Manufacturing « savingusmanufacturing.com

Archive for the ‘Manufacturing’ Category

ITIF Report Assesses Competitiveness of North American States

Tuesday, July 5th, 2022

On June 21, 2022, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation conducted a webinar entitled, “Assessing the Competitiveness of North America: The North American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index,” based on a report by Luke Dascoli and Stephen Ezel of ITIF, and prepared in collaboration with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Fundación IDEA, and the Bay Area Economic Council Institute.

I was unable to attend the webinar, but later read the 49-page report with the goal of identifying examples of the vision of Industry Reimagined 2030 to convert the narrative of American manufacturing from one of “inevitable decline” to “vibrant opportunities.”

The purpose of the report was “to identify economic differences among states and provinces and highlight regions needing more federal attention, identify cross-national innovation performance, and track the continent’s overall competitiveness in the innovation-driven global economy.”

A vibrant opportunity was identified in the first paragraph of the Overview: “North America—Canada, Mexico, and the United States—represents one of the world’s most economically vibrant regions, accounting for 28 percent of global economic output. The region also forms one of the world’s largest free trade zones, with deeply integrated supply chains…the three nations form a high-wage/low-wage partnership, bringing complementary labor forces, infrastructure, innovation capacities, and industry strengths together to create a highly competitive economic region. This relationship is poised to make North American manufacturing value chains globally cost competitive with Asian ones and thus make North America a leading global innovation and manufacturing powerhouse.”

“This report assesses how prepared North American states are to compete in today’s increasingly innovation-driven economy. The North American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index (NASICI) uses 13 measures across 3 categories to quantify the extent to which each state’s economy is knowledge based, globalized, and innovation ready and form composite scores (between 0 to 100) that identify each state’s level of performance in the innovation economy.”

Knowledge Economy

•Immigration of knowledge workers – number of highly educated foreign-born residents as a share of total state population
•Workforce Education – total workforce finishing postsecondary education (including universities, trade schools, and colleges)
•Professional, scientific, tech – total employment enrolled in professional, scientific,
and technical activities

•Manufacturing Gross Value Added per worker – measures the average GVA per manufacturing worker

Globalization

•Inward foreign direct investment – flow of funds into a state from foreign-based enterprises to purchase that state’s existing facilities or to develop new ones
•High tech exports – (NAICS 333, 334, & 335) as a Share of GDP

Innovation Capacity

•R & D Intensity – Total R&D Investment Relative to GDP
•R & D Personnel – as a Share of Total State Employment
•Patents (per capita) – PCT Patents Issued per Million Persons
•Venture Capital Investment – shows a state’s total VC investment (based on VC-receiving firms located therein) relative to the size of its GDP.
•Broadband telecommunications – Share of all Households Subscribing to Broadband Internet

•Decarbonization (CO₂emissions) – Tons of CO 2 Emissions per Capita

The Composite NASICI scores for the top ten states/provinces are:

Ranking	State/Province	Country	NASICI SCORE
1	Massachusetts	United States	91.5
2	California	United States	83.9
3	Ontario	Canada	75.2
4	Maryland	United States	75.0
5	Washington	United States	74.2
6	British Columbia	Canada	70.4
7	New Jersey	United States	70.2
8	New Mexico	United States	68.3
9	Quebec	Canada	68.1
10	Oregon	United States	66.0

Notice that Canada has three provinces in the top ten, but Alberta was the only other Canadian province to rank in the top 30. Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota came in last for U. S. states, with South Dakota at number 60. The ranking of Mexico’s states was “concentrated at the low-scoring end of the subnational index (61–92).”

The report commented that “Massachusetts ranks first due to the state’s massive network of software, hardware, and biotech firms in the Greater Boston area. Boston also holds one of the country’s most densely populated clusters of top-performing research universities, many of which focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. California places second due to its bustling tech economy of Silicon Valley and other southern Californian innovation hubs with access to leading research universities such as Stanford, Caltech, and the University of California, San Diego. Maryland earns its spot due to the state’s abundance of D.C.-commuting knowledge workers employed in scientific, technical, and professional activities, alongside its R&D and innovation activities attributable to a plethora of federal contracts. Washington state ranks fifth because of its high-tech exports, cutting-edge tech businesses bringing in foreign investment, patent generation in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing, and digitalization of the service sector.”

The report goes into some detail regarding the rankings in the 13 subcategories which are too complex for this article to cover. With regard to high tech exports, it discusses the successful cross-border region of the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington with the Canadian province of British Columbia, as well as the cross-border regions of California, Arizona, and Texas with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Baja California, and Tamaulipas…These Mexican “states include the major manufacturing cities of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and Matamoros, which together comprise most of Mexico’s
“maquiladora” manufacturing plants.”

The report makes the following policy recommendations for the United States:

Expand the R&D Tax Credit to Be Competitive with Canada – Canada’s “overall federal subsidy rate of 19.1 percent on business R&D investment” is “above the 16.6 percent median among 34 developed countries observed” and considerably higher than the U.S. “sub-median federal-state subsidy rate of 9.5 percent.”

Build Globally Competitive North American Supply Chains – This recommendation advocates the partnering of companies in the U.S. and Canada with the low-wage states of Mexico to “nearshore their production of innovative goods and the low-tech complementary manufacturing of products in high-tech industries into Mexico….This collaboration of complementary labor forces would help North American supply chains perform as a region that’s globally competitive with the supply chains of Asian low-cost competitors.”

Promote Industry-University Partnerships – “Firms on the cutting edge of new research can benefit from tapping the skills of the next generation of scientists and engineers early on by collaborating with neighboring universities via internships, fellowships, and other resource sharing with academic institutions. As federal funding for intramural research in states/provinces lags behind, industry investment in university research is increasingly important.”

Expand Collaborative Research Between U.S. and Canadian Leaders – “Firms engaging in international research collaboration tend to generate more valuable research than firms not collaborating in research or only collaborating among domestic firms do… Firms of U.S. and Canadian states/provinces should thus pursue greater research collaboration and co-patenting, given the proven benefits in international research collaboration and diversifying with new research partners. Doing so would help expand the network of shared research knowledge to drive more frequent and impactful innovations for both U.S. and Canadian states.”

Fully Embrace USMCA’s Commitments to Create a Free-Flowing North American Digital Economy – The USMCA provided stronger rules for digital services across industries such as finance, e-
commerce, and software, for cross-border data transfers. The United States, Canada, and Mexico must “utilize the full economic value of data and remain competitive in the global digital economy.”

Expand National Place-Based Development Projects – The report recommends thatnational and regional policymakers should use the NASICI rankings to identify regions or states that are lagging behind in economic development. The authors note that the efforts of the U. S. Economic Development Agency and regional commissions have “fallen off” and that the EDA’s budget had been reduced over time. “Federal investment to build up economic attractiveness for underperforming states can improve their competitive edge and reduce economic hardships for the populations of those states.”

Improve Economic Indicator Data Availability Among North American States – “…the NASICI, ITIF and its Canadian and Mexican partners were only able to identify 13 indicators for which data was uniformly and readily available across North America’s 92 subnational regions. Statisticians from Canada, Mexico, and the United States should collaborate to make more such indicators available.”

In conclusion, the report states: “Today’s 21st-century economy has different success markers than the post-war economy experienced in the latter half of the 20th century. There are many more global competitors in the space of advanced technology production, R&D, and digital services.” For the United States, “NASICI scores are helpful to bring to light regions needing more federal attention to support innovation competitiveness.”

Th9is report confirms that the narrative of the “inevitable decline” of American manufacturing of American manufacturing is no longer true and “vibrant opportunities” already exist. These “vibrant opportunities” need to be expanded to be achieve the goal of fostering 50,000 more world-class companies and creating five million more manufacturing jobs by 2030.

Tags:American manufacturing, innovation
Posted in Economic Development, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Manufacturing is Critical to Our National Defense

Tuesday, July 21st, 2020

The final reason that manufacturing is important is that manufacturing ensures that the U.S. has a strong industrial base to support its national security objectives. We need to preserve our national and homeland security to be able to produce the goods that allow us to defend our national sovereignty.

