funders of Project Lead the Way® and sponsors a  week long day camp for 6th – 8th graders, called Gateway Academy, which is a project based, hands-on curriculum designed by PLTW to introduce middle school students to the fundamentals of science, technology, engineering and math.  Campers work together in a fun, exciting environment using leading-edge technologies to sample such disciplines as robotics, aeronautics and eco-design.  They brainstorm ideas, solve problems and build bridges, race cars and other working models. Participation in a Gateway Academy prepares students for the middle school Gateway to Technology pre-engineering curriculum.  The PLTW Middle School program is called Gateway To Technology, consisting of nine-week, stand-alone units, which can be implemented in grades six through eight, as determined by each school. The curriculum exposes students to a broad overview of the field of technology.  The units are:

  • Design and Modeling
  • The Magic of Electrons
  • The Science of Technology
  • Automation and Robotics
  • Flight and Space

SME also sponsors the ”Manufacturing is Cool” award winning, interactive website, which challenges and engages students in basic engineering and science principles and provides interesting and useful educational resources for teachers.  This fun and information rich website was recently “re-engineered” (updated) and marketed around the country.  SME has received positive feedback from teachers, parents, and students about its usefulness.  This website is a good start towards fulfilling the “Gamification of manufacturing” mentioned by Mr. Singleton.

There is also good news with regard to Mr. Singleton’s suggestion of restoring shop classes to schools.  States are starting to add shop classes back into the curriculum.  During his terms as California’s governor from 2003-2010, Arnold Schwarzenegger identified workforce skills, referred to as Career Technical Education (CTE), as a priority for California.  The passage of the education bond in 2006 provided $500 million for CTE initially, and subsequent budgets have continued to fund the program.  The State plan was approved by the California State Board of Education on March 12, 2008 and approved by the U.S. Department of Education on July 1, 2008.  The CTE is delivered primarily through K-12/adult education programs and community college programs.  The Career Technical Education includes the following:

K-12/Adult Programs:

  • Elementary school awareness and middle school introductory CTE programs
  • High school CTE, offered through 1,165 high schools in single courses, in course sequences or through over 300 integrated “learning communities”
  • ROCPs offering career pathways and programs through 74 ROCPs
  • Adult education offered through 361 adult schools and over 1,000 sites
  • Apprenticeship offered through over 200 apprenticeship program and adult schools

Community College

  • Occupational programs offered at all 109 colleges, leading to certificates, associate degrees, and transfer to four-year universities
  • Noncredit instruction for short-term CTE programs offered by 58 colleges
  • Apprenticeship offering over 160 apprenticeship programs at 39 colleges
  • Middle College High Schools (13) and Early College High Schools (19)
  • Tech Prep programs delivered through 80 Tech Prep “consortia,” comprising 109 colleges and their feeder high schools
  • Economic and Workforce Development Program activities implemented through 115 “regional delivery centers” and 10 initiatives in emerging industries
  • Contract education provided to organizations for their employees

This is a good start, but we have a long way to go if we want to have enough skilled workers to replace the “baby boomers” as they retire over the next 20 years.  Perhaps when more young people have exposure to the various career opportunities in manufacturing and realize that manufacturing careers pay 25-50 percent higher than non-manufacturing jobs, they will choose to be part of modern manufacturing.

What’s Being Done to Address the Lack of Skilled Workers?

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

For the past 15 years, manufacturing companies have been focused on training existing employees in the tools and methodologies of lean manufacturing and Six Sigma in order to improve efficiency, productivity, quality, and customer service to be more competitive in the global economy. However, this training doesn’t address the lack of workers trained in the specific skills needed for today’s advanced and higher tech manufacturing.

Mark Tomlinson, CEO of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, sees the skilled worker shortage as an iceberg looming on an uneasy sea.  “We’re just approaching it; we haven’t hit it yet but we know it’s there,” he says. “People are starting to see it. They just don’t know how to deal with it…Now there is an increased need to fill manufacturing jobs associated with aerospace, energy, medical device manufacturing and aspects of transportation,” Tomlinson says.

At the imX event in Las Vegas that I attended September 12-14, 2011, I interviewed Experience Partner companies that are very involved in workforce development and training.  Mark Logan, V. P. Business Development & Marketing, Mag IAS, LLC said that MAG has a very comprehensive training program.  MAG America restarted its apprenticeship program in 2005 in partnership with local community colleges. Students in the program work full-time at MAG while taking college classes, working toward an associate’s degree. MAG invests approximately $200,000, including tuition, salary and benefits, for each apprentice earning a degree. This program gained national attention in an NBC Nightly News report “America at the Crossroads.”

Other internal programs include Future Leaders and the Accelerated Leadership Program (ALP), which are designed to fill the pipeline at the company’s management and executive levels.  Future Leaders participate in a one-year program combining classroom training with developmental assignments and mentoring from senior managers.  Accelerated Leadership candidates are employees who have the potential to assume executive-level positions within MAG, and the program provides a series of high-impact job assignments coupled with advanced educational opportunities.  The company also has co-operative education programs with a number of well-known regional and national engineering schools.  MAG IAS joins manufacturing leaders Boeing, Caterpillar, United Technologies and others as the newest partner in MIT’s prestigious Leaders for Global Operations (LGO) dual-degree graduate program that equips students with master’s degrees in engineering and management.

Another Experience Partner, Sandvik Coromant, provides training for their employees in collaboration with technical schools and colleges in addition to performing internal training utilizing curriculum they have developed, according to Robert Page, Productivity Center and Training Manager.  They also provide training for their customers at Smart events in metal cutting technology ranging from the basics of terms and definitions to specialized metal cutting of “hard” parts in super alloys.

Another imX Experience Partner was Fanuc FA America, one of the world’s leading factory automation companies.  Fanuc has developed simulator software, which is ideal for training.  Mark Brownhill, Program Manager, Machine Tool Distributor/Education, said, “We offer regular training programs for end-users as well as machine tool builders, agents or distributors. The training combines practical lectures with hands-on lab exercises to ensure that you get the value-added skills needed.  Our NCGuide simulates the CNC operator environment featuring, by selection, ISO programming or Fanuc Job Shop Programming Software while our NCGuidePro provides development tools as used by machine builders and OEMs.  Both these products run on standard PC equipment with no need for additional hardware.”  Fanuc also has two training centers, one near Chicago and one that just opened in Cypress, California.

Since its founding in 1932, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) has provided lifelong-learning programs, certification and skills assessment, technical resources, publications and industry expertise through its members.  SME has several certification programs in specialized fields that are used by both industry and academia to develop today’s and tomorrow’s workforce, such as Certified Manufacturing Technologist, Certified Manufacturing Engineer, Lean Certification, and Green Manufacturing Specialist.

