Archive for the ‘Manufacturing’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

What is the Progress on Rebuilding American Manufacturing to Create Prosperity

Tuesday, August 6th, 2024

People have forgotten that there are only three ways to create tangible wealth — mine it, grow it, or make it. Manufacturing is the term now used to describe “making it.” The problem with the current economy of the United States is that we have been outsourcing all three ways to create wealth to other countries for the past 25-30 years, primarily to China after the country was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000.  

As a result, we are now dependent on other countries for the energy, food, and manufactured good we need to sustain the modern way of life, protect the health and welfare of American citizens, and provide the goods needed to protect the national security of our country.

This outsourcing caused a dramatic loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry, namely, 5.8 million high paying jobs from 2000 – 2010.

Let’s consider what progress has been made on a few of the simpler and faster to implement strategies and policies to accelerate the rebuilding process.  In my 2017 book Rebuild American Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, I quote recommendations made by the Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) and make many my own recommendations of what needs to be done to rebuild American manufacturing.

Two of the ITIF recommendations were: “Create a network of 25 Engineering and Manufacturing Institutes performing applied R&D across a range of advanced technologies and support the designation of at least 20 U.S. manufacturing universities.”

While the Manufacturing USA Network was formally established in 2014 when “Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act (RAMI Act) into law, it took three years of planning and competition to form the 16 institutes. Each of these institutes has a unique technological concentration, but is also designed to accelerate U.S. advanced manufacturing as a whole.  The April 2024 edition of Design2Part magazine provides good description of the technological advances facilitated by several of the institutes.

Another ITIF recommendation was:  Lower the effective U. S. corporate tax rate” because at that time, the United States had the highest statutory corporate tax rate at almost 39 percent (when state and federal rates are combined) of any OECD nation.”

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 “reduced the federal top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, bringing the combined US federal and state rates to about the average for most other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and eliminated the graduated corporate rate schedule (table 1). TCJA also repealed the corporate alternative minimum tax.”  However, the TCJA expires in 2026, so Congress will need to address this issue in 2025.

The ITIF also recommended” “Better promotion of reshoring.”

Thanks to changing economic factors and supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID pandemic, the work of Harry Moser of The Reshoring Initiative to help manufacturing companies do a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis to return manufacturing to America, reshoring has dramatically accelerated in the past three years.  As the chart below shows, we have been able to reshore nearly two million manufacturing jobs (1,898,404) as shown on the chart below:

However, at this rate, it would take another 20 years to recoup the 5.8 million we lost from 2000 – 2010.  To rebuild American manufacturing in a faster way, we must focus on other policies besides reshoring.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released a white paper, titled, “A Competitiveness Strategy for the United States – America at a Crossroads,” in November 2015 that included an even longer list of recommendations.  As a member of CPA since 2011, I quoted all of their recommendations in my 2017 book and have written blog articles in the past several years about many of the specific strategies and policies the report included.

  • Impose offsetting tariffs to neutralize foreign government subsidies to industries and supply chains that compete with ours.
  • Counter foreign government policies that force offshoring by conditioning access to their markets on transfers of technology, research facilities and/or production to their countries, as well as compliance with export performance and domestic content.
  • Develop a national trade strategy and increase funding for U.S. trade policymaking and enforcement agencies. (blog article)
  • Combat foreign currency manipulation through a Market Access Charge (blog article)
  • Congress should strengthen and tighten procurement regulations to enforce “Buy America” for all government agencies, not just the Department of Defense. (blog article)
  • Prevent sale of strategic U.S.-owned companies to foreign-owned companies (blog article)
  • Ensure that domestic manufacturing and agriculture benefit fully from an expanded supply of low-cost US produced energy” (blog article)

President Trump took action on the tariff recommendation in January 2018 by imposing tariffs on solar panels and washing machines of 30 to 50 percent. In March 2018, he imposed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) from most countries. In June 2018, this was extended to the European Union, Canada, and Mexico. However, with the ratification of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the North American trade deal set to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the tariffs on Canada and Mexico were rescinded on steel and aluminum.  Since then, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea have successfully negotiated a permanent exemption from the steel tariffs. In addition, the Trump Administration Enforced penalties on trans-shipping of steel & aluminum.  Thankfully, the Biden administration has kept these tariffs in effect, essentially saving the U.S. steel and aluminum industries.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) asserts that further tariffs are needed to balance trade, and on July 24, 2024, CPA “released a new economic analysis showing that a global 10% tariff on all U.S. imports would generate U.S. economic growth, increase real wages, increase employment, and raise additional revenue to lower taxes for lower- and middle-class Americans. 

Our analysis finds that a 10% tariff would stimulate domestic production and raise economic growth to produce a 5.7% increase in real income for the average American household,” said CPA Chief Economist Jeff Ferry. “Further, the $263 billion raised in tariff revenue could be used to provide tax refunds to all households with income below $1 million a year, creating a progressive tax refund.”

We have a long way to go on implementing some of the other recommended policies to rebuild American manufacturing..  How these issues should be addressed should be one of the main criteria of who to vote for in November, both for President and Congressional candidates.

Since I started writing the first edition of my previous book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved?  Why we should and how we can in 2007, I have made it my mission for the rest of my life to do as much as possible as I can to rebuild American manufacturing to create jobs and prosperity. The future of the American middle class and, more importantly, our national security depends on the choices we make and the actions we take now.

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

Why Manufacturing is Important to the U.S. Economy

Tuesday, April 9th, 2024

The recent opinion article by Kenneth A. Reinert titled “Time to end America’s obsession with manufacturing” posted on Microsoft Start presents several reasons why our “obsession with manufacturing is misplaced” in his opinion  This article will focus on why manufacturing is important to the U.S. economy and why we need to be obsessed by manufacturing.

His first reason is that “for the high-income countries of the world, the share of manufacturing as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is currently approximately 13 percent. In the U.S., it is approximately 11 percent, very close to the average of high-income countries.” In comparison, Germany’s manufacturing industry was

22.2 %, China was 28.4 %, and Japan was 20.6 % with the world average being 17.5 % in 2021, which was more like the percentage the U.S. previously had prior to so much manufacturing being offshored to Asia.

His second reason is that “in high-income countries, the share of the labor force in manufacturing …the share is approximately 13 percent. In the United States, it is approximately 8 percent. This reflects the increased labor productivity in American manufacturing.”

Even at this low percentage, manufacturing still “drives 20 percent of capital investment, 30 percent of productivity growth, 60 percent of exports, and 70 percent of business R&D.”

Manufacturing employment was relatively constant from 1960 through 1990, but began declining in the late 1990s.  However, manufacturing employment was at an all-time peak of 19.6 million in June 1979, representing 22 percent of the labor force. The biggest drop in employment occurred from 2000 – 2010 after China was granted Most Favored Nation status, and American manufacturers started offshoring manufacturing overseas to China. One-third of U.S. manufacturing workers (5.8 million people) lost their jobs as shown by the chart below:

Thirdly, Reinert says that ”services, or more precisely producer services, are at the heart of the increase in manufacturing productivity. Economists and business analysts have noted the increased “servitization” of manufacturing; it is now very difficult to disentangle manufacturing from producer services given their symbiotic relationship.”  The problem with this reasoning is that the less manufacturing that is done in the U.S., the fewer producer services you have to offer domestically and for export.  Services are even easier to offshore than manufacturing, so it is no surprise that many technical services in IT, customer service and communication have been offshored to India in particular.

His fourth reason is “manufacturing can no longer be envisioned as a single stage. Rather, it is spread out over multiple stages and countries in complicated global value chains (GVCs), held together by, you guessed it, producer services: transport, logistics, information and communication technologies, insurance and many others. Rather than a single stage, manufacturing is now a network.” 