American manufacturers supply the military and Defense Department with the essentials needed to defend our country, including tanks, fighter jets, submarines, unmanned vehicles (drones) and other high-tech equipment. The same advances in technology that consumers take for granted support the military, particularly soldiers fighting overseas.

In the keynote address “Lessons for a Rapidly Changing World” at the CA World conference in 2003, Dr. Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State, said, “The question really is whether America can remain a great power or a dominant power if it becomes primarily a service economy, and I doubt that. I think that a country has to have a major industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. And I am concerned from that point of view.” He added, “But if the outsourcing would continue to a point of stripping the U.S. of its industrial base and of the act of getting out its own technology, I think this requires some really careful thought and national policy probably can create incentives to prevent that from happening.”

As more and more manufacturing was outsourced offshore, the warnings of the dangerous consequences continued. Joe Muckerman, former director of emergency planning and mobilization in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, wrote a guest editorial entitled “Without a Robust Industrial Base DOD Will Lose Future Wars” in the April 17, 2008 edition of Manufacturing & Technology News. He opined:

Joe Stalin said that World War II was not won on the battlefields of Europe but in Detroit. Had Stalin lived until the end of the Cold War, he probably would have arrived at a similar conclusion. The U.S. won the Cold War because it maintained technologically superior strategic weapons at a level that deterred the Soviet Union from attacking our vital interests. The United States was able to sustain this force for half a century during which the U.S. economy prospered while that of the USSR collapsed. … Today the U.S. industrial base is fast becoming global and the U.S. economy is in trouble.

In April 2011, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released the report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” by Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson which echoed my strong belief that manufacturing is critical to our national security:

They wrote, “If we lose our preeminence in manufacturing technology, then we lose our national security. This is because:

As the U.S. industrial base moves offshore, so does the defense industrial base.
Reliance on foreign manufacturers increases vulnerability to counterfeit goods.”

The report revealed that the “United States has diminishing or no capability in lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery production, yttrium barium copper oxide high-temperature superconductors, and photovoltaic solar cell encapsulants, among others. … Additional examples of defense-critical technologies where domestic sourcing are endangered include propellant chemicals, space-qualified electronics, power sources for space and military applications (especially batteries and photovoltaics), specialty metals, hard disk drives, and flat panel displays (LCDs).”

On July 21, 2017, President Trump issued Exec. Order 13806, “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” whose “primary goal was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the industrial base and develop a set of specific, actionable recommendations to mitigate or eliminate the identified impacts.”

In December 2017, President Trump set forth “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” to put American First in which he stated, “A healthy defense industrial base is a critical element of U.S. power and the National Security Innovation Base. The ability of the military to surge in response to an emergency depends on our Nation’s ability to produce needed parts and systems, healthy and secure supply chains, and a skilled U.S. workforce.” Since then, President Trump’s economic policies have focused on putting America First to protect our national security through the following:

Renegotiating NAFTA and KORUS
Corporate and personal tax cuts
Regulatory reform
Tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other Chinese goods tax cuts
Strengthening Buy America requirements for federal government procurement

As required by E.O. 13806, on Oct. 5, 2018, Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, on behalf of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, presented the report, “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” to President Trump. Note: The unclassified version is available here. This 146-page report comprehensively assesses every aspect of the defense industrial base.

One important factor noted was “The decline in the U.S. manufacturing industry, relative to prior periods of great power, creates a variety of risks for America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base and, by extension, for DoD’s ability to support national defense. Risks range from greater reliance on single sources, sole sources, and foreign providers to workforce gaps, product insecurity, and loss of innovation.”

The U.S. cannot rely on other countries to supply its military because their interests may run counter to its own. If we faced a real military threat to our homeland, how would we assure access to the industrial and military goods needed to defend our country when most of these items are being manufactured in China? We cannot risk being held hostage to foreign manufacturers when it comes to products that are essential for our national security and the U.S. military. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that we must source critical pharmaceuticals, PPE, and medical devices in the U.S. to protect the health and safety of American citizens. In turn, it is crucial that key components and technologies that are critical to the production of U.S. weapons and other products needed by our military and Department of Defense be produced within the United States. This is the only way that we will be able to protect our national security and keep America a free country.

Tags:Made in America, national security
Posted in Made in America, Manufacturing, National security | No Comments »

Manufacturing is the Engine of American Technology Development and Innovation

Tuesday, July 7th, 2020

The fourth reason why manufacturing is important is that American manufacturers are responsible for more than two-thirds of all private sector R&D, which ultimately benefits other manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. Nearly 60 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).

The competitive status of U.S. manufacturing had been increasingly challenged by the state-of-the-art technologies being developed by established nations such as Japan, Germany, Korea, and Taiwan. China has acquired advanced manufacturing capability through R&D tax incentives, incentives for direct foreign investment, and theft of intellectual property.

According to the 2018 annual survey conducted by the Industrial Research Institute (IRI), 59 percent of the companies responding said they plan to increase R&D spending in 2018; only 29 percent reported anticipating little or no change, and 13 percent are expecting a decrease in total R&D spending.” Note: This is the last year that the report is available for free, 2019 and 2010 reports now cost $51.)

“The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2020” report by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation states, “Although the levels of federal R&D funding rose across performing sectors between 2000 and 2017, the share of total U.S. R&D funded by the federal government declined from 25% to 22%…By type of R&D, the shares of federal government funding for basic research and experimental development declined since 2000 despite rising levels of funding. The federal government is a major funder of basic research, and between 2000 and 2017, the share of basic research funded by the federal government declined from 58% to 42%. Federally funded applied research was an exception during this period, as both the level and share rose.”

America’s manufacturing innovation process leads to investments in equipment and people, to productivity gains, the spreading of beneficial technology to other sectors, and to new and improved products and processes. It is an intricate process that begins with R&D for new goods and improvements in existing products. As products are improved in speed, accuracy, ease of use, and quality, new manufacturing processes are utilized to increase productivity. Education and training of employees is required to reap the benefits of such improvements in manufacturing processes.

Innovation is the hallmark of U.S. manufacturing, and it requires a certain mass of interconnected activities, which, like a snowball rolling downhill, grows in size as it proceeds toward end users. Substantial R&D is required to keep the ball rolling to ensure more successes than failures.

Innovation and production are intertwined. You need to know how to make a product in order to make it better. “Most innovation does not come from some disembodied laboratory,” said Stephen S. Cohen, co-director of the Berkeley roundtable on the International Economy at the University of California, Berkeley. “In order to innovate in what you make, you have to be pretty good at making – and we are losing that ability.”

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.

The ability to fund R&D comes largely from the profits that a company can invest back into its business. Thus, the available cash flow of manufacturing companies is closely linked to their ability to conduct R&D as well as make capital investments.

The process through which R&D promotes economic prosperity is complex and multi-faceted. First, there are direct benefits to firms from their own R&D investments. Second, other companies derive benefits from the R&D of the innovating company in a “spillover” effect. Third, the feedback from R&D and its spillovers improves other products, processes, and distribution networks. Fourth, one industry’s investment has a beneficial effect on other industries and the U.S. economy as a whole. “Spillover” effects are increased through sales transactions and knowledge transfers when the parties involved are interdependent and closer in geographic proximity.

Consumers have benefited greatly from the large selection and quality of manufactured goods available as a result of the innovative new products resulting from R&D. U.S. consumers now have a dizzying array of products from which to choose. Quality improvements in manufactured goods have also reduced the frequency of repair and reduced the cost of operation.

The maintenance of an effective U.S. R&D network is essential for attracting domestic and foreign R&D funds and the subsequent manufacturing that results from the innovation process, which increases U.S. value added, resulting in economic growth.

The problem today is that with the offshoring of so much manufacturing, certain tiers in the high-tech supply chain have disappeared in the U.S. When a tier in a supply chain has been moved offshore, domestic research and other supporting infrastructure are degraded, which can be a major problem for U.S. manufacturers transitioning to the next product life cycle.