In 2010, SME acquired Tooling University LLC (Tooling U) based in Cleveland, Ohio. Tooling U provides online training to more than 1,200 manufacturing companies and 400 educational institutions.  With more than 400 unique titles, Tooling U offers a full range of content to train machine operators, welders, assemblers, inspectors, and maintenance professionals. Tooling U online classes help to round out SME’s current offering of instructor led training, certifications, webinars, books and videos.

A free Workforce 2021 Readiness Assessment was introduced at the Tooling U booth at the imX event.  This customized and targeted workforce assessment program gives manufacturers the opportunity to assess their own capabilities in the face of challenges they will need to solve before they are confronted with the severe skilled workforce shortages predicted by 2021.  The first component of the assessment requires companies to answer questions about how they are preparing to meet the needs of the 2021 workforce.  Tooling U and SME professional development experts were available to explain solutions for readiness deficiencies identified in the assessments.

After the imX event, I interviewed two of Tooling U’s clients.  One client is Midmark Corporation, which brings efficient patient care to millions of people each day in the human and animal healthcare industries around the world. Midmark is committed to providing innovative products and services for the medical, dental and veterinary healthcare equipment industry. Headquartered in Versailles, Ohio, Midmark Corporation maintains four subsidiaries in the United States and has over 1,100 employees worldwide.

Casey Webster, Human Resources Manager, said, “We are experiencing a shortage of skilled machinists.  So far this year, Midmark has hired 7 machinists from the outside.  Finding this talent was a major struggle.  We tried several different recruiting tactics such as advertising in the newspaper, online, offering referral bonuses, radio ads, and professional recruiting services.”  She said, “We chose Tooling U because it was recommended to us by Edison Community College.  After doing some research and course trials, we decided to partner with Tooling U.  The kind of training courses we are utilizing includes 45 online modules and five labs.  It was important that we implement a program that allowed teammates to confirm their learned knowledge.  Once a teammate completes a set of online modules, he attends an eight-hour, hands-on lab at Edison Community College.  Classes range from mathematics, blueprint reading, cutting, lathe, mill, turning, and CNC.   The Tooling U training program has benefited our company by:

1.      Providing development opportunities to current teammates wanting to become machinists

2.      Reducing training time

3.      Verification program that a teammate has the skills to be successful in a machining role

Kellogg Community College, located in Battle Creek, MI, is the other client I interviewed.  Chris Walden, Interim Director, Workforce Services, said, “Manufacturers are coming to us as part of the ‘Michigan Works’ program.  We purchased full-year subscriptions to ToolingU courses in machining and welding because they are the perfect supplement for lab and class work.  The ToolingU courses are a cost-efficient and beneficial tool and have saved taxpayers thousands of dollars by our not having to develop our own curriculum.  The courses are translatable to both certificate programs and associate degrees.”  He added that the current president of the college, Dr. Dennis Bona, started out as a welder in private industry, and then became a part-time welding instructor before going on to higher education so he is very supportive of workforce training programs.

Another trade organization that also provides workforce training is The Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International (FMA).  The FMA champions the success of the metal processing, forming, and fabricating industry.  FMA educates the industry through the following programs:

FabCast – FMA’s webinar platform to deliver live, interactive technical education programs directly to shops on such topics as laser cutting, roll forming, metal stamping, etc.  Companies can train their whole team at once, even from multiple locations.   Companies can break up full days of instruction into modules and spread out over a period of time. (i.e. two hours four days a week, four hours once a week for a month).

Precision Sheet Metal Operator (PSMO) Certification – FMA’s PSMO Certification is the metal fabricating industry’s only comprehensive exam designed to assess a candidate’s knowledge of fundamental precision sheet metal operations.

On-site – Live training conducted at a company on their equipment. Rather than releasing a limited number of staff to attend an off-site training program, it can be more cost effective to bring the expert into a facility to work with all team members engaged in a particular process.  Training can be offered modularly and when needed (first, second, third shifts or weekends).

FMA’s e-Fab – online training that allows a company to get the training they need, when they need it.  E-Fab courses combine a full day’s worth of instruction by FMA’s leading subject matter experts with the flexibility of online delivery. The training is available 24/7, 365 days a year.

Educating current and future manufacturing workers is critical for the health and growth of the manufacturing industry, and the training programs provided by SME and FMA will aid in addressing the lack of skilled workers.

Why is there a lack of skilled workers with such high unemployment?

Tuesday, October 4th, 2011

The national unemployment rate has ranged between 9 to 10 percent for nearly three years, representing 14-15 million workers and another 8-9 million workers that are considered underemployed.   The unemployment rate for the manufacturing industry jumped from 8.3 percent in December 2008 to a high of 13.0 percent in January 2010, but has ranged from a high of 9.9 percent in January 2011 to a low of 8.9 percent in August.

We have lost more than 5.5 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade, and over 57,000 manufacturing companies have gone out of business.  Aren’t there enough workers who lost jobs to fill the needs of companies that have survived and are now experiencing the recovery of the manufacturing industry?   With over 20 million many unemployed or underemployed workers, why is there a lack of skilled workers?

The main reasons for the lack of workers with the specific skills needed by today’s higher technology manufacturers are:

  • Unemployed workers mainly come from industries that have been decimated by offshoring
  • Fewer people choosing manufacturing as a career choice because of poor image
  • Attrition from retirement that is getting worse as baby boomers start to retire

First of all, a large percentage of the people who lost their jobs came out of industries that have been decimated by the offshoring of manufacturing – textiles, furniture, tires, sporting goods, and the garment industry just to name a few.  For example, the garment district in New York City has virtually disappeared, and now there is only one company left that makes gloves ? LaCrasia Gloves.

An added blow was the decimation of the automobile and auto parts industry during the Great Recession when North American auto production dropped from an average of 14-15 million vehicles per year down to below 10 million vehicles in 2008.

Most of these industries were dominated by large manufacturers employing hundreds to thousands of workers in plants located in the northeast, Midwest, and south.  They either worked on assembly lines or utilized specific skills suited to their industries.  In some cases, a textile plant, furniture plant, or automotive plant was the only large employer in the town.  When the plant closed, workers either had to take whatever other job they could find or relocate to another area.  If they were over the age of 55, they were fortunate to find a job at all.  In most cases, these workers didn’t have the specific skills needed in high-tech manufacturing industries.

When the manufacturing industry seems to be in a nationwide downward spiral, workers don’t even know where to relocate to find other types of manufacturing jobs.  And, if their spouse still has a good job, there is no incentive to move to where there might be an opportunity for another manufacturing job.  For example, I’m sure that only residents in the region are aware that German industrial corporation AG Siemens has a new plant in Charlotte, North Carolina and is hiring nearly 900 workers.