The global value chains are exactly what caused the supply chain disruptions and shortages during the COVID pandemic.  Manufacturers learned that they can’t be dependent on components and parts being shipped from overseas to the U.S. to be assembled into their products. This is one of the main reasons more manufacturers are reshoring manufacturing to the U.S. Moreover, as a country, we can’t be dependent on another country, particularly China, for the components and parts that go into products for our defense and national security industries as well as our pharmaceutical and medical supply industries.

His fifth reason is that “what really matters for economic success is high value added… high value added tends to be found at the beginning and end of GVCs, in research and development, branding, design, distribution, marketing and after-sales services. The actual assembly stage of GVCs is often where the least value added is to be found.” The error of this reasoning is that R & D, distribution, and after-sales services have also been offshored to other countries so that our exports of advanced technology products has also been reduced.  In fact, “the trade deficit in advanced technology products is accelerating, growing from $128 billion in 2019, to $195 billion in 2021, to $244 billion in 2022.”

Reinert opines that “U.S. is currently involved in a bipartisan experiment to throw “an extraordinary amount of subsidies at particular manufacturing sectors, including semiconductors and green energy. Estimates of the total subsidies reach as high as $1 trillion. Manufacturing subsidies area way of being seen to be “doing something” in the economic realm and signal “standing up to China.” 

His conclusion is that “We need to end our obsession with manufacturing and focus on high value added wherever it is found. We also need to limit manufacturing subsides and allow them to be subject to WTO disciplines that the U.S. has developed and utilized intensively. Otherwise, long-run growth and prosperity will be diminished.”

The only correct opinion in his article is that “national security requires producer services along with manufacturing. There is a saying among military analysts that “amateurs talk strategy, but experts talk logistics.” These “logistics” are producer services. In the words of one researcher, these include “the construction, maintenance and operation of military bases; equipment maintenance; food service; transportation; communications and IT support; and supply chain management.” This is exactly why we need to strengthen our domestic manufacturing supply chain of goods and materials needed by our military and our defense industry and not a reason to end our obsession with manufacturing.

Last week, I discussed this article with a friend who is a fellow member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Dr. John R. Hansen. He is a retired economist who worked with the World Bank for over 30 years. We agreed with Reinert that using subsidies to drive manufacturing growth with can be expensive and wasteful, but believe he is wrong to dismiss the importance of manufacturing to America and wrong to assume that massive subsidies would be required for a renaissance in American manufacturing. I asked him to email me a few comments on Reinert’s article that I could include in my article.  He wrote:

“The importance of manufacturing for America lies in the following: We need to be able to produce and export internationally tradeable goods to pay for the goods we import. For the past two years, our trade deficit in goods has exceeded 1.0 trillion USD. Yes, we could continue borrowing and printing money to cover our trade deficits, but this is a dead-end strategy. The only sustainable strategy is to develop our ability to produce a surplus of internationally tradeable goods.

Producing more services is not the answer. They tend to be very labor intensive, and we cannot compete against countries like India where well-educated people receive very low wages compared to the average American. Furthermore, most services require physical presence.

The services highlighted by Reinhart suffer the same problems. They are very hard to export, especially if you don’t produce enough tradeable exports like manufactured goods into which the services can be embedded.

Our only real hope of paying for the imports we need is to first increase the production of tradeable manufactured and agricultural goods before we can stimulate the production of services that can be embedded in these goods. Both are highly tradeable, and we have a basic comparative advantage in both. We have abundant agricultural land, much of which is supplied with high technology that helps offset our higher labor costs. We also have one of the most advanced manufacturing sectors in the world.

The main reason we cannot reduce our imports and increase our exports of manufactured goods is that other countries producing such goods have currencies that are seriously undervalued compared to the US dollar. For example, the currencies of  China and Japan, two of our biggest competitors and sources of trade deficits, have currencies that are undervalued by 40% and 60% against the US dollar. This makes the prices of the goods that these countries produce 40-60% lower than if the foreign currencies were valued at exchange rates that would balance trade.”

John and I agree that the only real solution to this problem is the Market Access Charge that John has proposed and I have written about in several previous articles.  The MAC would do this by imposing a small charge that would be collected on all foreign-source money entering America’s financial market (averaging USD 90 trillion every year)  For more details, read my article , “Why a Market Access Charge is Urgently Needed,” from this past January. 

We need to stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities.  We need to rebuild American manufacturing to create prosperity for our children and grandchildren.  

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

Manufacturing USA is Working to Rebuild American Manufacturing

Tuesday, March 5th, 2024

The manufacturing sector has an unrivaled ability to boost the nation’s global economic competitiveness. If the United States wants to remain a world leader and super power, it needs a cutting-edge manufacturing sector that is a step ahead of the competition.  This is why the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation was formally established in 2014, now called Manufacturing USA®.

The website states, “Manufacturing USA® is a national network created to secure U.S. global leadership in advanced manufacturing through large-scale public-private collaboration on technology, supply chain and education and workforce development. The network comprises the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Energy and Defense, their sponsored manufacturing innovation institutes, and six additional federal agency partners, creating a whole-of-government, national effort to drive innovation in manufacturing.”

   The following 17 institutes are now part of the Manufacturing USA network:

“While each institute is established by a sponsoring federal agency and has a unique advanced manufacturing technology focus and identity, they also seek to advance the bigger Manufacturing USA network mission to improve American manufacturing’s global competitiveness….Each institute includes members from industry, academia, and state and federal governments with a shared interest in advancing manufacturing [and]…collectively worked with over 2,500 member organizations to collaborate on more than 670 major technology and workforce applied research and development projects and engaged over 106,000 in advanced manufacturing training. “

The website describes the background of why and how it was formed.  “In June 2011, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended the formation of the “Advanced Manufacturing Partnership” (AMP) (report). The partnership was led by Dow Chemical Company President, Chairman, and CEO Andrew Liveris, and MIT President Susan Hockfield. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership was charged with identifying collaborative opportunities between industry, academia and government that would catalyze development and investment in emerging technologies, policies and partnerships with the potential to transform and reinvigorate advanced manufacturing in the United States. In 2012 it issued its first set of recommendations, “Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing.”

After a nationwide outreach and engagement effort, “The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design,” was issued in January 2013.

In September 2013, an AMP 2.0 final report focused on a renewed, cross-sector, national effort to secure U.S. leadership in the emerging technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and enhance the United States’ global competitiveness. The steering committee, whose members are among the nation’s leaders in industry, academia, and labor, was a working group of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

In December, 2014, Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act (RAMI Act) into law, which gave Congressional authorization to the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office and authorized the Department of Commerce to hold “open-topic” competitions for manufacturing innovation institutes where those topics of highest importance to industry could be proposed.”

The key initiatives of Manufacturing USA® are:

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Leadership – The institutes “convene private sector companies, academic institutions, government entities, and other stakeholders to pursue collaborative research and development, test applications, and train workers.”

COVID-19 Manufacturing Recovery – It “helped facilitate the production of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and helped empower U.S. manufacturers to reinvent the domestic PPE supply chain.”

Future Manufacturing Supply Chains – “It is engaging in projects that make domestic manufacturing processes more innovative and efficient to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of U.S.-based manufacturing.”

Manufacturing Workforce Development – It is “helping to define the skills and training needed to satisfy manufacturers’ future requirements…retraining and upskilling the current workforce, and developing STEM talent for the future.”

Clean Energy Manufacturing – “It is fostering the development of energy efficient and clean energy technologies that will lead to major reductions in manufacturing energy costs and increases in innovative new green products in emerging clean-energy industries.”