In the past, technology would flow from new domestic R&D-intensive industries into the remainder of the economy, boosting overall national productivity. Today, such emerging technologies are flowing at least as rapidly to the innovators’ foreign partners or suppliers.

In the report “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” authors Ezell and Atkinson wrote, “manufacturing, R&D, and innovation go hand-in-hand.” They concur with my argument that “the process of innovation and industrial loss becomes additive. Once one technological life cycle is lost to foreign competitors, subsequent technology life cycles are likely to be lost as well.”

They add “[T]here is a deeply symbiotic, interdependent relationship between the health of a nation’s manufacturing and services sectors: the health of one sector greatly shapes the health of the other. In particular, the technology-based services sector depends heavily on manufactured goods.”

In my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether American companies do their R&D within their own facility or hire it to be done by outside American consultants or product development firms, but it does matter whether the R&D is done within America. We need to keep innovation within our country if we want to remain on the cutting edge of technology and maintain the critical mass of our manufacturing industry. Outsourcing R&D to China is like a mayor giving the key to his city to a would-be conqueror. We need to protect the key to our future security as a nation and keep R&D and manufacturing within the United States.

This intricate process of R&D and product development generates greater growth and higher living standards than any other economic sector. But it requires a critical mass to generate this wealth. If the U.S. manufacturing base continues to shrink at its present rate, the critical mass will be lost. The manufacturing innovation process will shift to other global centers, and a decline in U.S. living standards will be the result.

Tags:innovation, Intellectual Property, manufacturing strategy
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Manufacturing, Technology | 1 Comment »

Manufacturing Generates Exports

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2020

The third reason why manufacturing is important is that the United States is still a top leader in generating manufacturing exports. The U.S. was the world’s largest exporter until 1992, when Germany took over this position. The U.S. maintained a position as the second-highest exporter, until China surpassed it in 2008. Germany remained number one until 2009, when China surpassed it to become the world’s top exporter. The U.S. overtook Germany as the second-highest exporter in 2014. The latest data for world exports is from 2019 when China’s exports totaled $1.8 trillion, down from $2.49 trillion in 2018; the U.S. exports totaled $1.24, down from $1.66 trillion in 2018, and Germany’s exports were $1.12, down from $1.55 trillion in 2018.

According to a 2020 report on exports: ”The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in American global shipments during 2019. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from the United States.

Machinery including computers: $205.9 billion (12.5% of total exports)
Mineral fuels including oil: $199.7 billion (12.1%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $173.2 billion (10.5%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $136 billion (8.3%)
Vehicles: $133 billion (8.1%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $90.8 billion (5.5%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $64.9 billion (3.9%)
Gems, precious metals: $59.6 billion (3.6%)
Pharmaceuticals: $53.6 billion (3.3%)
Organic chemicals: $39.3 billion (2.4%)

America’s top 10 exports surpass well over two-thirds (70.3%) of the overall value of its global shipments.”

Manufactured goods “make up more than 66% of U.S. exports…One-third of exported goods are capital goods double the level of 20 years ago… Only 12% of U.S. exported goods are consumer goods…Just 8% of exported goods are foods, feeds, and beverages ($131 billion). The big three are soybeans ($20 billion), meat and poultry ($20 billion), and corn ($9 billion).”

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) comprised 97 percent of all identified U.S. exporters, generated 64 percent of net new jobs between 1992 to 2009, and represented 31 percent of U.S. export value in 2008. About 65 percent of all U.S. exports come from small businesses with fewer than 20 employees.

Exports of manufactured goods is important to the economies of most states – even in those areas where manufacturing has declined as a portion of the Gross State Product (GSP).

The top five U. S. export markets:

Canada
Mexico
China
Japan
United Kingdom

Both President Bush and President Obama had the goal of doubling U.S. exports during their administrations. President Obama even established the Export Promotion Cabinet by Executive Order 13534 On March 11, 2010 and tasked them with a plan to achieve the goal of doubling U.S. exports in five years that he had presented in his 2010 State of the Union address.

The National Export Initiative (NEI) Executive Order had five components: improve advocacy and trade promotion, increase access to export financing, remove barriers to trade, enforce current trade rules, and promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth.

The NEI identified eight priorities for the plan, and the Export Promotion Cabinet developed recommendations to address each of these priorities, which covered all five components, cut across many federal government agencies, and focus on areas where concerted federal government efforts can help lift exports.

It was no surprise to me that the plan to double exports in five years was unsuccessful because we are fighting against the predatory mercantilism of countries such as China, India, and Japan. The biggest problem is that the United States is no longer the manufacturing source for consumer and household goods and commodities that it once was. American brands such as IBM, General Electric, and Maytag were known worldwide for their quality and innovation. These types of products are now being made in Asia, mostly in China, and imported by the United States and other countries for their consumers to buy rather than being manufactured in the United States for export worldwide.

The majority of manufacturers that were able to survive the great stampede to offshore manufacturing to China don’t produce a finished product; they are the Tier 2, 3 and 4 suppliers that produce components, parts, and assemblies for Original Equipment Manufacturers. Thus, they don’t have a product to sell for export. I have been representing this type of company as a manufacturers’ sales rep for over 30 years. Most of these companies do not have engineering staff to design a complete product and don’t have the capability to market a product internationally.

I’ve been working with inventors and entrepreneurs of start-up companies for years to help them select the processes and sources for their new products. As a director on the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum, I give a presentation of how to select the right processes and sources for a new product as part of our annual curriculum at our monthly meetings in our program of helping inventors go from product design to market.

If we want to increase our manufacturing exports, we need to help inventors and entrepreneurs develop their products and get them to market. Additive manufacturing has enabled inventors and entrepreneurs to produce low cost prototypes rapidly here in the U.S. The biggest hurdle is to fund the tooling needed to manufacture their products at production volume levels. For advanced technologies that require research and development, there are government funded Small Business Research Grants that enable small start-up companies boot strap their product development. Perhaps, we can create a grant program for inventors and entrepreneurs to fund the tooling and initial production runs of new products.

Remember, Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” We aren’t going to increase exports by doing the same things we have been doing for the past 20 years.

Posted in General, Manufacturing, Trade | No Comments »

How to Leverage New Technologies & Energize a New Generation to Close the Labor Gap

Tuesday, May 12th, 2020

With over 30 million people unemployed right now due to shutdowns and stay-in-place orders in most states because of COVID-19, it may seem like odd timing for American Machinist and IndustryWeek to release a new eBook titled, “Closing the Skills Gap – How manufacturers are leveraging new technologies and energizing a new generation to finally close the labor gap,” sponsored by Epicor Software Corporation. However, now is the time to be prepared to take advantage of the increased interest in returning manufacturing to America and strengthen our manufacturing base as a result of the weaknesses in the domestic supply chain revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This eBook is important because the Executive Summary states: “We are on the cusp of a full-scale digital revolution in the manufacturing industry…[and] on the cusp of an enormous wave of retirements as Baby Boomers exit the job market…we have a perfect storm.” The result could be that the “500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs today…[could] balloon to 2.5 million over the next decade.”

The facts are that “a whopping 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day” and “the skills required for a job don’t match talent in existing worker pools. Five out of 10 open positions for skilled workers in the U.S. manufacturing industry remain unoccupied today. This shortage is due to the skills gap.”

The good news is that “Over the last few years, manufacturers across the industry have begun systematically attacking the skills gap head-on…” The eBook outlines the application of the new tactics that manufacturers are applying across industries.

First, the eBook mentions that Gen Z may be the generation that saves manufacturing from the “silver tsunami.” It reports that a new study, 2019 L2L Manufacturing Index, examining the American public’s perceptions of U.S. manufacturing, found that adults in Generation Z (those aged 18-22) are:

19% more likely to have had a counselor, teacher or mentor suggest they look into manufacturing as a viable career option when compared to the general population.
One-third (32%) had manufacturing suggested to them as a career option, as compared to only 18% of Millennials and 13% of the general population.
7% more likely to consider working in the manufacturing industry
12% less likely to view the manufacturing industry as being in decline, both compared against the general population.
one-third (32%) have family members or friends working in the manufacturing industry, compared to 19% for Millennials and 15% for the general population.