Another reality is that American workers in the regions of highest unemployment don’t have backgrounds in the manufacturing industry.  In fact, of the top ten cities of highest unemployment, eight are located in the mostly agricultural regions of California:  El Centro, Merced, Yuba City, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, Visalia-Porterville, and Hanford-Corcoran.  It would be an education and logistics challenge of tremendous proportions to retrain these workers for jobs in the manufacturing industry.

Second, manufacturing’s tarnished image has led young people entering the workforce to choose other career paths.  In an article titled, “What the shortage in skilled manufacturing workers means to a hungry industry” of the e-newsletter Smart Business, Kika Young, human resources director at Forest City Gear Co. Inc. of Rockford, IL, said “Most people in Gen Y out of high school don’t think of manufacturing as a career or as a good option.  They don’t think of it as glamorous; they think of it as dark and dingy and dirty and aren’t interested in going into that.”

“ Emily Stover DeRocco, president of The Manufacturing Institute of Washington, D.C., an organization dedicated to improving and expanding manufacturing in America, said, “It’s absolutely true that the image and the definition of manufacturing in this country has not kept up with the industry.”  She added, “Companies need to invest more in employee training and make workforce skills a top strategic priority.  Our education system must also do a better job aligning education and training to the needs of employers and job-seekers. In the face of a global recession and intense international competition, American manufacturers must differentiate themselves through innovation and a highly skilled workforce.”

Third, the attrition of skilled workers through retirement, death, and disability year after year is compounding the problem.  Harry Moser, retired president of GF AgieCharmilles and founder of the Reshoring Initiative, estimates that “about 8 percent of the manufacturing workforce is lost each year due to retirement, promotion, career changes, disability, and mortality.”  In the machining industry, this means a loss of “about 20,000 to 25,000 skilled machinists per year…In contrast, only about 8,000 per year receive sufficient machining training in high school, community college and apprentice programs to be considered good recruits.”

The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics estimate that 2.8 million, nearly a quarter of all U.S. manufacturing workers, are 55 or older.  While manufacturing has led the United States out of the recession, the improvement has been a mixed blessing because as more skilled workers are needed, the supply is limited because baby boomers are retiring or getting close to retirement.  What makes the situation worse is that there aren’t enough new ones to replace them because the subsequent generations were smaller and fewer chose manufacturing as a career.

The convergence of all of these factors has resulted in an insufficient number of workers trained for advanced manufacturing jobs.   It’s more of a skills gap in the specific skills needed by today’s manufacturers than a shortage of skilled workers.  In the past 15 years, the manufacturing industry has evolved from needing low-skilled production-type assembly workers to being highly technology-infused as it follows lean principles.

According to the 2010 Manpower Talent Shortage Survey, 14% of employers In the U.S. reported having difficulty filling key positions within their organization, down from 19% in 2009.  Among the most difficult jobs to fill in North America are those of the skilled manual trades, with electricians, carpenters, plumbers and welders among the most in-demand employees.  Jonas Prising, Manpower president of the Americas said, “The issue is not a lack of candidates, but rather a talent mismatch.  There are not enough sufficiently skilled people in the right places at the right times.  Compounding the issue is the fact that employers are seeking ever more specific skill sets, or a rare combination of skill sets, and are less willing to engage in anticipatory hiring.  This paradox adds up to a very challenging and frustrating situation at a time when people need work and employers need talent.”

In September 2011, a survey sponsored by Advanced Technology Services, Inc. (ATS) and conducted by The Nielsen Company, was released that corroborates this skilled worker shortage.  ATS is a recognized leader in outsourced production equipment maintenance, helping companies like Caterpillar, Eaton, BorgWarner and Honeywell run their factories better through equipment maintenance and related services.  The top findings of the online survey of 100 VP-level and C-level executives completed in August were:

  • 55% of largest U.S. manufacturers polled—those with $1 billion or more revenue—will be hardest hit by skill shortage costing each $100 million or more over the next 5 years.
  • 45% of the companies surveyed are encouraging their older workers to stay on the job.
  • 50% of respondents said they currently have 11 or more open positions for skilled workers, with 31% having over 20 open slots.

“This is an essential time to be in manufacturing considering other sectors are seeing hiring slow down.  Many young people overlook the opportunity and high wages that careers in manufacturing afford,” said Jeff Owens, President of Advanced Technology Services. “As you can see form the rebound and the shortage of skills that manufacturing is experiencing, opportunities for profession growth and excellent wages are plentiful for people with the technical skills required.”

The need for skilled labor in the manufacturing industry was among the leading topics of discussion at the imX event in Las Vegas on September 12-14, 2011.  Jeanine Kunz, director of professional development for the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), said “If companies don’t address this shortage of qualified labor now, hundreds of thousands of jobs will go unfilled by 2021, jeopardizing our workers, our companies and our nation’s future.”

The question of what is being done to address the lack of skilled workers will be considered in next week’s article.

imX Event Charts New Course for American Manufacturing

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Last week, I attended the imX (interactive manufacturing eXperience) in Las Vegas (September 12-14, 2011.)  The imX was jointly sponsored by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) and the American Machine Tool Distributors’ Association (AMTDA).  The event had eight eXperience partners:  DMG/Mori Seiki U.S.A., Fanuc, Kennametal, MAG IAS LLC, Makino, Methods Machine Tools, Okuma America, and Sandvik Coromant, as well as strategic media partner, Manufacturing Engineering, and three media sponsors, www.cnc-west.com, Micro Manufacturing, and Cutting Tool Engineering.

It was different than any other trade show that I have attended in the past 30 years.   What made it different was that the whole focus of the show was benefits for the attendee instead of focusing primarily on benefits to the exhibitors.  Traditional shows concentrate on bringing as many attendees as possible to the show to be sales leads for the exhibitors and may offer some technical sessions as an added draw to increase attendance.  To attend imX, you had to be invited as a guest by one of the sponsors, the eights partners, or other exhibitors in the event. The goal of imX was to chart a new course for the future of the domestic manufacturing industry by fostering collaboration among American Manufacturers of all sizes.

SME President, Paul Bradley, PE, said that this event was in development for five years.  The imX team spoke with members and customers to discover what they wanted and needed from an event. AMTDA and the eight eXperience partners identified the needs of their members and customers.  Individual meetings and group discussions between exhibitors and attendees were identified as key needs to provide a higher level of customer engagement and education to create an event that was unlike any other.  For the first time, the manufacturing industry came together not as competitors, but as collaborators with the common goal and focus of long-term industry viability.  The participants had the opportunity to meet to discuss and foster an understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing their customers and their competition and to explore the latest manufacturing technology.

imX event manager, Steve Prahalis said  that their survey of exhibitors and buyers revealed that some hadn’t been to a show in as long as five years.  Instead, they were attending corporate technical sessions at plants around the country.  They got together a roundtable of CEO’s over a period of three years to come up with ideas for a new kind of event that would be invitation only and incorporate the kind of experience the corporate technical sessions provided, but in one location and one time.