Manufacturing USA® has developed a national education and workforce development roadmap to revitalize the manufacturing workforce by bringing together the public and private sectors to create opportunities for existing and prospective workers to find their pathways into the advanced manufacturing workforce. The roadmap is bu8ild upon three key priorities:  equip with skills, broaden access, and spark interest.

The February 2024 edition of SME’s Smart Manufacturing magazine featured an article titled “Manufacturing USA, Stronger than Ever” outlining some the of the recent accomplishments of a few of its network institutes.  It also mentioned the Modern Makers campaign that was “launched in 2023 to showcase individuals whose sense of purpose embody the Manufacturing USA mission to secure the future of U.S. manufacturing through innovation, education and collaboration.”

The article reported that “two institutes received significant funding from the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Agency (EDA) Build Back Better (BBB) initiative, three institutes recently received EDA grants associated with the CHIPS and Science Act, and another institute’s parent organization got a grant from the Department of Defense’s (DoD) funding from the CHIPS and Science Act.”

For example, the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI) received a “BBB grant to create a Robotics Manufacturing Hub and support four innovation accelerators in an 11-county region of Pennsylvania.”

The article reported that “America Makes is a partner in the new Sustainable Polymers Tech Hub, which is led by the Greater Akron (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce… the Akron area has the largest concentration of plastics and rubber manufacturing plants, machines and materials in North America and is positioned to establish global leadership in sustainable technology in those areas.”

In addition, CyManII led the Secure Manufacturing in South Texas Strategy Development Consortium of 13 organizations in San Antonio, Texas and “was awarded a Strategy Development Grant to develop a regional coalition and innovation roadmap to mature cybersecurity and secure manufacturing technologies…CyManII’s efforts are in advancing research through development and testing…[the consortium] will develop an innovation roadmap for cybersecurity and secure manufacturing technologies.”

Also, “PowerAmerica’s home institution, North Carolina State University, received a $39.4 million DoD grant to build the Commercial Leap Ahead for WideBandgap Semiconductors (CLAWS) semiconductor research hub, which will create a semiconductor research foundry to advance next generation chips and fabrication technology. CLAWS is one of eight federal research hubs around the U.S. created from the CHIPS and Science Act.”

The Manufacturing USA institutes are creating a better climate for manufacturers to help them adopt the innovative applications of Industry 4.0 technologies that will strengthen and grow their businesses. The economic development activities of the institutes are designed to strengthen the supply chain and improve the competitive position of U.S. manufacturing companies. In turn, this will provide pathways for Americans seeking rewarding, higher-paying jobs and contribute to stronger local, regional and national communities. Be sure to check out which institute is focused on your industry.

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

What is the State of the U.S. Economy?

Tuesday, December 12th, 2023

There are many different opinions on the state of the U.S. economy. This is normal when we are entering an election year.  The political party in power wants the economy to appear good or better than the previous administration, and the opposing political party wants it to appear worse than when they were in power.

Let’s examine what are the key economic indicators as well as other data to determine the true state of the U.S. economy.  According to the website, USA Facts, the key economic indicators are:  GDP, inflation, Federal Reserve interest rates, workers’ average hourly wages, unemployment rate, ratio of unemployed people related to job openings, labor force participation rate, trade deficit (imports vs. exports), and Federal debt. USA Facts only reports the figures at the end of the year so the data shown is for 2022 since 2023 hasn’t ended yet.

Gross Domestic Product 1970 – 2023

Labor Force Participation Rate

The rate is calculated as the labor force divided by the total working-age population. The working age population refers to people aged 15 to 64. This indicator is broken down by age group and it is measured as a percentage of each age group.

The labor force participation rate was 66.0% in 2008, and gradually dropped down to 63.3% by January 2020.  As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it dropped to a low of 61.5% in November 2020 before gradually rising to 62.8% in November 2023.

Ratio of Unemployed People to Job Openings

According to the Bureau of Labor Standards, “The ratio of unemployed people to job openings ranged from 0.8 to 1.0 during 2018 and 2019. Over the past 5 years, the number of unemployed people per job opening reached a high of 4.9 in April 2020, when there were 23.1 million unemployed people and 4.7 million job openings. Since October 2021, the ratio has been 0.5 or 0.6 every month…When ratios equal 1.0, there is approximately 1 unemployed person per job opening. When less than 1.0, the labor market is tight, as job openings outnumber the unemployed. When greater than 1.0, there are more unemployed people than available jobs..”

The unemployment rate of the United States which has been steadily decreasing since the 2008 financial crisis, but spiked to 8.1 percent in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The annual unemployment rate of the U.S. since 1990 can be found here.

Federal Fund Interest Rates

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates seven times in 2022 and four times in 2023, increasing the target rate from nearly zero (0.25%) in 2020-2021 to 5.25%-5.50% currently. The Fed is expected to hold rates steady when they meet this month. The Fed rate affects the consumer interest rates for mortgages and installment loans for things like cards, home furnishings, and other consumer goods.  Mortgage rates have risen from 2.75-3.25 in 2021 to 6.0%-7.9% in 2023.  This has stagnated sales for homes and automobiles.

National average wage indexing series, 2001-2022

Year  Annual Wage YearAnnual Wage
2001$32,921.92 2012$44,321.67
2002$33,252.09 2013$44,888.16
2003$34,064.95 2014$46,481.52
2004$35,648.55 2015$48,098.63
2005$36,952.94 2016$48,642.15
2006$38,651.41 2017$50,321.89
2007$40,405.48 2018$52,145.80
2008$41,334.97 2019$54,099.99
2009$40,711.61 2020$55,628.60
2010$41,673.83 2021$60,575.07
2011$42,979.61 2022$63,795.13

Data source:  https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

It looks like wages have nearly doubled in 21 years, but the value of the dollar has changed over time. According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, the ”U.S. dollar has lost 42% its value since 2001; $100 in 2001 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $173.73 today…The dollar had an average inflation rate of 2.54% per year between 2001 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 73.73%.” This we need to deduct 42% from the 2022 wage to compare it to 2001 ($63,795.13 – $27,431.91 = $42,363.23). Thus, the wages only went up by 34% while inflation increased 73.73%. 

U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index

The November Job Quality Index report by The Coalition for a Prosperous America states, “The Job Quality Index measures job quality for U.S. production and non-supervisory workers by comparing workers’ weekly wages to the mean weekly wage for all non-supervisory workers. Those jobs above the mean are classified as high-quality and those below the mean are low-quality…Over the past three decades, the JQI declined because the U.S. economy created more low-quality jobs than it has high-quality jobs. As shown in Figure 1, the JQI is down 12.8% from 1990 illustrating the disproportionate growth in low-wage, low-hour jobs.”

The last year that the U.S. had a positive trade balance by exporting more than we imported was 1979. The trade deficit grew gradually from 1980 – 1999, but accelerated after China was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000.  In 2022, the trade deficit of $948.1 billion a 3.9% increase from 2021.

For my industry of manufacturing, there are two other measures that can be examined to determine the true state of the economy.  They are:

US ISM Manufacturing PMI

The Institute of Supply Management Purchasing Managers Index “is a diffusion index summarizing economic activity in the manufacturing sector in the US. The index is based on a survey of manufacturing supply executives conducted by ISM. Participants are asked to gauge activity in a number of categories like new orders, inventories, and production and these sub-indices are then combined to create the PMI… A PMI above 50 would designates an overall expansion of the manufacturing economy whereas a PMI below 50 signifies a shrinking of the manufacturing economy.

US ISM Manufacturing PMI was at a level of 46.70 on November 30, 2023, unchanged from 46.70 for October and down from a recent high of 64.70 in March 31, 2021.  The PMI dropped to 49.00 for the November 30. 2022 report, so we have been in a shrinking economy for 13 months.  