However, there is still work to be done about the perception of manufacturing, as “A majority (56%) of Generation Z would consider working in the tech industry, while only 27% would consider working in the manufacturing industry. Additionally, they are more likely to consider manufacturing jobs boring when compared to Millennials and the general population.”

In the chapter “5 Ways Manufacturing is Tackling the Labor Shortage,” Poornima Apte lists creative ways manufacturing companies are attracting and recruiting talent:

1. Encouraging a Test Drive – hiring for short-term assignments as a way to company and worker to test whether there is a good fit for permanent employment.

2. Advancing and Training Internal Talent – “Promoting internal talent can be a two-fer. It serves to retain valuable employees, and the company invests in known entities.” Instead of traditional tuition reimbursements for back-to-school training…manufacturing companies are forking over the money upfront.”

3. Tapping into Unconventional Talent Pools – “Companies are looking beyond the pool of graduating students to recruit blue-collar workers… such as ex-convicts looking to reenter the workforce.

Manufacturing companies are also partnering with organizations that cater to veterans and minorities.”

4. Looking beyond the resume – “By checking on skillset rather than education alone, companies are more closely aligning specific jobs to the talent they need…77% of employers are willing to prioritize a candidate’s skills and potential over experience.

5. Diving into Data Analytics – “Manufacturers can analyze demographic factors across the country and find out which places will have the best talent…companies can act on that intelligence proactively and recruit more aggressively in areas they feel have more desirable candidates.

Next, Jared Lindzon presents three ways companies can use technology to attract younger employees in the chapter “How to Leverage Technology to Attract a Younger Workforce:”

Offer elearning – “As the first generation to grow up with the Internet, younger workers like having constant access to information. But…they’re often not interested in anything that feels too much like school. Leveraging modern technology that millennials know and love, through eLearning, makes a huge difference.” Millennials are eager to learn. They just want to do it using modern, digital platforms.”
Update Administrative Processes – …younger workers expect the same level of efficiency, convenience and usability in their work tools as they enjoy in their consumer products. “They bring those same expectations to their jobs, so employers are increasingly examining processes to provide the same quality experience and ease-of-use for employees using technology in the workplace…”
Avoid the ‘If it’s not broke…” Fallacy’” – “… staying ahead of technology trends can help attract younger workers…They thrive off of staying ahead of the tech curve to discover new methods of completing tasks and automating processes…Younger workers want to feel like they’re working for a company on the cutting edge. The new generation is more flexible, open to change and willing to get hands-on to discover new techniques…”

The eBook also offers a list of ten suggestions from consulting firm Mercer on how to optimize an experienced workforce in the chapter, “Let’s Not Forget The Value of Experienced Workers,” warning that “ignoring this group is risky. By 2040 the average life expectancy is predicted to be 80 years, up from 56 in 1966 and 72 in 2016. As a result, many people are working longer for a variety of reasons, including financial necessity, purpose, and social/ intellectual engagement.” A few important key suggestions are:

Collect and analyze your age-profile data to explore demographic and skills pinch points.
Develop and implement people and careers strategies that embrace the experienced workforce.
Develop a lifelong learning attitude that positions people to embrace jobs of the future.
Implement an effective flexible-working strategy.

I was really gratified to see that the eBook included the chapter “How Manufacturing Day is Helping Combat the Labor Shortage,” by Tom Bidinger. Manufacturing Day (aka MFG DAY) was started in 2012 to combat the common misconceptions about manufacturing, and it has made a difference. “MFG DAY—gives manufacturers the opportunity to open their doors and show what it’s really like to work in manufacturing.”

I was pleased to read that Manufacturing Day is contributing to breaking “the cycle of misinformation when it comes to manufacturing careers. A recent survey found that just 67% of parents would encourage their child to learn more about job opportunities in manufacturing. That number needs to increase.” I’ve attended events for MFG DAY in three counties, San Diego, Riverside, and Los Angeles, since it began in 2012 and have visited dozens of companies to see what they were manufacturing. It’s been a pleasure to see that parents are taking the time to take their children and teens to visit local manufacturers.

Bidinger writes, “By working together during and after MFG DAY, manufacturers can begin to address the skilled labor shortage, connect with future generations, change the public image, and ensure the ongoing prosperity of the whole industry. “

In the next chapter, “About the Skills Gap and Start Solving it,” Michael Collins writes that “A lack of training and job security is at the root of manufacturing’s image problem.” He adds, “the skills gap is real and a two-pronged problem. First, manufacturing does not have the advanced training programs needed to produce the high skilled workers they need. Second, young people, their parents and counselors do not see manufacturing as a good career.”

He provides a good summary of what manufacturers, especially large, multinational corporations, have done in the past 40 years to reduce labor costs and other costs of doing business and then discusses some of the tools that can be used to address the skills gap.

The final two chapters provide examples of what two companies are doing to address the skills gap. In the chapter, “Modern Machining & The Need for Speed,” John Hitches describes what former boxer and machining revolutionary, Titan Gilroy, has done in “an aggressive strategy to combat all the threats to American manufacturing, from outsourcing to the skills gap.”

In the final chapter, “Creating a National Workforce of Trained Welders,” IndustryWeek Senior Editor, Adrienne Selko, describes how Lincoln Electric has partnered with Tooling U-SME to expand its welding education program in order to close the national skills gap in welding.

Utilizing all of the suggestions contained in this eBook will rebuild American manufacturing to create jobs and prosperity and protect Americans from being so severely impacted by unexpected disasters whether natural or manmade like the Coronavirus.

Posted in Jobs, Manufacturing, Training, Workforce Development | No Comments »

Who Are My Heroes? Part Two

Tuesday, April 28th, 2020

My additional heroes are people with whom I connected after my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can was published in 2009. We shared a focus on doing what we could to save and rebuild American manufacturing. Again, they are presented alphabetically, not chronologically.

Greg Autry, Ph.D., is “an educator, writer and technology entrepreneur. He researches and publishes on space commerce, entrepreneurship, technology innovation and trade policy. He is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Entrepreneurship with the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, where he teaches entrepreneurship and technology commercialization courses.” I met Greg when he was a doctoral candidate at the Merage School of Business at UC Irvine, before he became Senior Economist for the non-partisan, non-profit organization. Coalition for a Prosperous America, We were also fellow board members of the non-profit American Jobs Alliance for five years. Dr. Autry is the co-author of the book Death by China and a producer on the documentary film, Death by China, (directed by Peter Navarro). His opinion articles have been published in major news outlets including the San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and SpaceNews. He was a regular contributor to Huffington Post and is now a regular contributor to Forbes. He is currently on the advisory board of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

Den Black is President of the non-partisan, non-profit organization, American Jobs Alliance (AJA). He earned a BSME at Kettering University and worked as a Senior Strategist, Futurist, Innovator at Delphi Automotive Systems for 37 years. Den invited me to join the board of AJA in 2012 after he was referred to me by Executive Director, Curtis Ellis after we met when he was on a West Coast trip. AJA is “dedicated to fostering the public’s understanding of the American System of free enterprise, a system established by the Founding Fathers of the United States to develop the domestic economy of the United States and promote the employment of Americans in diverse occupations through investment in infrastructure and promotion of key industries and technologies in the United States.” Currently AJA is promoting a window decal “Boycott China for Jobs, Human Rights, Peace” and AJA’s affiliated website: www.GetOutofChina.us.

Don Buckner is the Founder and CEO of MadeinAmerica.com, MadeinUSA.com, and MadeinAmerica.org. His vision started in 1998 “when he attempted to find several American-made products online, but was unable to do so. Frustrated, he took matters into his own hands, purchasing the Domain MadeintheUSA.com. The website served as a directory resource connecting patriotic consumers to more than 300,000 American-made manufacturers for several years. He also acquired the Domain MadeInAmerica.com.” After the company he founded in 1997, Vac-Tron Equipment, was acquired in 2018, he and his wife decided to invest some of their profits to hold the first Made in America trade show. They rented the convention center in Indianapolis, IN, where the first show was held October 3-6, 2019. I met Don when I attended the show as one of the many featured panelists and speakers. The next Made in America show will be held at the TCF convention center, Detroit, Michigan Oct. 1-4, 2020.