For decades, trade shows for the manufacturing industry were events at which you either exhibited or attended every year.  If you didn’t, you would be missing out on the latest trends in your industry, missing out on getting new sales leads, and missing out on networking opportunities with peers in your industry.  For show managers, it was easy to sell booth space because trade shows were the “in” thing to do, and attendance at some shows like COMDEX was as high as 250,000.

According to Prahalis, two major events changed trade shows forever:   the internet and 9/11.  It became possible to keep up with industry trends and find out information about potential sources for equipment, products and services on the internet.  If 9/11 and the subsequent recession caused you to miss a trade show, you discovered it didn’t matter as much as you thought it would.  You may have missed the networking opportunities, but LinkedIn and Facebook became the replacements.

This is why education received major emphasis at imX in the form of Learning Labs presented by the eight eXperience partners and “knowledge bars” provided by other exhibitors.  The Learning Labs provided a small setting where buyers and sellers could share information on business-critical solutions.  Each partner had from one to four theaters scheduled at one to five time slots during the three days of the event.  A few examples of the topics are:  Delivering Productivity from Art to Part, Tooling Trends and Technologies, The Fearless Use of Today’s Technology, and Training within Industry.  The Knowledge Bars were intimate sessions to discuss such trends and topics as:  manufacturing software, automation, machining, energy, aerospace and defense manufacturing, and medical manufacturing. .   Invited attendees were able to sign up ahead of time for technical sessions in the Leaning Lab and “knowledge bars.”

There was a keynote presentation and an interactive industry panel scheduled each day.  The keynote presentation on the first day featured the newly appointed National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Chief Manufacturing Office, Michael Molnar.  Mr. Molnar shared information about how individual manufacturers can participate in and benefit from the new national Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recently launched by President Obama.  According to the Department of Commerce, the Partnership “brings industry, universities and the federal government together to invest in emerging technologies…building domestic manufacturing capabilities to create the new products, new industries and new jobs for our future.”

The second day’s keynote presentation featured Peter Schutz, Harris & Schutz Inc., author of The Driving Force and retired CEO of Porsche AG.  Mr. Schutz led Porsche to its peak performance during the 1980s and shared his thoughts on how the leadership of people in a company becomes the pivotal competitive edge for business in his address:  “Leadership:  Extraordinary results from ordinary people.”  I especially liked it when Mr. Schutz said, “Only you can create jobs, nobody in Washington can do it.”    He emphasized the importance of putting together a team that has “diversity,” of views, attitudes, priorities, and outlook so you can listen and learn from others in making decisions.  He advised to “always hire character and teach skills.”  He said, “labor costs globally will equalize and transportation costs are going to be critical…quality instead of cost and outperforming will become more important.”

On the third day, the keynote presenter was Jim Carroll, acknowledged as one of the world’s leading global futurists, trends, and motivation experts.  In his address on “What do world class innovators do that others don’t?” he outlined eight strategies that world class leaders concentrate on to ensure market success and seize transformative opportunities.  In these rocky times, his admonition to abandon doomsday scenarios, put things in perspective, adopt a realistic view, and don’t be afraid of thinking boldly were especially pertinent.

The interactive panels also provided opportunities for executive guests to engage directly with leading end users and industry observers on topics from future technologies to automation and benchmarking.

On Monday, the panel on “Market & Technology Outlook:  Charting a Course for the Future” featured an interactive discussion focused on the outlook of key markets and how future enabling technologies impact the way many manufacturers do business.  Featured panelists were:

  • William J. Geary, Director of Mid-Body Assembly, the Boeing Company
  • Michael Packer, V. P. Manufacturing Strategy & Technical Integration, Production Operations, Lockheed Martin
  • Peter Schutz, Harris & Schutz Inc.
  • Rob Wideboer, Executive Chairman, Martinrea International
  • Moderator:  Rick Kline Sr., President, Garner Publications, Inc.

On Tuesday, the topic was “The Edge Factor:  Best Practices in Manufacturing Automation,” in which the owners of Straitline Components shared their successful transition from a job shop to creators of  a line of mountain bike components now used by some of the top competitive racers  in the world.  Jeremy Bout, Executive Producer of The Edge Factor show, shared the video on “Mountain Biking …Getting Back to Making America Great,” showing how some of the components were made and  “the edge factor” of the quality, “made in USA” components played in the race won by Mike Montgomery, freestyle mountain bike rider.  Mike Montgomery then commented on the importance of being able to trust his safety and even his life to these quality components.

On Wednesday, the panel shared the results of a comprehensive survey of 200 machining businesses in the panel on “Top Shops:  Benchmarking Your Machining Business.”   The panel identified optimal shop floor practices, as well as operational and business metrics that define world-class competitiveness in parts manufacturing.  Derek Korn, Senior Editor, Modern Machine Shop, Ron Woosel, President, C&R Manfuacturing, Mike Dufford, V. P., Altech Machining participated in the panel moderated by Travis Egan, Publisher of Modern Machine Shop.

On the last day of the show, ImX event manager, Steve Prahalis said that attendees were giving a good rating for the event and had shared some of their experiences.  As an example, the owner of a small company from Ohio got to have a private meeting with the technical team at the Kennemetal exhibit, and they provided a solution to a key problem they were having in their shop.

Judging by what I saw at the event, I would say that ImX succeeded in accomplishing its goal to chart a new course for the future of the domestic manufacturing industry by fostering collaboration among American manufacturers of all sizes.  I am sure everyone who attended this event will look forward to attending the next eXperience.

 

Poll Shows Creating Manufacturing Jobs is Key to Recovery

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

A July 2011 poll of 1,202 likely voters American voters conducted by The Mellman Group and Ayres, McHenry & Associates revealed that voters want Washington to act on jobs, especially in manufacturing, which they believe will help restore America’s lost status as the world’s number one economy.  Despite overwhelming public concern about these issues, fewer voters now believe the President or either party in Congress is focused on jobs than thought so in 2010.

“This poll is a stark reminder that while official Washington goes back and forth in our newest crisis, Americans still feel no one is focusing on the real problems that matter to them:  losing jobs, losing our manufacturing base, and the decline of our position in the world,” said Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM).

The study finds that across the partisan spectrum, Democratic and Republican voters ranked job creation and rebuilding the nation’s manufacturing base at the top of their list of priorities.  When asked to select the most important task for Congress and the President, “creating new manufacturing jobs” ranked just below creating jobs more generally and saw a bigger gain from 2010 (up 9%) than any other option.