U.S. Manufacturing Technology Orders  

According to the November report published by AMT, The Association For Manufacturing Technology, “orders for manufacturing technology…continued to fall relative to 2022. Through October 2023 orders totaled $4.05 billion, 13.5% behind the total for the first 10 months of 2022.  

Conclusion:  Adding to the above data is the fact that vehicle gas prices have escalated since 2020.  According to Finder, “Gas prices in over the last 12 months are well above the national average over the last six years, hitting $4.99 a gallon in the week of June 16, 2022 — a week in which Californians paid a whopping $6.43 per gallon…The national average gas price this week [December 7th] is $3.22, down from $3.27. US gas prices over the last year are among the highest since 2018. California has the highest gas prices in the nation, followed by Hawaii as a close second, and Washington, Nevada, and Oregon making up the top five.  Texas has the lowest gas price ($2.68) in the nation followed closely by Mississippi ($2.72) and Oklahoma ($2.74). 

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Last year, U.S. consumers saw the largest annual increase in food prices since the 1980s. While food prices generally increased about 2% in prior years, they increased about 11% from 2021 to 2022…Food prices increases also varied by locality. For example, the highest increase between 2021 and 2022 was seen in Detroit Michigan (about 14.5%). The lowest (about 5%) occurred in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Florida metro area…Finally, food price increases from 2021 to 2022 varied by food group. For example, prices for grains and bakery products increased by about 13%, while fruits and vegetables increased by about 9%.  Similarly, dairy products increased by about 12%, but meats, poultry and fish increased about 10%.”

I am not an economist qualified to do an educated analysis of all of the above data, but it is obvious to me that the U.S. economy has some serious problems that need to be urgently addressed if we want to avoid a prolonged recession. The question that voters ask themselves in an election year, “Am I better off now than I was under the previous administration.”  The answer to that question will determine the outcome of the next election.     		 

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

Are Southern California Trade Shows Recovering from Pandemic Shutdowns?

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023

There have been four trade shows in Southern California that I have either attended or participated as exhibitor this year. The first show I attended was the five in-one show, MD&M West, WestPack, ATX West, D&M West, and Plastec West held February 7-9, 2023 at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, CA. 

These shows take up all of the halls in the largest building of the Anaheim Convention Center complex.  Besides the several hundred companies exhibiting in the show, it also offers educational conferences held by the various trade shows concurrently with the show.

There were five free education stages on the show floor that provided in-depth discussions and instructions from industry experts on the latest need-to-know information for their industry. In addition, there were paid conference sessions in meeting rooms on the second floor.  I attended the IME West conference on February 8th and gave a presentation titled, “The Future of Manufacturing.” I discussed how manufacturing revitalization has been hindered by misperceptions, what is happening in our current period of creative disruption, and what vibrant opportunities exist now and in the future.  I also attended all of the other conference sessions held that day, and they were all well attended.   

When I walked the show on the 7th, it seemed to be as well attended as a pre-pandemic show.  The plastic molding company we represent, Hi-Rel Plastics, exhibited in the MD&M show and was happy with the quantity of their show leads, but the quality of the leads wasn’t as good as pre-COVID shows.

The second show was the Del Mar Electronics & Manufacturing Show held April 26th & 27th at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County.  My company, ElectroFab Sales, has exhibited in the show since 1997, and this year, we had two exhibit booths featuring the fabrication services of four of the ten companies we represent.  I also gave a presentation on the first morning of the show on “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for your Products.”

This show has an extensive free conference schedule both days of the show and also features a free reception at the end of the first day of the show which encourages late afternoon attendees to stay for the reception and skip the worst of rush hour traffic to go home. Another added benefit for attendees is free parking for the show.

We had very good traffic the first day of the show, and more traffic than some previous years on the second day of the show. The second day of the show ends at 3:00 PM so there is less time to collect show leads. We got about 50 leads from our exhibit which was about 30% higher than 2022.  However, there were very few leads from well-established or larger companies.  Most of the leads were entrepreneurs with new products or from small companies designing a new product. 

Show manager, Connor Good, told that the number of booths was up by 25% and attendance was up by 30% over 2022.  He said, “What felt like a long time coming the first year back after the pandemic, attendee numbers were promising. It showed us the industry is ready to get back to business and people are eager to network face to face.”

The third show of the year was the Design-2-Part Show, held September 13th & 14th at the Ontario Convention Center.  This show alternates between held in Long Beach, Pasadena, and Ontario in Southern California. The Design-2-Part shows have been held for 42 years and feature only American manufacturers; no reps or distributors are allowed to exhibit.  An average of 10-11 shows have historically been held around the country each year.

President, Rober Eichner, “We were even able to conduct a show in Texas in 2020 and conducted nine shows around the country in 2021 and 10 shows in 2022.  We have held 11 shows this year and 12 shows are scheduled for 2024.  Show attendance at many of the shows this year approached attendance levels of 2018 and 2019. We purchased the AMCON shows last year, so we plan on holding shows in Denver, CO and Novi, MI in 2024.  We also skipped doing the Santa Clara show last spring, but plan on being back there in 2024.”

This makes these shows the most efficient place to meet hundreds of high-quality American suppliers of custom parts, stock parts, and manufacturing services.

I attended the show on Thursday, September 14th to do booth duty for the rubber molding company we have represented for 29 years, Century Rubber Company.  My husband and partner had done booth duty at the show on the 13th.  He said the show was very busy the first day.  The second day is never as busy because it ends at 3:00 PM, but I thought it was busier than the second day of the Long Beach show in October 2022. 

The last show I attended was the Anaheim Electronics & Manufacturing Show held September 27th & 28th at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, CA.  

This show featured hundreds of companies exhibiting in the following categories:

  • Telecom Manufactures
  • Defense Contractors
  • Plastic and Rubber Molders
  • Medical Device Companies
  • Electronics OEM’s
  • Bio-Pharma Device Manufactures
  • Sports Products Developers
  • Coil Winding
  • Machine Shops
  • Castings
  • Sheet metal fabrication
  • 3D printing…. and More

This show is owned by the same owner as the Del Mar Electronics & Manufacturing Show and allows reps and distributors to exhibit. The same benefits of free parking and a free reception at the end of the first day of the show encourages show attendance.

I attended the show on Thursday, September 28th to walk the show and give a presentation at 1:00 PM on “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for Your Products”

Assistant Show Manager, Connor Good, told me that the number of booths this year was up 30% from the fall 2022 show, and attendance the first day was 20% higher than the both days last year.  He said, “The show was held in the convention center’s newest hall, the ACC North. We tried to combine the easy going and stress-free environment of the Del Mar show with the professionalism and company dense area of Anaheim. We encouraged business development of all sizes and opportunities through free attendance and parking even if signing up on show day.”

There is one more trade show coming up in Southern California this fall

WESTEC/AeroDef

Tuesday, November 7 through Thursday, November 9

Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802

I have been to WESTEC many, many times starting in 1990 when I attended comprehensive technical sessions on manufacturing processes such as investment casting. The amount of time you spend there is well worth the effort. You can literally spend hours and not take in all that there is to offer.

WESTEC has been providing solutions to manufacturing challenges for 58 years. You can see more than 400 exhibitors, face-to-face, at WESTEC — all in one place, over a three-day period. WESTEC gives you face-to-face access to hundreds of experts in critical industries such as aerospace, medical, industrial machinery and consumer goods. You can find new manufacturing technology to make your vision a reality. The variation at WESTEC is vast. Here’s just a small sampling of what you’ll discover at WESTEC:  aerospace manufacturing, castings, forgings, CNC Machining, Waterjet, Advanced Materials, 3D printing, and much more.