Dan DiMicco, is an American businessman who is the former CEO and chairman of Nucor Steel company and is now Chairman Emeritus. Dan was appointed to the United States Manufacturing Council in 2008 by then-U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, and served on the board until 2011. Dan also served on the boards of the National Association of Manufacturers and the World Steel Association on the Executive Committee. He also served as a Senior Trade/Economic Advisor to the Trump Campaign and the Lead on the USTR Transition Team. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for Duke Energy Corporation and continues to represent Nucor on the US Council on Competitiveness. He is currently Chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA). He is the author of American Made: Why Making Things Will Return Us to Greatness, published in 2015. I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. DiMicco speak as the keynote speaker at several of the Manufacturing Summits held in California between 2013-2018, when I was the chair of the California chapter of CPA and at the Trade Conferences held by CPA in Washington, D. C. during this same time period.

Curtis Ellis was the Executive Director of the American Jobs Alliance, an independent non-profit organization promoting pro-jobs and Buy American policies, when I met him after my first book was published. He recommended me as a potential board member to Den Black of AJA. He had previously worked in Congress and on federal, state and local campaigns. For his work as a journalist, producer, writer and reporter, he has appeared on 60 Minutes, HBO, NBC, CNN, NPR and in the NY Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, TIME, Huffington Post, The Hill, and other outlets. His commentary has appeared on CNN, MSNBC and radio shows nationwide. Currently, Mr. Ellis is currently Policy Director with America First Policies. He served as senior policy advisor on the 2016 Trump-Pence campaign, was on the Presidential Transition Team, and served as special advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Labor in the International Labor Affairs Bureau in 2017.

Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace it and Why, published in 2011. When I met him, he was a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council. Alan Tonelson asked him to meet me when he was in southern California in the summer of 2010, not long after I started writing blog articles. When, he switched to becoming the Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America in early 2011, he suggested I join CPA, which I did. I immediately read his book from which I learned everything I didn’t know about the dangerous effects of our trade agreements. While he was at CPA, he and Michael Stumo (CPA CEO) edited the second edition of my book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? – Why we should and how we can, which was published in 2012 by CPA. Ian was a featured speaker at several of the above- mentioned Manufacturing Summits. He was educated at Columbia and the University of Chicago, and he lives in San Francisco. He is currently on the advisory board of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

Rosemary Gibson is a “national authority on health care reform, Medicare, patient safety and overtreatment in medicine, as well as “an award-winning author, inspirational speaker, and advisor to organizations that advance the public’s interest in health care.” She is the co-author of China RX, published in 2018, as well as Medicare Meltdown (2013), Battle Over Health Care (2012), Treatment Trap (2010), and Wall of Silence (2003). I met Ms. Gibson when she was a featured speaker at the Made in America trade show in October 2019. With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic this year, her book is getting the full attention it deserves as an expose of the offshoring to China of pharmaceuticals, PPE, and medical devices.

Harry Moser founded the Reshoring Initiative in 2010 after 25 years as the North American president of GF AgieCharmilles, now GF Machining Solutions. The mission of the Reshoring Initiative is to help bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. using the Total Cost of Ownership Worksheet calculator he developed. Harry was inducted into the Industry Week Manufacturing Hall of Fame 2010 and was named Quality Magazine’s Quality Professional of the year for 2012…won the Jan. 2013 The Economist debate on outsourcing and offshoring, and received the Manufacturing Leadership Council’s Industry Advocacy Award in 2014. Harry and I connected in August 2010 after he read my blog article about the importance of understanding Total Cost of Ownership. He told me I wrote about what he just started and trained me how to use his TCO worksheet, authorizing me to be a speaker on behalf of the Reshoring Initiative.

James Sturber is the author of What if Things Were Made in America Again: How Consumers Can Rebuild the Middle Class by Buying Things Made in American Communities, published in 2017. Subsequently, he founded the Made in America again organization. After obtaining a law degree, he “devoted his career to public policy, law and entrepreneurship. He began his career as legislative assistant to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, focusing on matters before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He subsequently practiced legislative and administrative law in Washington, D.C. I met Jim at the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference in Washington, D. C. in 2018. When I read his book, I discovered we had some up with much of the same data in our research as my last book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity was also published in 2017. He currently co-chairs the Buy American committee for CPA of which I am a member.

Alan Uke is a San Diego businessman, entrepreneur, and community leader, who “started his company, Underwater Kinetics, 41 years ago while attending the University of California at San Diego. Uke holds over 40 patents and exports his SCUBA diving, industrial lighting, and protective case products to over 60 countries.” He is the author of Buying America Back, A Real-Deal Blueprint for Restoring American Prosperity, published in 2012. Uke documented that in 2011, the U.S. had a trade deficit with 88 countries provides a chart showing the trade balance with every country with which the U. S. trades. When we met for lunch, I found out that he was also a member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, so we had something else in common. “He is also Founder Emeritus/Founding Board President of the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum which acquired the USS Midway in June 2004.”

I would be remiss in not giving Honorable Mention to the many members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that was “created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of 2001…” The primary purpose of this Commission is “to monitor, investigate, and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.” Beginning in December 2002, the Commission submitted “to Congress a report, in both unclassified and classified form, regarding the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The report shall include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions, if any, of the national security implications for the United States of the trade and current balances with the People’s Republic of China in goods and services, financial transactions, and technology transfers.” I read several of the reports as I was researching my three books, and each year, China’s unfair trading practices threats to U.S. national security, and other violations of the principles and terms of China’s membership in the World Trade Organization were well documented. Yet, no action was taken by Congress under the administrations of President Bush or President Obama.

I met many other people at the Made in America trade show last October, some of whom have recently joined the CPA Buy American committee. Some of these people could very well be listed in a future article on my heroes as I get to know them and their work better. I would encourage you to join our efforts to rebuild America’s economy to create jobs and prosperity by becoming a member of CPA.

Tags:American manufacturing, create manufacturing jobs, reshoring
Posted in Economy, Made in America, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Who Are My Heroes? Part One

Tuesday, April 21st, 2020

As you might expect my heroes are people who have played a role in trying to alert Americans to the effects to our economy of the decimation of American manufacturing and the dangers of outsourcing manufacturing to China and other countries. These are real people and none are elected officials.

This month marks the 13^th year of my journey to do what I could to save American manufacturing. In May 2007, I e published one of my periodic San Diego County Industry reports that I had been writing since 2003. I titled it, “Can U.S. Manufacturing be Saved?” My report had grown from four pages to 13 pages, and I realized that what I was documenting about the loss of manufacturers in San Diego and California was going on all over the country. That’s when I made the decision to start writing my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can, published in May 2009. In the course of researching and writing my first book, my second edition of the same (2012), and my third book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity (2017), I have connected with many people who shared my concerns and were early advocates of saving American manufacturing.

My first set of heroes are those who either wrote books, articles, or newsletters that I came across researching my first book. When I was writing my reports, I was blaming the loss of manufacturing in California on the bad business climate, high taxes, and the cheap Chinese wages. These heroes expanded my knowledge greatly by showing that it was our primarily our national trade and tax policies, the trade cheating of China and other Asian countries, and corporate greed that was responsible for losing over five million manufacturing jobs between the year 2000 and 2009. In alphabetical order, my heroes are:

Michael P. Collins is author of Saving American Manufacturing, Growth Strategies for Small and Midsize Manufacturers, published in 2006 and its companion handbook, The Growth Planning Handbook. Prior to becoming a writer, he was Vice President and General Manager of two divisions of Columbia Machine in Vancouver Washington. He is President of MPC Management, a consulting company that focuses exclusively on the problems and challenges of small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs) of industrial products and services. His book is written from the viewpoint of what manufacturers can do to save themselves and grow their business. I arranged for him to come to San Diego to give a presentation to the Operations Roundtable of the American Electronic Association in 2011.