Americans don’t believe that Congress or the President has done enough to support manufacturing.   Poll results showed that by a more than two-to-one margin (67% to 29%) voters prefer that Washington focus on job creation rather than deficit reduction.  This was down from the 2010 poll where 94% of voters wanted Washington to focus on jobs even more than on the deficit, with 85% specifying creating manufacturing jobs, and 88% of voters wanting Congress and the President to strengthen manufacturing in the U. S.

Voters are less convinced than a year ago that Congress and the Administration are doing anything to create manufacturing jobs or to enforce fair trade.  Although manufacturing was again ranked as the most important source of economic strength (by a wide margin over both healthcare and high tech), voters gave both Congress and the President lower marks on creating manufacturing jobs or addressing trade issues than they did in 2010.

AAM’s 2010 poll first demonstrated serious voter concern about factory closings and job loss.  In the 2010 poll, there was very little difference in the opinion of Independents, Democrats, and Republicans (64%, 67%, and 66% respectively) on the viewpoint that “manufacturing is a critical part of the American economy and we need a manufacturing base here if this country and our children are to thrive in the future.”

Said Paul, “Voters see manufacturing as the key to recovery, and though it may surprise some pundits, this is the clear message from every voting demographic, including Tea Party and Republican voters.”

Along with manufacturing’s rising profile, support for “Made in America” has also skyrocketed since 2010.  Pollster Whit Ayres explains, “Americans strongly believe that we cannot be the world’s leading economy and job creator without manufacturing.  They want to be able to buy top-quality products that say ‘Made in America.'”

The poll also found concern over America’s lost standing in the world.  Pollster Mark Mellman says, “Americans no longer believe we have the world’s strongest economy.  But they do believe that a renewed focus on manufacturing jobs can turn things around.  Americans understand that manufacturing is central to creating jobs and getting the economy back on track.”   Some key findings from the poll include:

  • 90% have a favorable view of American manufacturing companies – up 22% from 2010
  • 97% have a favorable view of U. S.-made goods – up 5% from 2010
  • 94% of voters say creating manufacturing jobs is either “one of the most important” things government can do or “very important.”
  • 83% have an unfavorable view of companies that go to China to manufacture
  • 90% support Buy American policies “to ensure that taxpayer funded government projects use only U. S.-made goods and supplies wherever possible.”
  • 95% favor keeping “America’s trade laws strong and strictly enforced to provide a level playing field for our workers and businesses.”
  • 59% say we need to “get tough with China and use every possible means to stop their unfair trade practices

Only 50% of voters believe that the President is working to create manufacturing jobs – an 11% drop from 2010. Congress fares even worse – 41% say Democrats in Congress are working to create jobs, and 32% see the GOP working to create jobs.
In an Op Ed article, “How Congress can start creating jobs in the U.S,” that appeared August 15, 2011 in The Hill, Mr. Paul made the following recommendations of what Congress could do to spur private sector job creation that would not increase our federal budget deficit.

“Establish a national infrastructure bank to leverage capital for large-scale transportation and energy projects.

Reshape the tax code in a revenue neutral way to provide incentives for job creation and inward investment.  R&D tax credits should help firms that not only innovate in America but also make their products here.  Lower tax rates for manufacturing activity in America and eliminate tax shelters for hedge funds or financial transactions that have no real value.

Apply “buy America” provisions to all federal spending to ensure that American workers and businesses get the first shot at procurement contracts.

Shift some education investment to rebuilding our vocational and technical skills program, which would address looming shortages in the manufacturing sector.

Refocus the trade agenda by giving American businesses new tools to counter China’s currency manipulation, industrial subsidies, intellectual property theft and barriers to market access.

Condition new federal loan guarantees for energy projects on the utilization of domestic supply chains for construction.

In addition, President Obama could do the following on his own immediately:

Expedite small business loans through the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department to help firms expand, retool and hire.

Convene a multilateral meeting to address global imbalances and Chinese mercantilism. If China doesn’t agree to participate, designate it a currency manipulator. (China ships fully one-third of its exports to the U.S. and finances less than 10 percent of our public debt, so we have more leverage than some might suggest.)

Secure an additional agreement from all foreign and domestic car companies to increase their levels of domestic content by at least 10 percent over the next three years.

Direct the Department of Defense to leverage existing procurement to contractors that commit to increasing their domestic content of our military equipment, technology and supplies.

Approve additional applications for renewable and traditional energy projects, contingent on the use of American materials in construction.

Kick any CEO off of federal advisory boards or jobs councils who has: (1) not created net new American jobs over the past five years, or (2) is expanding the company’s foreign workforce at a faster rate than its domestic workforce. Replace them with CEOs who are committed to investing in America.”
In contrast,  Henry Nothhaft, veteran entrepreneur and author of  Great Again: Revitalizing America’s Entrepreneurial Leadership (Harvard Business Review Press, 2011) had some very different suggestions for President Obama in a Labor Day letter to President Obama published in the Wall Street Journal.  Since “100% of net job growth in the U.S. comes from entrepreneurial start-ups.” he asked:

“…why aren’t you doing everything you can to nurture start-ups and make it easier for them to access capital, grow and hire people so they can develop the breakthrough products, services and medical advances that drive our national prosperity?

He urged the President “to seek an exemption for small job-creating start-ups from the more onerous Sarbanes-Oxley rules, at least until they reach $500 million in revenues. This will help to revive the feeble IPO market, and job creation with it.”

He suggested the President and his “Republican opponents could also spur job creation by withdrawing your support for a patent-reform bill that puts the needs of big technology firms ahead of the real job creators—entrepreneurial start-ups—and that continues to divert hundreds of millions of dollars annually in patent-office user fees to other purposes …Congress has starved it of funds and created a backlog of 1.2 million patent applications waiting for examination. Your own patent office director, David Kappos, says this backlog has cost the nation “millions of jobs.”

He questioned  “why are we the only major nation on Earth that refuses to offer tax and other incentives to manufacturers who set up shop here? Every other nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development does so.”

None of the measures suggested by Mr. Paul or Mr. Nothhaft would increase the deficit.  They would work to create millions of new jobs quickly.  I agree with Mr. Nothhaft ? “Mr. President, there’s still time for you to kick-start the engine of job growth.  All you need to do is listen to the voices of entrepreneurs who create those jobs.”

 

 

Will You Follow the Herd or be a Leader?

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

When I succumbed to peer pressure as a teen ager and asked my mother if I could do something that “everyone else was doing,” her refrain would be “don’t be a sheep and follow the crowd; be a leader.”