WESTEC has manufacturing education sessions that focus on teaching you about new technologies, new processes, and trends that can transform your business. All show floor education is included with the show floor pass. Attendees come from a variety of industries including aerospace, medical, industrial machinery, automotive, and more.

You can sign up to attend at no charge at the official website  www.westeconline.com 

Trade shows are even more important than they once were because most large companies eliminated “vendor days” decades ago where sales reps could schedule appointments with buyers in their purchasing departments.  In addition, many buyers and even engineers are not back to working full-time at their offices and may still be working remotely from home two-three days a week, making it very difficult to connect with them.  Meeting a potential customer at a trade show is the first step in developing a relationship to become a regular vendor for a manufacturer.  Trade shows also provide the opportunity for inventors and entrepreneurs to explore the possible sources for parts, assemblies, and fabrication services for their new products.  Be sure to make it a priority in your schedule to attend a trade show next year.

Tags:,
Posted in General, Manufacturing | No Comments »

What Would be The Benefits of the ONSHORE Act of 2023?

Wednesday, July 12th, 2023

The COVID pandemic proved that we cannot rely on imports of products needed to protect the health and welfare of Americans. Offshoring of manufacturing left the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. We cannot defend our country if the products needed by the military and defense industry become unavailable because of being sourced offshore, especially in China. It’s time for all Americans to wake up to the dangers of being dependent on other countries for manufacturers goods, especially one that has become a threat to our country.

Strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities, especially for industries of the future, is critical for economic and national security. We must forge a new path by rebuilding American manufacturing to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and rebuild a strong, secure domestic supply chain if we want to remain a free country.

I am glad to see that Congress is finally paying some attention to this need:  On June 8, 2023, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator JD Vance (R-OH), and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced S.1915 – ONSHORE Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill to boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen supply chains that will help bring critical supply chains back to America by assisting communities of all sizes with the site development needed to attract manufacturing facilities. 

The joint press release states: “The U.S. faces a shortage of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and workforce for companies to quickly begin construction on new manufacturing facilities. The ONSHORE Act creates a Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program within the Economic Development Administration, which would assist communities, including small towns and tribal communities, with site development to attract manufactures from critical industries to build new facilities in their area.” 

Senator Vance stated, “As our nation takes the necessary steps to reshore critical supply chains and spur innovation, everyone in America should reap the rewards This bill would deploy capital broadly to ensure the foundations of tomorrow’s industry and growth are laid in underdeveloped regions. If enacted, it will deliver good-paying jobs, build vibrant communities, and strengthen supply chains—in Ohio and around the country.” 
 
Senator Kelly stated, “As we work to bring manufacturing supply chains for critical industries from microchips to critical minerals back to America, we have to maximize this opportunity by making sure there are enough sites with the infrastructure and workforce needed for new facilities. For a lot of small towns and tribal communities, the biggest barrier to attracting investment is the cost of getting sites ready for development. We’re working to fix that, which will boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs in every corner of our states and the country.” 
 
Senator Cotton stated, “We cannot rely on other countries like China for our essential technologies. The technologies of tomorrow should be tested, researched, and made in America. This legislation will help make the necessary investments in our communities to make that possible.”

So far, the OSHORE ACT has received enthusiastic support from the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), the Global Business Alliance, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, the Arizona Commerce Authority, and JobsOhio..

Nathan Ohle, President & CEO of IEDC said, “The ONSHORE Act will provide communities with essential resources to aid in attracting supply chain manufacturers. Economic developers across the U.S. will welcome this new initiative and IEDC urges the swift passage and implementation of the ONSHORE Act.”

Nancy McLernon, president & CEO of the Global business Alliance, said, “Site readiness is a critical consideration for international companies planning major investments in the United States… and urges all Senators to support this measure and other policies that make it easier to invest in America.”  

Chris Camacho, President & CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said, “The availability of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and skilled workforce is a crucial factor in attracting companies to invest in Greater Phoenix and bolster U.S. supply chains. This program ensures that strategic mega sites and regionally impactful locations are properly prepared for new industrial investment. With enhanced site-readiness, the United States will be better equipped to compete globally, foster the growth of critical industries, and ensure the production of essential products domestically.”

Sandra Watson President & CEO, Arizona Commerce Authority, said, “We applaud Senator Kelly for leading on this important legislation. This ONSHORE Act will significantly strengthen U.S. competitiveness for new manufacturing opportunities, bringing more jobs and investments to Arizona.”

J.P. Nauseef, JobsOhio president and CEO, said, “I applaud the introduction of the ONSHORE Act, which will help Ohio and the rest of the United States more fully capitalize on this generational opportunity by expanding the number of sites that are ready to support major development projects.”

I can see that basic infrastructure, such as road access or water and power utility hookups, is an important factor affecting where a new manufacturing facility is built, but there are so many abandoned manufacturing sites throughout the country that I question the need for the Economic Development Agency’s Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program. There are also large retail stores, such as former K-Mart stores, that could be converted to manufacturing sites by remodeling and changing zoning. The redevelopment of these sites would provide good opportunities to revive the industrial base of states hard hit by offshoring, such as Michigan, Ohio, and North and South Carolina.

In my opinion, there is a greater need for a new type of Small Business Innovation grant program to fund establishing manufacturing plants to manufacture components and systems that are no longer made in the U.S. because of being offshored to China and other Asian countries.  This type of grant would also provide new industrial investment, including in rural and tribal communities, and regions with high unemployment.  These companies would help position the U.S. to compete against adversaries like China, boost domestic manufacturing, and build resilient supply chains. 

Priority for receiving such a grant should be given to proposals that would manufacture critical components and systems needed by our military and defense industrial base.  Semiconductors and batteries are not the only critical products that need to be onshored/reshored.  Components such as capacitors, resistors, inductors, transformers, connectors, and flex circuits also need to be returned to being made in the USA.

This kind of investment will better position the U.S. to compete against international competitors like China and the European Union and ensure more critical products are made in America.  

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Legislation, Made in America, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Economic Indicators Report Reveals a Shrinking Middle Class

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2023

A long-time acquaintance of mine, Charles Shor, contacted me recently to inform me that he had founded a new non-profit organization, Blue Collar Dollar Institute.  Charlie has been a long-time reader of my blog articles, and we share a common concern — the shrinking middle class.  We also shared the same opinion of the main reason for the cause of the shrinking middle class:  the loss of higher-paying manufacturing jobs by American manufacturers outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries, particularly China. 

We agreed that the problem is, “By offshoring much of our manufacturing base, the United States has developed a dependency on importing consumer goods, amassing debt in the private and public sectors, and relying on critical goods from abroad in times of crisis such as pandemics and wars.”

We both feel that the middle class is in trouble.  “The Blue Collar Dollar Institute aims to understand how the United States’ decision to subsidize foreign manufacturing is decreasing the size of our middle class, increasing the amount of Americans in poverty and catapulting forward the wealth in both the top 5% and foreign competitors.”

The Institute’s Mission Statement is: “The Blue Collar Dollar Institute believes that the United States cannot offer a middle-class lifestyle to a large majority of Americans without possessing a strong and vibrant manufacturing sector.  Our non-partisan mission is to research data, inform the public, and advocate for policy in order to help strengthen US manufacturing and goods-producing sectors. 

Prior to founding Blue Collar Dollar Institute, Charlie’s original foundation, The Charles Shor Foundation, collaborated with  Dr. David Perkis, Purdue Center for Economic Education, Krannert School of Management, to prepare a 200-page Economic Indicators Report.