Lou Dobbs, is an American television commentator, radio show host, and the anchor of Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business Network, and author of Exporting America, Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas, published in 2004 as hard cover and 2006 as a paperback. In his book, he “takes aim at the corporate executives and Washington politicians who profit by exporting U.S. jobs overseas—and shows readers what they can do to save not only their own careers, but the American way of life.

Ralph Gomory, who is well-known for his mathematical research and his technical leadership. For twenty years he was responsible for IBM’s Research Division, and then for 18 years was the President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. He is the co-author with the late William J. Baumol of the book, Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests, published by MIT Press in 2001. After connecting by phone and email for years, it was nice to finally meet him at the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference in Washington, D. C. in 2018.

Richard McCormack, journalist and founder/publisher of Manufacturing & Technology News which he found in 1994. McCormack also served as the editor of the 2013 book on revitalizing manufacturing, ReMaking America. I read every issue of MT&N from July 2007 until it stopped publication at the end of 2016. He was also recognized as an American Made Hero by AmericanMadeHeroes.com for his newsletter “coverage of the profound financial and economic ramifications of the shift of industrial capability from the United States to Asian competitors.” He wrote “thousands of articles on outsourcing, industrial and technological competitiveness, government policies, and trends related to management, quality, technology and markets.”Mr. McCormack is currently Press Secretary and Program Manager, Office of Public Affairs, for the Department of Commerce.

Peter Kent Navarro is a Harvard Ph.D. economist and author of several books. I read his book The Coming China Wars, published in 2006, while I was researching my book. At that time, he was a professor of public policy at the University of California, Irvine. He currently serves in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator. I first met Mr. Navarro when he was a professor at the University of California, San Diego and running for mayor in 1992. I also had the pleasure of seeing him when I attended the trade conference in 2018. I also read his book, Death by China, which he co-authored with Greg Autry, published in 2012.

Raymond Richman, Howard Richman (son), and Jesse Richman (grandson), authors of Trading Away our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and faulty Tax System Before It’s Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association in 2008. Raymond died in October 2019 at the age of 101. His tribute by Ideal Taxes states, he “authored four books, dozens of journal articles and hundreds of commentaries about economic development, tax policy and trade policy…Beginning with a commentary in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on September 14, 2003 (The Great Trade Debate), he became one of the first advocates of a policy of balanced trade, an alternative to the free trade vs. fair trade debate. His essential argument was that trade, free or not, benefits both countries if it is balanced.” I am sorry that I didn’t get to meet him before he died.

Roger Simmermaker, author of How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism, third edition published in 2008. He also writes Buy American Mention of the Week articles for his website and World New Daily. His book provides a guide to assist American’s who wish to purchase products made in America and discusses the importance of “Buying American” for the future economic independence & prosperity of America. He earned special recognition as an American Made Hero. After years of connecting to him by phone and email, it was a pleasure to also meet him at the same trade conference in 2018.

Alan Tonelson, a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, and a columnist for the Foundation’s globalization website, Tradealert.org and a Research Associate at the George Washington University Center for International Science and Technology Policy. He is also the author of The Race to the Bottom, published in 2000. “He has written extensively on the trade deficit between the United States and other countries. He has also written on free trade, globalization and industrial decline. He argues that U.S. economic policy should aim for “preeminence” over other countries, just as, he believes, other countries’ economic policies seek their own national interests. He is critical of various forms of “globalism” and internationalism.”

When I was researching my first book, the U.S. Business and Industry Council was the only organization that had a written plan to save American Manufacturing.

I introduced my book as a speaker at the Del Mar Electronics Show in San Diego County, California on May 6, 2009, and had my book on display at my company’s booth at the show. One of the first persons to buy my book was Adrian Pelkus, President of contract manufacturer, A Squared Technologies. He was also the informal leader of the steering group running the San Diego Inventors Forum. He invited me to the next SDIF meeting which I attended, and then invited me to join the steering committee, which I did. After reading my book and endorsing the purpose and ideas I presented in my book, the steering committee changed the focus of SDIF from helping inventors source their products in China to sourcing the manufacture of their products in the U.S.

The SDIF meetings have an informal curriculum of topics to cover in a year, and I have been giving an annual presentation on how to select the right manufacturing processes and vendors to make their products. It has a pleasure to be able to help so many inventors and entrepreneurs source their products in America.

My connections to theses heroes led me to connections with many other people and organizations who became part of my second set of heroes after my book was published. I will write about these people in My Heroes Part Two.

Tags:"Buy American", Rebuild Manufacturing, trade policy
Posted in Economy, General, Jobs, Made in America, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Reshoring Critical Pharmaceuticals and Manufactured Goods Would Create Millions of Jobs

Tuesday, March 31st, 2020

It’s a pity that it took the coronavirus pandemic to wake up Americans to the dangers of our dependence on foreign sources for pharmaceuticals and health care products. Perhaps we could have saved lives if our leaders had taken heed to the warning of co-authors Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh in their book China RX, published in 2018. The authors exposed how the pharmaceutical industry has transferred the manufacturing of generic drugs, vital medicines and medical devices to China and other countries, which has resulted in great risk to the health of Americans as well as a substantial risk to our national security.

In their book, they quote Dr. Goodman, dean of the Milken Business School of Public Health at George Washington University, saying, “It is a matter of national security that we have the essential drugs we need…I think it is time for an examination, for some of the most critical drugs, and it’s not just drugs, medical supplies, masks are all made overseas. Do we need to think about having at least some resilient manufacturing capacity built in this country?”

Yes, we do need to return the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and medical devices to benefit the health and safety of all Americans. Additionally, there would be economic benefits. On March 17^th, the Coalition for a Prosperous America released a report on the results of the investigation conducted by Steven L. Byers, PhD and Jeff Ferry of their research team into the potential economic benefits of reshoring pharmaceutical production to the U.S. They “found that an ambitious but realistic reshoring program could create 804,000 US jobs and add $200 billion to annual GDP in the first year.”

Their investigation showed that imports of pharmaceuticals had increased “dramatically as US-based drug manufacturers moved manufacturing facilities offshore.” By 2019, “pharmaceuticals ranked third as a US import category [$74 billion], behind automobiles ($180 billion) and crude oil ($132 billion) …”

The report states” Eighty percent of all pharmaceutical imports are accounted for by the top ten countries. Seven of the top ten countries we import from are in Europe…” Ireland is number one followed by Germany, Switzerland, Italy, India, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, United Kingdom, and Japan of the top ten. “China is well behind the leaders, in 17^th place, with just $1.6 billion of pharmaceutical imports last year.”

However, “the Census category of pharmaceutical imports does not include the key ingredients that go into pharmaceuticals, known as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API).” In recent testimony to Congress, Rosemary Gibson, author of China RX, stated “that three antibiotics used to treat coronavirus or related infections, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam, are all dependent on supplies of APIs from China.” Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley commented, “80 percent of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients are produced abroad, the majority in China and India.”

Byers and Ferry “used the REMI Policy Insight Model^[1] to estimate the impact on the US economy of restoring our level of pharmaceutical imports to the level of 2010, when we imported $61.6 billion of pharmaceuticals [and] reduced chemical imports by $4.9 billion in [their] simulation, to account for the increased imports of chemical ingredients that go into pharmaceuticals.” They ran the “model over a five-year period, 2020 through 2024.”

While the creation of jobs was the highest the first year at 804,000, the subsequent years created 614,000 in 2021, 548,000 in 2022, 453,000 in 2023, and 371,000 in 2024 for a total of 2,382,000 additional jobs.

Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing jobs pay a median income of $74,890, which is “47 percent higher than the median for all private-sector employees.”

The authors comment that “The economic benefits of reshoring US pharmaceutical production are thus substantial. They are also strategic; in that they would reduce US dependence on potentially hostile countries like China. In times of pandemic, there is also a non-zero risk that even friendly nations will prioritize their own citizens over exports. At the very least, the US needs a comprehensive audit of its dependence on individual nations and companies for pharmaceuticals, APIs, and any other key inputs.”