The management of American manufacturing companies should have followed my mother’s advice of being a leader in their industry instead of following the “herd mentality” of outsourcing their manufacturing offshore to China to the detriment of the overall American manufacturing industry and the United States’ position as the world’s pre-eminent country.

A new report by the Boston Consulting Group, Made in America, Again – Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U. S., reveals that “China’s overwhelming manufacturing cost advantage over the U. S. is shrinking fast.”  The authors, Harold L. Sirkin, Michael Zinser, and Douglas Hohner, conclude that within five years, “rising Chinese wages, higher U. S. productivity, a weaker dollar, and other factors will virtually close the cost gap between the U. S. and China for many goods consumed in North America.”

Their report substantiates the Total Cost of Ownership worksheet calculator that Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, has developed and is teaching to managers of American manufacturers that want to be leaders in bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

The Boston Consulting Group makes the same recommendation as Moser:  conduct a rigorous, part-by-part, product-by-product analysis to fully account for total costs rather than just factory wages.  In doing so, they may discover that manufacturing in the U. S. is a more attractive option, especially for products sold in the U. S. market.   For products with high labor content that are destined for mainly Asian markets, manufacturing in China will remain the best choice because of economies of scale or technology.  They key idea is to recognize that China is no longer the default option to lower costs and increase profitability.

What is the basis for authors’ conclusion that manufacturing will return to the United States?  They say the key reasons for the shift are the following:

  • Wage and benefits have increased 15 to 20 percent per year at the average Chinese factory, which will slash China’s low-cost advantage over the U. S. from 55 percent today down to 39 percent by 2015, when adjusted for the higher productivity of U. S. workers.
  • When the Total Cost of Ownership factors such as transportation, duties, supply chain risks, cost of inventory, and other costs are calculated, the cost savings of manufacturing in China rather than some U. S. states will become minimal within five years.
  • “Automation and other measures to improve productivity in China won’t be enough to preserve the country’s cost advantage.  Indeed, they will undercut the primary attraction of outsourcing to China – access to low-cost labor.”
  • Demand of goods in Asia will increase rapidly due to rising income level so multinational companies are likely to devote more of their capacity in China to serving the Asian market and bring some production back to the U. S. to service the North American market.
  • “Manufacturing of some goods will shift from China to nations with lower labor costs, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and Mexico.”  However, this will be limited by the supply of skilled workers, inadequate infrastructure, supply networks, as well as by political and intellectual property risks, corruption, and the risk to personal safety in those countries.

The BCG report presents an interesting perspective on the decline and forecast renaissance of American manufacturing.  They acknowledge the effect of Japan and the “Asian Tigers of Korea and Taiwan had on the shrinking of the American manufacturing industry, in which the U. S. share of the world’s manufacturing dropped from the high of around 40 percent in the early 1950s down to less than 20 percent today.  However, they point out that “U. S. industry and the economy responded with surprising flexibility to reemerge more competitive and productive than ever” by the late 1990s.

They opine that the “U. S. manufacturing sector is today in the midst of a similar process of readjustment in response to perhaps its greatest competitive threat ever?­the rise of China.”  As proof, they state that the “output of manufacturing is almost two and a half times its 1972 level in constant dollars, even though employment has dropped by 33 percent…the value of  U. S. manufacturing has increased by one-third, to $1.65 trillion, from 1997 to 2008?before the onset of the recession?thanks to the strongest productivity growth in the industrial world.”

The authors conclude that within five years, “the total cost of production for many products will be only about 10 to 15 percent less in Chinese coastal cities than in some parts of the U. S. where factories are likely to be built,” such as South Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee.  When you add in the other factors of Total Cost of Ownership, the cost gap will be minimal.   Although some production is moving to Chinese cities in interior provinces to reduce costs, these regions lack the abundance of skilled workers, supply networks, and efficient transportation infrastructure of the coastal cities.  “As a result, they expect companies to begin building more capacity in the U. S. to supply North America.”  A few of their examples are:

  • NCR moved production of its ATM’s to a plant in Columbus, Georgia, that will employ 870 people by 2014.
  • The Coleman Company is moving production of its 16-quart wheeled plastic cooler from China to Wichita, Kansas.
  • Sleek Audio has moved production of its high-end headphones from Chinese suppliers to its plant in Manatee County, Florida.
  • Peerless Industries will consolidate all manufacturing of audio-visual mounting systems in Illinois, moving work from China in order to achieve cost efficiencies, shorter lead times, and local control over manufacturing processes.

These examples corroborate what I’ve been seeing and wrote about in my book and subsequent blog articles about companies in the San Diego region.  For example, at a TechAmerica Operations Roundtable event last April, Luke Faulstick, COO of DJO Global said that they have brought back the manufacturing of their cold therapy unit from China, their printed circuit boards to a supplier in South Dakota, their textile manufacturing to North Carolina, and their screw machined parts to Texas.  He recommended that any company on the “lean” journey should rethink their outsourcing offshore.

The BCG report goes into quite a bit of detail about the factors that are starting to dramatically shift the manufacturing cost equation in favor of the U. S.  A key factor is that China’s average wages have become more volatile.  In 2010, “the giant contract manufacturer Foxconn International, which employs 920,000 people in China alone, doubled wages” after a string of worker suicides.

They assert that rising Chinese productivity will be insufficient to offset these wages increases because output will increase at only half the pace of the rise in wages.  Even though Chinese wages will still be much lower in 2015, labor content is only part of the cost of making a part so the savings could shrink to as low as 10 percent when other costs are included.

The price of labor is increasing so rapidly that manufacturers are automating their plants in China to reduce the labor content, but as the labor content is reduced, it reduces the advantage of keeping manufacturing in China for the low labor rates.

Another factor is the increasing cost of land in China for building factories.  For example, industrial land costs average $10.22 per square foot, but ranges up to $21 per square foot in Shenzhen.  In contrast, industrial land in Alabama ranges from $1.86 to $7.3 per square foot and $1.30 to $4.65 in Tennessee and North Carolina.

Other low-cost nations won’t be able to absorb all of the high labor content manufacturing moving from China because China has the highest proportion of able-bodied adults in the workforce (84 percent), and 28 percent of those workers are employed by industry.  The estimated 215 million industrial workers in China are 58 percent more than the industrial workforce of all of Southeast Asia and India combined.

The authors predict that “instead of pulling out of China, most multinational companies will orient more of their production to serve China and the rest of a growing Asia… The shifting cost structure between China and the U. S. will present more manufacturing and sourcing options.

U. S. manufacturers should undertake a thorough analysis of their global supply networks, factoring in worker productivity, transit costs, time-to-market considerations, logistical risks, energy costs, as well as other hidden costs of sourcing offshore.