Charlie encouraged me to contact Dr. Perkis, and we had a long conversation when I connected with him last week.  He explained that the report’s purpose “is to provide a picture of the economic and social wellbeing of the United States in comparison to five other industrialized nations:  China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Singapore… Special attention is given to the manufacturing sector due to its perceived ability to offer high paying jobs and to create additional jobs in communities.”

One of the most serious facts the report reveals is: “Since 1945, the percentage of jobs in manufacturing, construction, and mining has dropped from 40% to 14%, eliminating some of the highest paying jobs for high school graduates.”

The result is: “The dreams of Americans obtaining the basics of a middle-class lifestyle, such as owning a home, sending their kids to college, and obtaining affordable housing, have become more and more out of reach for the average household.”  I’ve seen this in my own family as my two adult children have not been able to buy homes in San Diego, CA.

The results of the research revealed that “Although the United States is still the world leader in total output, it has some dubious distinctions in comparison to the other countries of this study.” The other countries are China, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.  In comparison to these countries, the United States has:

  • The least amount of trade as a share of GDP
  • The largest trade deficits
  • The highest level of adult wealth
  • The most significant wealth inequality
  • The highest level of health care spending (without the best outcomes).
  • The largest level of military spending
  • The lowest GDP share of manufacturing

Needless to say, I only had time to read through the first 40 pages of the lengthy report, so I will only point out some key findings related to manufacturing and trade issues.

As I have written previously in my books and blog articles, the U.S. has trade deficits since 1976, so it was no surprise to me that the report states: “From 1992 – 2019, deficits in manufactured goods have totaled $16.3 trillion (2010 USD), with the bulk of the deficit occurring since 1992 ($15.5 trillion). Since 1992, our largest deficits in manufactured goods have been with China ($4.6 trillion) and Japan ($2.5 trillion).”

Another noteworthy point is “The United States is still the world leader in output as measured by Gross

Domestic Product (Figure 1). In 2019, GDP measured $21.4 trillion USD, compared to $14.4 trillion from its next closest rival, China.”


I’ve long said and wrote that manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the middle class, and if we lose sufficient manufacturing jobs, we will lose the middle class. The loss of middle-class jobs in the U.S. is demonstrated by the fact that “the United States is no longer the leader in average income ($62 thousand USD). That distinction belongs to Singapore ($101 thousand USD).” The result has been “Income inequality in the US has increased significantly over the past 50 years (Figure 10). Income growth for the lowest 60% of income earners fell from the late 1990s through 2015.”

This may be due to the fact that the percentage of jobs in producing goods went down from 39% in 1964 to 15% in 2019, while the percentage of jobs in services increased from 62% in 1964 to 85% in 2019.  The average non-supervisory wage of goods jobs was $944/week I 2019, while the services wage was $699. However, service jobs in retail paid even lower in 2019 —$594/week.

With regard to budgets and deficits, “Except for a four-year period at the end of the Clinton administration, the United States has run a national budget deficit every year since 1970…The governments of Japan and the US carry the most debt…Japan has managed to accumulate the largest government debt as a percentage of GDP, totaling 232% (Figure 22). The United States is a distant

second carrying debt just over 100% of GDP…However, total government debt does not tell the whole story as some may be owed to a country’s own citizens while some will be due to foreign entities. For

instance, of Japan’s 232% debt, 208% is owed to domestic entities with a small portion due overseas (Figure 23). Within our comparison group, the United States government maintains the greatest holdings of debt to foreigners (37%).” 

As I have written in previous articles, there is a relationship between budget deficits and trade deficits.  When a country is buying more imports than selling exports, this produces less revenue for the government, so the country goes into debt to pay its expenses.  We lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010, and have only added back 1.2 million manufacturing jobs from reshoring and Foreign Direct Investment.  If these manufacturing workers had to get service jobs, they would be receiving lower wages and thus paying lower taxes.  In addition, the higher percentage of workers being paid lower wages for a service job results in their paying less taxes, again reducing the government’s revenue.

The report also mentions the benefits of manufacturing for a town, region, state, and the country as a whole.  This is because

1) “Most goods can be traded anywhere in the world, creating more exports and

generating income from overseas, whereas services are typically limited to

local markets.

2) Manufacturing positions create more additional jobs in the local community

than do service oriented positions. This is the multiplier effect of manufacturing.”

The report explains, “Job multipliers indicate how many total jobs will be created within a region due

to a new position in a particular industry.”  The job multiplier effect for manufacturing jobs ranges from 2.2 to 4.0, whereas the multiplier effect for service jobs ranges from 1.3 to 1.9.

The goals of the Blue Collar Dollar Institute to have strong manufacturing, construction, and mining sectors would help middle-class households have a prosperous life in the following ways: 

  • “By creating high-paying jobs for individuals without a college education. 
  • By selling more products overseas than we buy overseas, bringing net funds into the country. 
  • By making our nation less dependent on foreign countries for critical goods in times of crisis such as pandemics and wars, thus reducing risk for the average American.”

I look forward to continuing my discussions with Dr. Perkis to explore ways in which Industry Reimagined 2030 can collaborate to achieve the goals we have in common, such as adding 5 million middle-income manufacturing jobs and $1 trillion to the economy by 2030.

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

Solutions to Address Outsourcing by Multinationals & Rebuild American Manufacturing

Tuesday, May 9th, 2023

Michael Collins wrote, “Hope is not a plan” in his book Dismantling the American Dream, How Multinational Corporations Undermine American Prosperity. In other words, we cannot hope to rebuild American manufacturing without doing things differently than we’ve done in the past 30 years.  The industrial policies we have been following resulted in the decimation of the U.S. manufacturing base with the loss of over 70,000 manufacturing companies and 5.8 million manufacturing jobs.

Michael proposes a number of solutions in his book, some of which are the same or similar to solutions I proposed in my book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity. First, we both agree that we need a new industrial policy and plan.  The free trade policy we’ve followed since WWII has only benefited multinational corporations at the cost of millions of manufacturing jobs and an escalating trade deficit. Every President in the past 30 years had the goal of doubling exports and creating more manufacturing jobs, but the trade and industrial policies they promoted did just the opposite. President Biden’s Build Back Better Plan has the goal of creating five million jobs, but without measurable objectives and a plan to achieve those objectives, Michael feels “nothing will change.”  

Michael points out that “it will take a reduction in the trade deficit of 20 percent to bring back one million manufacturing jobs.” That means, we would have to reduce our trade deficit by 100% of the 2020 trade deficit total to create five million jobs.  However, the opposite occurred as the trade deficit increased from “$676.7 billion in 2020 to $861.4 billion in 2021… [and] $945.3 billion in 2022” according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Michael notes that “politicians, Democrats or Republicans, don’t seem to be willing to publicly commit to an objective of reducing the trade deficit.” He comments, “This is dangerous territory, and government is the only entity that can do anything about the trade deficit.”

I came to a similar conclusion in the chapter on “Have Free Trade Agreements Benefited American Manufacturing” of my book.  I also recommended that the U.S. do not enter into any new trade agreements, and Michael agrees, writing. “We should oppose any FTA that will cost jobs or increase the trade deficit.”

The question is how do you reduce a trade deficit.?  Since Michael and I are both members of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), we support addressing currency manipulation and the overvalued dollar as two of the main ways to balance trade.  Michael wrote, “The root cause of the trade deficit is that the United States is not price competitively primarily because the dollar is overvalued by 20 to 30 percent.” However, he wrote, “Most of the large importer corporations and Wall Street do not want the government to enforce the current WTO and IMF laws against currency manipulation or to devalue the dollar because they want to keep foreign import prices low.”