They conclude that “The US has become increasingly dependent on imports of foreign produced pharmaceutical and other health care products as well as the ingredients that go into their production. As a result, the supply chain is highly susceptible to interruption which would put significant pressure on our healthcare system…The benefits of reshoring pharmaceutical and ingredient production are large in terms of national security, patient safety, and economic welfare.”

On Friday, March 27^th, the Trump Administration announced it would use the Defense Production Act, to compel General Motors to make more ventilators quicker than the company had planned to produce..

In an article in the Washington Post on March 28^th, Joshua Gotbaum wrote: “Under the Defense Production Act, the federal government can, like a traffic cop, direct that inventories be allocated where they are needed most urgently. That’s what FEMA does during floods and hurricanes…The DPA also allows government to move its orders to the front of the line. The Defense Department does this regularly, but the act can be used for more than defense…The government can also use the act to order, and then pay for, expanded production, with new products or new plant capacity. “

He recommended “The administration needs to act quickly, the DPA using all of its authority to procure not just ventilators but also test kits, masks and other equipment for health-care workers and covid-19 victims.” Mr. Gotbaum speaks from experience as he administered some Defense Production Act authorities as assistant secretary of defense in the 1990s and is currently a guest scholar in the Brookings Institution’s Economic Studies Program.

The benefits of reshoring would be even greater if we returned all critical manufactured goods to the U.S. than just returning pharmaceutical and medical products. According to recent Reshoring Initiative data, Harry Moser, over 3,000 companies have reshored, creating about 740,000 jobs. He estimates that if we reduce our trade deficit caused by importing more than we export by 20%, it would create one million jobs. Using the free Total Cost of Ownership Analysis calculator available at www.reshorenow.org would help more companies return manufacturing to America.

We need to ensure that we will have the critical products needed to weather future unforeseen events. In my opinion, the policies to address the Coronavirus crisis should be just the beginning of a concentrated effort to reshore all critical manufactured goods to America. Let’s use all of the potentially available policies:

Invoke the Defense Production Act on all critical manufactured goods
Impose 25% tariffs on all imported goods from China
Incentivize manufacturers to produce products that were offshored to China

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

U.S. Private Sector Jobs Have Declined since 1990

Tuesday, December 10th, 2019

On November 14, 2019, Cornel Law School “announced the launch of a new tool for evaluating the U.S. employment situation and predicting related variables: the U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI).” The Index described in the White Paper represents 18 months of research by Daniel Alpert, adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and founding managing partner of the investment bank, Westwood Capital, LLC, Jeffrey Ferry, chief economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), Dr, Robert C. Hockett, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, and Amir Khaleghi, a Research Fellow at the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity (GISP) and a PhD student at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

At the many economic summits I’ve attended over the past 25 years, I’ve heard economists state that the U. S. is creating more low paying jobs than high paying jobs but there hasn’t been any data available to track this trend on a regular basis. For the first time, the Job Quality Index provides a tool to measure “desirable higher-wage/higher-hour jobs versus lower-wage/lower-hour jobs.”

The authors define job quality as “the weekly dollar-income a job generates for an employee” They explain that “The JQI is an analysis of weekly incomes earned by the holders of each of the private sector P&NS jobs in U.S. It derives its data from the hourly wages paid, and hours worked by, holders of jobs in 180 separate sectors of the American economy.”

Since the end of WWII, the “percentage of private U.S. jobs in the service-providing sectors increased steadily from approximately 55%” to “around 83.5%” at the end of the Great Recession in 2009. It has remained flat since that point. However, the paper states that “While service-sector growth as a percentage of all jobs has leveled off, job quality continues to worsen.”

The authors commented, “As weekly earnings of services sector jobs have, to an increasing degree, materially lagged those of jobs in the goods- producing sector (Figure 6), an increase of the percentage of service sector jobs would naturally result in an increase in the number of jobs below the mean, as reflected in the JQI.”

In addition, the authors note that the gap between higher-wage/higher-hour jobs versus lower-wage/lower-hour jobs” has widened almost four-fold to $402 in 2018 from $104 in 1990”

The paper states, “jobs as tracked by the JQI are defined by reference to data on private sector (nongovernmental) employment provided by third party employers—it does not include self-employed workers. In the first iteration of the JQI being presented in this paper, the index covers only production and nonsupervisory (P&NS) positions, which account for approximately 82.3% of the total number of private sector job positions in the country.”

By the end of 2020, a second index (JQL-2) “will run and be maintained side-by-side with the original JQI-1 index. This will track all private sector jobs, with data commencing in 2000.”

Monthly revisions to the JQI-1 will be published “contemporaneously with the monthly release of U.S. employment data by the BLS (generally on the first Friday of each calendar month. In the future, the JQI will be “presented as a three-month rolling average of monthly readings. This is done to address month over month variability which is too volatile to be a reliable directional trend measure.”

The November JQI stated: “the U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI)^® has been revised to a level of 80.39, representing a minor decline of 0.04% from its level one month ago and reflecting a somewhat lower proportion of U.S. production and non-supervisory (P&NS) jobs paying less than the mean weekly income of all P&NS jobs, relative to those jobs paying more than such mean. The mean weekly income of all P&NS jobs as of the current reading (reflecting the level as of October 2019) was $794, a change of 0.9% from its level the month prior.” The chart released is shown below:

The paper is divided into five parts:

Part I — Need for the JQI: The Unmeasured Problem with American Jobs

Part II — Construction of the JQI: Capturing and Tracking the Data (explains the development technical detail, setting forth the assumptions and algorithms inherent in its generation)

Part III — Applying the JQI: Illuminating Areas of Confusion in Economic Transmission (discusses the relationship and potential forecasting usefulness of the index in connection with other economic data)

Part IV — Further Developing the JQI: What the Future Holds for the Index (discusses future maintenance and expansion of the index)

Part V — Conclusion: An Index for our Time

Among other things, Part III discusses “The relevance of the resulting “Phillips Curve,” relating lower unemployment to higher levels of inflation…[which] remains—in various modified forms—part of central bank policy consideration to this day.”

It also discussed the impact of the JQI on household incomes and consumption with regard to the U.S. Balance of Trade in Goods. The authors comment, “…as American consumption has continued to rise, the goods consumed had to be produced by someone—even as U.S. goods production jobs plummeted. As evidenced by the U.S. balance of trade over the past several decades, goods consumed by Americans at the margin came increasingly to be manufactured abroad”

They later comment, “The decline in U.S. job quality over the past three decades is linked substantially to a decline in goods-producing jobs.”

Some of the findings of the research that were of particular interest to me in Part III were:

“The JQI’s definition of high-quality jobs (those above mean weekly earnings) provided an average of 38.26 hours of weekly work at year-end 2018, compared with low quality (those below the mean) which provided 29.98 hours.”
The percentage of goods producing jobs as a percentage of total private sector jobs dropped from 25.6% in 1990 (down from a high of 43% in 1960) to 16.4% in 2018.

The researches commented, “Surprisingly, the data as analyzed with the JQI also tend to predict the performances of many other salient metrics of the national economy and—in the end—financial markets too…The JQI can significantly improve decision making of policymakers as well as better-inform participants in the financial markets.”

In their Conclusion, the authors remind us of the fact “that the US manufacturing workforce has declined dramatically in the past three decades.” Between 1970 and 1990, the decline was gradual, going down from “17.8 million manufacturing workers” to “17.7 million.” By the year 2000, “it was down 2.4 percent to 17.3 million manufacturing workers.” In the next decade, “manufacturing employment fell off a cliff. By 2010, manufacturing employment was down a shocking 33.2 percent at 11.5 million. Since 2010, the figure has crept up only somewhat, to reach 12.8 million in May 2019.”

“Meanwhile, the total US working population has grown dramatically over those years. In 1970, manufacturing workers accounted for 22.6 percent of total US civilian employment. As of May 2019, they accounted for just 8.2 percent of the total.”