The question is:  Are you going to be one of the leaders in bringing manufacturing back to the  U. S. or are you going to follow the “herd mentality” by continuing to outsource manufacturing in China?

Government Regulations Create Huge Costs for Manufacturers

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011

Do you remember playing a game when you were a child where you tried your best not to walk on any cracks in the sidewalk so the “big bad bear” wouldn’t get you or you wouldn’t break your mother’s back?  If you lived in a city where the sidewalks were old, there were so many cracks that you had to tip toe to get by without stepping on any cracks.  Well, businesses today are being forced to play a similar game with government, and the “cracks” are getting so close together that it’s almost impossible to tip toe through the maze of “cracks” that come in the form of government regulations.

The Federal Register contains 81,405 pages of the federal rules and regulations that businesses are required to comply with.  Federal regulations strain the economy by creating huge costs that business are obligated to meet and serve as a hidden tax on the economy.

James Hamilton of Freedom Works wrote, “The cost of complying with federal regulation increases businesses’ expenses by billions of dollars every year.  Some of the compliance cost associated with federal regulation comes out of businesses’ profits, but much of the costs are passed down to consumers in form of higher prices.  Compliance costs associated with regulations cut into businesses’ profits, while higher prices increase the day to day expenses of all consumers.  Because regulations create artificial costs that must be paid by both producers and consumers, they cost the economy money and act as a drag on economic growth.”

Between 2001 and 2011, 38,700 new regulations were added to the Federal Register. Of the over 4,000 new regulations that are currently being developed by various departments and agencies, 224 are estimated to cost the economy more than $100 million each.  The Obama administration is greatly expanding regulation, with massive new regulations in the works at the Environmental Protection Agency and a host of yet to be written regulations covering financial services to comply with Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill.

A study by the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center in 2001(“A Review and Synthesis of the Cost of Workplace Regulations”) found that workplace regulations have a significant cost.  The researchers surveyed 100 manufacturers in the United States, ranging from 7 employees to 65,400 employees.  The survey showed:

  • Complying with workplace regulations cost an average of $2.2 million per manufacturing firm or about $1,700 per employee
  • Smaller firms (less than 100 employees) faced higher costs than large firms (500 or more) with costs of $2,573 per employee and $1,530 per employee respectively

The survey revealed which types of regulations affect manufacturers the most:

  • Worker Health and Safety regulations, including OSHA, accounted for one-third the cost of compliance
  • Regulations governing employee benefits ranked second, making up 27% of the cost of compliance
  • Civil rights, labor standards, and labor-management relations regulations each made up about 10% of the cost of compliance

A study on “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms” by W. Mark Crain, Lafayette College for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy showed that small businesses continue to bear a disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden.  The cost of compliance with all federal regulations, economic, workplace, environmental, and tax is an average of $5,633 for all sized firms.  However, for companies under 20 employees, the cost was $7,647 compared to $5,282 for companies over 500 employees.  In the manufacturing sector, the cost per employee is $10,175; nearly double the average for all firms.  For small manufacturers, the cost is $21,919 per employee compared to $8,748 for large firms.  For medium-sized firms, the compliance cost per employee is $10,042.  In the service sector, regulatory costs differ little from small to larger firms.

Economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain study of the net cost of regulations determined  that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP.  As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.

The Health Care Reform Act that passed at the very end of 2009 vastly expanded the requirement for businesses to file IRS Form 1099s for all payments over $600 annually.  The previous law required a business to provide a completed 1099 form to any independent contractors, subcontractors, freelancers, etc. that are not employees and not corporations to whom they made more than $600 in payments over the course of a year.  The Health Care Reform Act law extends this requirement to corporations as well.

This means that a business would have to provide a 1099 to their utility company and every other vendor to which they pay more than $600 a year for services.  For metal manufacturers, such as machine shops, sheet metal fabricators, stampers, and casting companies, this could mean they would have to provide a 1099 for their vendors of metals, as well as companies that provide surface finishing services such as painting, plating, anodizing, or powder coating.

A survey by the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) found that self employed and micro-businesses (under 10 employees) are “expecting this new regulatory burden to greatly or somewhat increase the amount they spend on tax preparation.”  With over 40% of survey respondents still preparing their own taxes, this added workload will significantly increase the time business owners spent on tax preparation or force them to hire an accountant, adding to their cost of doing business.  This is another example how the indirect costs of complying with government rules and regulations are just as burdensome to businesses as are the direct costs of taxes and regulatory fees.

On August 4, 2011, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for Energy and Resources Policy Chip Yost released the following statement after the NAM filed comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Utility MACT rule:

“Affordable energy and jobs are top priorities for manufacturers, and the EPA’s proposed Utility MACT rule threatens to deal a lethal blow to both. The EPA’s Utility MACT proposal is yet another example of excessive overreach that will dampen economic growth and result in job losses.

If implemented, the finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the proposed Utility MACT rule will cost an estimated 1.44 million jobs by 2020. These two rules will increase retail electricity prices nationwide by 11.5 percent and cost the electric sector a staggering $18 billion per year to comply. This will stifle investment and severely damage our competitiveness at a time when our economic recovery has stalled and the unemployment rate hovers at 9.2 percent.”

In addition, in the past three weeks, the Obama administration has announced back-to-back new fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and trucks.  New regulations will require a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of 54.5 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles by 2025, and new standards for trucks will require a 10 to 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency before 2018.

The Center for Automotive Research released its latest study focused on the impact of anticipated fuel economy and safety mandates on the U.S. automotive market and industry in 2025

A few of the report’s conclusions are:

  • The average increase in vehicle cost necessary to achieve the higher CAFE mandates range from $3,700 to over $9,000.
  • The higher mandates will increase vehicle prices that exceed the savings in fuel costs (over five years), even if gasoline costs $6.00 per gallon (in 2009 prices).
  • Consumers will shun these technology costs by holding onto their used vehicles longer, especially if fuel prices are low (e.g., $3.50 per gallon), resulting in lower sales and a loss of automotive employment. Over 260,000 jobs may be lost if the highest mandate is passed and fuel prices stay low at $3.50 (2009 prices).

The authors recommended moderation in raising fuel economy mandates and conducting a periodic review to assess the rate of technology development and cost reduction of advanced technologies leading up to 2025.  The full report is available at www.cargroup.org.

During a meeting with hundreds of manufacturing executives in town to press lawmakers for looser regulations, White House Chief of Staff William Daley listened to one executive after another air their grievances on environmental regulations.   “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts manufacturing executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress’…Daley said, “Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.”

The regulations mentioned here are examples of the unintended consequences of lawmakers voting on bills they haven’t read.  If Federal lawmakers want to “save American manufacturing,” they need to wake up to the fact that adding burdensome government laws and regulations will actually reduce the tax revenue the federal government receives by driving manufacturers to export jobs overseas.

 

 

What is the Secret behind China’s Cheap Prices?

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

It might not be what you think it is.  Most people would say it’s no secret and that the answer is obvious – lower wages in China compared to the United States.  However, that answer is only partially true.  Why?  Because labor is only one part of the total cost of a product, and in many cases it’s as low as 20% of the total cost.

Let’s compare two simple products that are primarily made in China:  a stuffed toy animal for a baby and a Frisbee.  The stuffed animal is comprised of textile material for the cover, stuffing, two eyes and a nose.  The material must be cut into pieces, sewn together, and stuffed.  The nose, eyes, and mouth are usually a pattern of thread that is sewn on the face piece before the toy animal is sewn together and stuffed.  The cutting of the pieces may be done by hand or by machine, but the pieces are sewn together by a worker using a high speed sewing machine.  The stuffing is usually blown into the stuffed toy by a machine, but the insertion point is closed by hand.   This type of a product is considered to be a high labor content product with labor being about 70% of the total cost.

On the other hand, a Frisbee is made of plastic resin (beads or pellets of plastic) in a process that is called plastic injection molding in which the resin is heated in a molding machine to a viscous state and is then injected into a mold, after which the molded part is automatically popped out of the machine in a matter of seconds.  The mold can be designed to make several parts at once at the push of a button, and a fully automated machine can be set to run continuously 24 hours a day with very little monitoring by a worker.  The highest expense in producing a Frisbee is the cost of making the mold (also called tooling), and that cost is amortized into the piece price of the parts so that the higher the volume of production, the lower the cost of the amortized tooling that is added to the cost of the part.  A Frisbee is considered to be a low labor product at about 20% of the total cost.

What are other factors of the total cost for the “China price”?  First, there are the actual costs of the materials used to manufacture the product, which would be the textile material and stuffing for the toy animal and the plastic resin for the Frisbee.  Because of the high volume of materials and resins ordered by Chinese companies, the pricing would be as low as it could be.

Second, there are the wages for the workers directly involved in producing the parts.  Labor is abundant and cheap in China because even though 300,000 have risen into the middle class and above, this still leaves one billion people living at the poverty level.  At any one time, there are an estimated hundred million workers who are unemployed and underemployed, which is about equal to the number of Americans employed in full time jobs.

All employees in China have the right under law to join the ACFTU, which claims some 170 million members and is controlled by the Communist Party.  ACFTU has a monopoly on trade unionizing in China and creation of competing unions is illegal Party leaders have ensured that the ACFTU has a monopolist position.  They don’t want autonomous unions springing up, because of the potential threat to their authority.  In 2008, collective bargaining became a requirement of the Labor Contract Law that went into effect, forcing most companies – including most foreign owned ones – to create an ACFTU chaptered trade union within them.

However, there are about 1,000 protest demonstrations occurring every week in China, even at the risk of beatings, demotions, dismissal, and even torture.  As a result, wages have finally been rising by about 15% per year over the past four years.  It took some suicides by workers in the summer of 2010 to achieve additional improvement in wages and working conditions at plants that were more like prison camps with dormitories for workers to live on site and fences around the buildings so workers couldn’t leave the premises.

Third, there are the costs of compliance to health and safety regulation and environmental regulations.  These costs are less expensive in China than in the United States because the Chinese government imposes few health and safety or environmental regulations.  China doesn’t provide workman’s compensation insurance for their workers so workers hurt on the job don’t receive any compensation when they are injured to the point that they are disabled.  Although China has its own environmental protection agency, the environmental protection laws are generally ignored and not enforced, especially at the local level.  So, Chinese companies have the advantage of being able to dump just about any odious byproduct into the air or waterways.   Six of the top 20 most polluted cities of the world are in China, and China has been designated as the world’s most polluted nation in several studies.  There is one city in China where the land, air, and water are polluted with mercury so the residents are really the “living dead” because there is no cure for mercury poisoning, which is eventually fatal.  The World Health Organization estimates that 750,000 people a year die in China as a result of the effects of pollution.

Next, there is the cost of taxes and duties.  China is one of over 150 countries that utilize a Value Added Tax (VAT) system.  It is a tax only on the “value added” to a product, material, or service at every state of its manufacture or distribution.  The VAT rate is generally 17 percent, or 13 percent for some goods.  Chinese companies receive a VAT refund from the government for materials of products produced for export.   American imports to China are charged a VAT, but the U. S. doesn’t have a VAT to charge Chinese imports.

On top of this, China’s national government policies allow their manufacturers to use trade cheats.   For example, there are unbalanced tariffs, such as the 2.5% for a car entering America vs. 25% for a car coming into China.  In addition, the Chinese government requires foreign firms to have a Chinese “partner” company, who maintains the majority interest, takes most of the profits, and has the real control of the company.  More seriously, China now requires U. S. companies to share their technology and relocate their R&D centers to China if they want to have access to Chinese markets.

Above all, there is the ever-present currency manipulation, where China undervalues their currency by an estimated 30-40%, which simply makes every product that China ships out 30-40% cheaper than those of a potential American competitor.

Finally, China has a national strategy of what is called “dumping.” “Dumping” is defined as the act of a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another country at a price that is either below the price it charges in its home market or is below its cost of production.

The goal of “dumping” is to capture the market or destroy the competition for a particular product or commodity so the price to the end user or consumer is lowered way below the competition, often below cost. “Dumping” is one of the strategies China uses as a neomercantilist country.  Neomercantilism is a term used to describe a policy which encourages exports, discourages imports, controls capital movement and centralizes currency decisions in the hands of a central government. The objective of neo-mercantilist policies is to increase the level of foreign reserves held by the government, allowing more effective monetary and fiscal policy.

While dumping is not prohibited by the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, GATT Article VI allows countries to act against dumping where there is genuine (“material”) injury to the competing domestic industry.  Countries are allowed to act in a way that would normally break the GATT principals of binding a tariff and not discriminating between trading partners. Typically, antidumping action means charging extra import duty on a particular product from the exporting country in order to bring its price closer to the “normal value” or to remove the injury to domestic industry.

The number of U.S. dumping cases against imports from China is up, and more than 50 categories of goods from China are now subject to U.S. antidumping duties. Some of these product categories are: steel fence posts, iron pipe fittings, aluminum extrusions, tires, hand trucks, ironing tables, wooden bedroom furniture, and paper products.

Thus, the secret of China’s cheaper prices is a complex, national strategy of China to become the preeminent superpower of the 21st Century.  Sun Tzu, author of “The Art of War,” would be impressed with how his descendants have used his military strategies to dominate the world economy.