Michael summarizes four methods that can be used to reevaluate the dollar:

  • Impose countervailing duties (CVDs) – tariffs or taxes on imported goods that offset subsidies by trading partners.
  • Tax purchases by using a Market Access Charge (MAC) on all foreign investments in the U.S., including stocks, bonds, real estate, companies, or intellectual property.
  • Implement a withholding tax on the profits and dividends earned by foreign inventors that finance the dollar.
  • Tax sellbacks – impose a 30% tax on the profits of companies that have offshored.

Michael wrote that “A new working paper from the CPA called ‘Imports Growth and Job Creation from a Competitive Dollar’ reveals that if the dollar value could be reduced by 27 percent it would result in export growth five times faster than baseline, while imports would grow more slowly.”

Another CPA proposal that Michael supports is “Make existing China tariffs permanent” and “impose the 4A and 4B tariffs.”   He wrote, “The Trump tariffs with China are working, and in fact, are our only defence against China’s mercantilist cheating.” He recommends that “Congress should limit tariff exclusions for importers, especially those that are not using the imports to manufacture in the United States.”

Michael also recommends creating “a more level playing field with our trade partners” by building reciprocity into our trade agreements.  This would “allow the United States to impose reciprocal duties on all countries who have higher tariffs if they do not lower their tariffs and VATs.”  I wrote in my book, “Over 150 countries in the world have shifted a significant portion of their tax mix to border adjustable consumption taxes —Value Added Taxes (VATs) or goods and services taxes (GSTs)…The rates range from 12% to 24% and average 17% globally.” In 2017, CPA proposed a 12% GST to be applied as a credit to the 15.3% payroll tax. Michael wrote, “We should level the playing field by introducing a program to match the foreign country’s VAT…”

In order to reduce the unfair advantage that multinational corporations have under current U/S. trade policy, Michael supports CPA’s proposal for “Sales Factor Tax Apportionment” that “would tax profits based on where the product is sold and eliminate the ability of multinational companies avoiding taxes by shifting profits offshore.” I had explained that this tax proposal would be “determined solely on the percent of a company’s world-wide sales made to U.S. customers.”

He also recommends the new proposal for a “Global Minimum Corporate Tax of 15 percent”, which “would give government the ability to tax our home company’s overseas profits at 15 percent, and deter them from us9mg tax shelter countries to avoid taxes.”

Michael supports CPA’s proposal for the U. S. to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO) because the requirement of consensus on trade rules and decisions by the 164 member countries have “turned out to be detrimental to the United States,” In addition, he supports “repealing the Permanent Normalized Trade Relations (PNTR) with both Russia and China.”

He writes that these actions are first steps in “decoupling form China” and then lists a dozen different steps to be taken thereafter that CPA recommends as part of the decoupling process.

Michael also briefly mentions the work of Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, to help companies use the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ to reshore manufacturing to America.  I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Harry Moser since 2010 as an authorized presenter on how to use TCO to return manufacturing to America and devoted a whole chapter on reshoring in my book. 

The Reshoring Initiative 2022 Data Report  states, “Jobs announced in 2022 were a record-breaking 364,000 – up from 238,000 in 2021. The totalnumber of jobs announced since 2010 is now nearly 1.6million.”  However, Michael notes that “at the current rate of reshoring, it will take over 30 years to reach Biden’s goal of five million jobs.”

Michael’s last chapter makes a brief mention of the need for workforce training and comments that instead of training, “MNCs have used stop gap measures such as outsourcing, automation, buying services from foreign vendors, and poaching trained workers from their suppliers, but these strategies no longer work and the shortage of workers has caught up to American companies.”

I felt that workforce training was so important to rebuilding American manufacturing that I included a chapter on the subject of how to foster and develop the next generation of manufacturing workers in my book. Since my book was published, I have written many articles on this topic.

Most of the above recommendations are focused on government policies, but the likelihood of making such major changes in policies is slim to none at the present time. That is why we need to shift the mindset from a prevailing worldview of ‘inevitable decline’ of American manufacturing to one of ‘vibrant opportunity. We need a new level of thinking and action that scales solutions at hand with unprecedented collaboration and organize our efforts to achieve the following true north goals by 2030:

  •  50,000 world-class domestic manufacturing small – medium– large enterprises (10x increase)
  • Add 5 million middle-income manufacturing jobs (40%)
  • Add $1 trillion to the economy (40% increase)

We need to focus our attention on disruptive and emerging opportunities that create new growth opportunities for companies, people, communities.  We welcome collaboration with Industry Reimagined 2030.

Posted in General, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How Multinational Corporations Undermine American Prosperity

Tuesday, April 18th, 2023

Long-time American manufacturing advocate, Michael Collins, added to his extensive body of work with a 4th book, Dismantling the American Dream: How Multinational Corporations Undermine American Prosperity  Michael had a 35-year career in manufacturing before retiring and uses hhis experience to write a book he describes as “a concise story that tells what America’s multinationals did to the U.S. economy and how they did it.”

Michael told me that one of his purposes in writing the book was to take advantage of a commitment letter signed by 181 CEOs on August 19, 2019 “to lead their companies not just for the benefit of their investors, but for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders.” He wanted to “provide the managers of the 181 corporations a good summary of the problems and obstacles they will need to address and overcome if they are going to make good on their commitments.”

In his book, Michael reveals that multinational corporations (MNCs) began to follow Milton Friedman’s doctrine — an entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.” He wrote, “In the 1980s, the Business Roundtable translated this into shareholder value or ‘the point of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners, period.’” This resulted in “favoring shareholders over all stake holders and short-term profits over society and country.”

His book shows “how the economy has been restructured to fit the needs of the MNCs and their investors, resulting in huge gains in wealth for the few [and] rising inequality while tens of millions of Americans find themselves unable to attain the standard of living of previous generations.”

He writes that outsourcing “began as early as the 1970s, but accelerated in the 1990s after the U.S. negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).” He writes, Outsourcing by American corporations has caused permanent damage to American workers, manufactur9ng, supplier companies and the living standards of many families. It may lead to short-term profits for the corporations, but eventually, the corporations will lose the technology and the market to foreign corporations.” He opines that “Over the last 40 years, the MNCs commitment to short-term profits, shareholder value, and outsourcing has resulted in the deindustrialization of America.”

All of this outsourcing caused a surge in inequality, and he quotes the Job Quality Index developed by the Coalition for Prosperous America, which shows that “In 1972, 27 percent of all private industry jobs were low-quality jobs. Today, low-quality jobs are 59 percent of all jobs.”

His brief coverage of “the Myth of Free Trade” corroborates many of the points I have made in blog articles I have written in the past 13 years. I particularly liked his comment, “the winnings of free trade have gone mostly to the investors —the MNCs and their shareholders. Free trade has been very hard on workers, manufacturers, suppliers, and industries…”

In his chapter “Innovation and the Loss of Technology, he lists several key American inventions patented between 1945 – 1982, such as microwave ovens, hard disk drives, laser, MRIs, GPS, mobile phones, personal computers, and comments that “most of the inventions listed above are no longer manufactured in America.” He points out that “China has already swallowed the low-tech products we used to make. What they want now is our advanced technology products and production processes that were developed in the United States. The technologies they are after are all listed in their Made in China 2025 plan.”

The data in his chapter “The Slow Erosion of American Manufacturing Industries is mind-blowing and frightening with regard to how many manufacturing sectors have declined, some to the point of no return.  His comment that “all former Presidents since Bill Clinton rely on their economic advisors and abandon manufacturing” rings true.