They comment, “An important question surrounding the decline of manufacturing is whether those leaving manufacturing are transitioning into better or worse jobs. After building the new Job Quality Index, “the answer is that lost manufacturing jobs were chiefly replaced by lower-wage/lower hours service jobs.”

The White Paper confirms my research in writing three books and hundreds of articles in the past ten years — losing millions of manufacturing jobs between 2000 – 2010 resulted in a decline in the middle class because manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the middle class. Without a strong middle class, we risk becoming a nation of “haves” and “have nots.” I hope the Job quality Index will wake up more economists, Congressional representatives, and employees of government agencies to the dangers of this trend before it’s too late.

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

Women Lead Made in America

Tuesday, November 12th, 2019

Few people are aware that more than 11.6 million firms are owned by women, employing nearly 9 million people, and generating $1.7 trillion in sales as of 2017. In fact, women run businesses are helping to lead a resurgence in American manufacturing.

Many women-run businesses participated as exhibitors in the Made in America show, and as I mentioned in my last article, I participated as a panelist for the Women Leading America Made session that featured five women running their own American-made businesses. Moderator Rose Tennent asked each of us to briefly describe our businesses.

Barbara Creighton, CEO of Sarati International, Inc. started her company in 1992 in south Texas to make private label prescription drugs, proprietary drugs, and skin care products. She said, “We develop custom formulations and then private label them. We make products like you would purchase, and we private label them. We are woman owned and woman run.”

Beverlee Dacey, owner of Amodex Products, said that her parents started the company in the early 1970s, and now she runs it. “We make a soap-based product that is an ink and stain remover liquid solution and do our own manufacturing in Bridgeport, CT. Amodex is the only stain remover recommended by the manufacturer of Sharpie to remove Sharpie ink from anything.”

Connie Sylvester said, “I am an inventor and founder of two companies, Water Rescue Innovations and Mommy-Armor USA. I founded my first company six years ago in Duluth, MN to make the ARM-LOC water rescue device that slides onto the victim’s forearm and locks into place so that a rescuer can pull the victim to safety. I sell to a male-dominated industry of first responders, fire-fighters, police, and rescue squads. I’m often the only woman telling men how to rescue people.”

She shared how she started her second company, Mommy Armor USA. On February 14, 2018, after she dropped off her son at school, she got a text message saying there was a school shut down due to a shooter. She was thankful that it wasn’t at her son’s school, but her heart broke for the 17 parents that lost their children at Parkland in Broward County, Florida. She said, “There was a problem, and I came up with a solution. I had some bullet proof material and suggested to my son that I could make a bullet-proof backpack, but he said they had to leave their backpacks in their lockers. I asked what they got to take to class, and he said they get to take their 3-ring binders. My other son said they get to take their daily planners. So, I got the idea of making a bullet-proof cover for the 3-ring binder and the daily planner.”

She then demonstrated how the bullet proof daily planner could be attached to the 3-ring binder and how it could be used to shield your body like armor. She is just launching the product in time for Christmas. She has the Mommy Armor fabricated by a company in the hills of the Appalachian Mountains, Capewell Aerial Systems LLC.

Leigh Valentine, founder of Leigh Valentine’s Beauty said that she went through a terrible divorce, lost everything, slept on the floor, and was on welfare for a while. Then, the Lord gave her an incredible idea for a non-surgical face lift product made from plant extracts that dramatically firms skin and takes away wrinkles. She was on the QVC shopping network for 14 years and sold over 40,000,000 products. She said many people have told her she could save money by buying from China, but she said, “All of my products are made in America, and I try to buy as much as I can in America.”

I shared that when I started my sales agency 34 years ago, I chose to only represent American manufacturers. I was a woman in a man’s world because I started out selling castings, forgings, and extrusions. No buyer or engineer I saw had ever been called on by a woman. I visited all of the companies I represented and learned everything I could about their manufacturing so I would be informed. When I saw what was happening to manufacturing and how it was being decimated, I started writing blog articles and reports and then wrote my book. Can American Manufacturing be Saved” Why we should and how we can that came out in 2009. A second edition came out in 2012, and I have written over 300 articles in the past ten years. We have saved American manufacturing, and now we need to rebuild it. I showed everyone my latest book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity.

Rose asked us to what message we would give to a woman who has an idea for a product or who has already started her own business. Leigh said, “You really have to fight to bring your product to market. I partnered with some people that I wish I never had partnered with.” She would advise women that if they need a partner “be careful to pick a partner that has the same values and vision you do. They will steal from you and lie.” In the end, it cost her $6 million to end the partnership.

Beverlee said, “When you run a company, don’t think you are ever going to reach an equilibrium where you don’t have problems. Every single day there are stress and problems. Then you realize that the problems don’t go away, they just get bigger and worse. It is normal. It is part of what you do when you run a company. The other lesson I have learned is don’t grow too fast. There is only so much you can do and only so much you can do well. We are only a five-person company. When we got picked up by Lowes, we made the decision not to go with Home Depot because we wanted to be a good partner to Lowes.”

Barbara said, “Don’t believe all the lies that are being sold to young people. There is no a glass ceiling. Men created the glass ceiling to keep women down. I have never felt held back by a glass ceiling. I was the first women on the west coast to sell chemicals, and the first women in land development. The ceiling is only created by you.”

Connie said, “Don’t set the bar too low and never give up.” She did high jumping like her brothers and they never lowered the bar for her even though she is only 5 ft. 3 in. She actually coached track and field for five years.

I said that I would advise a woman to never stop learning. “I recently got my certificate in Lean Six Sigma to be of more service to my customers. Service is all I have to offer — service to the companies I represent and service to my customers. When I started my company, I chose a motto: you achieve your goals by serving others.”

Rose commented that there seems to be more comradery at this trade show and asked us to share what we thought about the show.

Leigh said, “It is such an honor to be here. I am thrilled and honored to be here. This is a movement, and we’ve got to stick together and support each other’s businesses.”

Connie said, “This is like a family. I was actually at another Expo here and saw an announcement on the TV in my hotel about this show, and I knew I had to be here. When I walked the aisles, I knew I had found my people. Everyone of these people know what it takes to make products in America. We could have hit the easy button and made things cheaper in other countries, but we chose to make our products in America.”

Barbara said, “In this incredibly divisive world, we need to help one another. I am extremely excited about being able to share joy. I just try to lift others up. We are Americans and are proud to be Americans, and we want to have joy in a country that has given us amazing opportunity.”

Beverlee said, “The Made in America movement has been around for awhile now, but what I have enjoyed the most is that for the first time we have a “hubable” wheel where there were a lot of silos. All of us here are together in this. It’s not a trade show, it’s a forum.”

I said, “This show is a dream come true for me. Most people don’t realize that manufacturing is the foundation of the middle class. We lose manufacturing and we lose the middle class. We’ve had wage stagnation for 20 years, and my children aren’t as well off as I was. We have to get the message across to our children and grandchildren of how important it is to make things in America again. I heard it said that there are only three ways to create tangible wealth: “Grow it, mine it, or make it.” We need to create wealth for our country by making things in America so we can have a safe and free country. After our panel session ended, we said that we would look forward to seeing each other again at the 2020 Made in America Show. We know it will be even bigger and better, so don’t miss it.

Posted in Innovation, Made in America, Manufacturing | No Comments »

savingusmanufacturing.com

Archive for the ‘Manufacturing’ Category

ITIF Report Assesses Competitiveness of North American States

Manufacturing is Critical to Our National Defense

Manufacturing is the Engine of American Technology Development and Innovation

Manufacturing Generates Exports

How to Leverage New Technologies & Energize a New Generation to Close the Labor Gap

Who Are My Heroes? Part Two

Who Are My Heroes? Part One

Reshoring Critical Pharmaceuticals and Manufactured Goods Would Create Millions of Jobs

U.S. Private Sector Jobs Have Declined since 1990

Women Lead Made in America

Follow Us on

Pages

Blogroll

Categories

Archives

Meta