His analysis of Financialization, “defined as the ‘growing scale and profitability of the finance sector at the expense of the rest of the economy and the shrinking regulation of its rules and returns” provided a new perspective for me.  It was startling to learn that “today finance has 40 percent of the nations’ profits with 5 percent of the jobs.”  He writes that some of ways “Financialization has hurt the American economy” are:

  • Rising inequality
  • Stagnant wages
  • Falling productivity
  • The decline of GDP growth
  • The decline of innovation
  • Decline of capital investment

In the next chapter, he discusses the fact that reducing corporates taxes to keep multinationals producing here in the U.S. hasn’t worked because there are too many loopholes that corporations can use to avoid paying taxes, not to mention reincorporating in tax haven countries or shifting taxes to subsidiaries in lower tax countries.  As a result, reductions in corporate taxes have caused our national debt to escalate because multinational corporations have not paid their fair share of taxes.

The next two chapters focus on how MNCs have developed a more powerful influence on the economy and Congress; first, by buying influence in government with lobbying money, and second by forming monopolies and oligopolies.  His itemization of the lobbying money spent by the top 33 companies in lobbying Congress is staggering.  This explains why trade associations and even manufacturing-related unions like the AFL/CIO Industrial sector have so little influence on legislation.

I was familiar with monopolies, but had to look up information on oligopolies. Essentially, they are industries dominated by a few large companies. Michael writes, “In the last 20 years, oligopolies have been created by mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of MNCs.” He then describes modern day oligopolies:  airlines, banks, hospitals, meat packers, beer, smart phones, pharmaceutical companies, and railroads. He opines, “The agglomeration of market power also leads to political power where the oligopolies and monopolies create and control the rules of the economic game which leads to political inequality.”

In the subsequent chapters, Michael addresses the skilled worker shortages, mainly caused by a lack of workforce training by MNCs, especially apprenticeships, and the lack of high paying manufacturing jobs compared to service jobs as a result of outsourcing manufacturing to other countries. 

His chapter on “The Threat of China” is so thorough that no summary could do justice to his comprehensive coverage of this topic.  He writes, “The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically exposed the vulnerability of U.S. supply chains.” He advises, “The first step is to recognize China as a competitor not a trading partner and do everything possible to stop this competitor form gain strategic and tactical advantages. He notes, “It is not an exaggeration to say we are in the beginning of a cold war with China and must defend ourselves as we did with the Soviet Union.”

 His next two chapters are devoted to solutions to address the decline in productivity and GDP growth, currency manipulation and the overvalued dollar.

His chapter on “Why we Must Save America’s Manufacturing Sector” echoes most of the points I made in my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved?  Why we should and How we Can, published in 2009.  Michael and I are definitely on the same page, and both of us have published hundreds of articles that expressed our opinions on the importance of manufacturing to our national economy. I concur with his statement, “More than any other business sector, the U.S. multinationals were responsible for the erosion of the industrial commons. They outsourced all kinds of technologies and products with reckless abandon and with no regard for the skills and knowledge that would make America competitive in the future.”  I have made the same point many times that Michael expressed when he wrote, “The American MNCs have become ‘stateless’ entities with little or no loyalties to the home country.”

The final chapter provides his recommended solutions for the key problems he has identified, which you need to read for yourself. He makes an appeal to the 181 CEOs to keep their pledge so they can contribute to saving and rebuilding American manufacturing in order to protect our national security that is at risk.

This book is a must-read for everyone who is concerned about the future of the manufacturing industry, especially with regard to our national security.  Every Senator and Congressional Representative needs to read this book.  I suggest you buy one book for yourself and one to give to your Representative.

Posted in Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

It’s the supply chain … stupid!

Tuesday, April 4th, 2023

Ever since the COVID pandemic started three years ago, we have suffered from disruptions in supply chains for many products used in our daily lives as well as products and components needed for our consumer products, industrial, and defense industries.  Why?  Because we stopped making things in the USA. We outsourced everything from household goods to high tech products, as well as pharmaceuticals and medical devices. First, it was to friendly countries like the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Taiwan, and then it became predominantly China after they entered the World Trade Organization in 2001.

The shortages of semiconductors, has made news headlines for the past two years. Semiconductors are used in everything from consumer products such as cell phones, computers, and TVs as well autos, trucks, airplanes, boats, ships, drones, and space vehicles.  There is hardly any product that doesn’t have a semiconductor in it these days, even refrigerators and washing machines. Many other electronic and electro-mechanical components are also no longer made in the USA.

Our domestic innovation capacity is contingent on a robust and diversified industrial base. Our loss of manufacturing capabilities has led to a loss in innovation capacity. When manufacturing heads offshore, innovation follows. We currently lack the ecosystem of innovation, skills, and production facilities to have the secure and resilient supply chains required for economic security. As a result, we are no longer self-sufficient in producing the products we depend on for our modern way of life.    

Even worse, we are no longer self-sufficient in producing the goods and systems needed to defend our country.  Our national security and freedom as an independent country is at risk. This fact was confirmed in the article “From rockets to shells, Pentagon struggles to feed war machine,” from the March 25th issue of the New York Times which stated, “The United States lacks the capacity to produce the arms that the nation and its allies need at a time of heightened superpower tensions…Industry consolidation, depleted manufacturing lines and supply chain issues have combined to constrain the production of basic ammunition like artillery shells while also prompting concern about building adequate reserves of more sophisticated weapons including missiles, air defense systems and counter-artillery radar…illustrated by the shortage of solid rocket motors needed to power a broad range of precision missile systems, such as the ship-launched SM-6 missiles made by Raytheon…Other shortages slowing production include simple items such as ball bearings, a key component of certain missile guidance systems, and steel castings, used in making engines.”

There are two main ways that government can help rebuild the domestic manufacturing base:  penalize offshoring to other countries and incentivize American manufacturers to make is here or reshore their manufacturing to the USA.  The Biden Administration and Congress have reacted to this supply chain crisis within the last year by passing the following legislation:

CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 to “boost American semiconductor research, development, and production, ensuring U.S. leadership in the technology that forms the foundation of everything from automobiles to household appliances to defense systems.”

Amendment to The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Buy American Act – “This rule increases the domestic content threshold initially from 55 percent to 60 percent, then to 65 percent in calendar year 2024 and to 75 percent in calendar year 2029.”

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act – This Act changes U.S. policy to establish “a rebuttable presumption that the importation of any goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.” Previous law required companies to take reasonable care to avoid products produced with forced labor. This Act requires companies to prove that products from Xinjiang province were not produced with forced labor.

While these new laws and amendments to previous laws will help ease future supply chain disruptions, the real solution to the supply chain crisis is to change the financial calculations to enable making as much as possible in the United States. The Reshoring Initiative has been working towards this goal since its founding in 2010 by promoting the use of the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator® developed by Harry Moser

According to the Reshoring Initiative 2022 Data Report, “Reshoring plus FDI have followed a strong upward trend for 13 years. The underlying trend is driven by the recognition that, in many cases, the total cost of offshoring exceeds that of sourcing domestically. There have been peaks and valleys in the trend. 2017 was driven by the 2017 tax and regulatory cuts. 2018 and 2019 declined due to the trade war. The trend resurged from 2020 to 2022 driven by companies recognizing their vulnerability to supply chain disruptions and, most recently, to geopolitical events.”

The report states, “Jobs announced in 2022 were a record breaking 364 ,000 up from 238 ,000 in 2021. The total number of jobs announced since 2010 is now nearly 1.6 million…we expect 2023 and 2024 to remain strong, continuing at approximately 350,000 job announcements per year. If the current trajectory continues, the U.S. will reduce the trade deficit, add jobs, and become safer, more self-reliant and resilient.”

We need continue to rebuild our domestic manufacturing industrial base if we are going to achieve the goals of Industry Reimagined 2030 to have 50,000 more world-class domestic American manufacturers and a $1 trillion GDP by 2030

Tags:,
Posted in Made in America, Manufacturing, Reshoring | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »