Archive for the ‘Reshoring’ Category

« Older 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 »

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 »

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:, ,
Posted in Economy, Made in America, Manufacturing, Reshoring, 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 17th, 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 17th 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 27th, 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 28th, 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:,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Reshoring | No Comments »

Lean Frontier Summit Focuses on Transformation into Lean Enterprise

Tuesday, October 9th, 2018

On September 20-21,2018, Lean Frontiers held their annual Lean Leadership Summits at the Westin Hotel on Jekyll Island.  This was my fifth year to be invited as a speaker at the conference. This year’s summit continued the combination of Lean Management,/Lean Accounting, and Lean H.R./People Development summits that was begun last year.

Co-founder Dwayne Butcher explained last that year that “It’s about time that the whole enterprise be involved in becoming a Lean company. Lean is a business model and must therefore include every part of the business, including those in Executive Leadership, Accounting, HR, Sales, Product Development, Supply Chain. We need to breakdown the silos between these departments.”

Between the keynote speakers, there were four tracks related to Lean Management/Lean Accounting, and Lean H.R./People Development.  Besides giving my own presentation, “How Reshoring and Lean are Helping Rebuild Manufacturing,” based on my new book Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, I attended the keynotes and several of the sessions in the Lean Management and Lean Accounting tracks.

Lean Frontiers is not a consulting firm. Its sole focus is to provide learning opportunities to

address:  Enterprise?wide adoption of Lean and the foundational skills needed to become a Lean company.

Co-founder Jim Huntzinger, said, “The first Lean Accounting Summit was held in 2005, and out of that summit, Lean Frontiers was born.  Lean is still perceived as a program with short term results by too many, and we need to make the transition to Lean as a business model.  We need to traverse unclear territory — trust the process to go from current condition to the target position. We can use XYZ Thinking:  If we do X, then we will get Y, but if we get Z instead, then we will learn.”

Mike DeLuca of the Lean Enterprise Institute introduced a Lean Accounting A3 for attendees to provide ideas on how to achieve the aspiration of having Lean Accounting be self-sustaining within five years.

Jim announced that the Journal of Cost Management has taken an interest in the summit and has a booth in the foyer. Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt Gary Kapanowski, who is a Guest Editor for the Journal, invited attendees to sign up to contribute articles to the magazine in the coming year as they are interested in running more stories about Lean in the magazine.

Then, he introduced the first keynote speaker, Karen Martin, author and President of the Karen Martin Group, spoke about her new book, Clarity First.  Clarity was a concept that she introduced in her book, The Outstanding Organization, wherein she looked at common patterns at companies and individual performance. She covered four areas: clarity, focus, discipline, engagement in her previous book and was asked by her readers to expand on the topic of clarity.  She discussed “what is clarity and what it is not,” saying that “it is coherence, precision, and elegance. Information needs to be complete accurate and easy to understand. Think of your target audience as your customer. The opposite of clarity is ambiguity, which complicates, slows, frustrates, increases risk, and is expensive. Ambiguity is manmade and different than lack of certainty. Strategic ambiguity can be useful for certain purposes. “

She asked: “What type are you? Clarity pursuer, clarity avoider, clarity blind” She stated, “Children have a natural curiosity but it gets stamped down when they ask why. Same thing can happen at work. Close to curiosity is humility about how you are communicating and how you are being received. We have 180+ cognitive biases that affect communication. Rushing hampers clarity; take time to be clear. Fear can be underlining lack of clarity. Fear can be biggest reason for resistance to Lean transformation.

She explained that clarity liberates purpose, priorities, process, performance, and problem solving:

Purpose – great way to get people engaged about what you do.

Priorities – defining true north.

Process – Value stream thinking is critical to defining process

Processes: documented, current, followed, consistently monitored, regularly improved; Standard work description is necessary for each task

Problem solving – CLEAR

C = clarity

L = learn

E = experiment

A= access

R = Rollout

In conclusion she recommended, “Infuse clarity into your organization…You need a scoreboard at all levels of company showing how you are doing.”

Prior to the afternoon keynote speaker, Jean Cunningham announced the awardees for the Lean Enterprise Institute’s Lean Accounting professor and student awards.  Professor Laurie Burney of Baylor University and her student, Katie Kearny of KMPG received the award for their research on Lean Accounting that will be published this fall.

Harry Moser, founder and head of the Reshoring Initiative was the afternoon keynote speaker. He spoke on “TCO/Reshoring:  Simplify your Lean Journey, Improve Employee Morale.”  Harry developed the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) calculator that quantifies he hidden costs of doing business offshore, which is free for companies to use at www.reshorenow.org. Harry highlighted the fact that the tide turned in 2016 between offshoring and reshoring as reshoring increased by 500% and offshoring fell by 75%.  Reshoring and Foreign Direct Investment (foreign companies setting up plans in the U.S.) are responsible for an increase of nearly two million jobs in the U.S.  He reminded the audience that Lean leaders, W. Edwards Deming, John Shook, and Jim Womack all advised companies to identify the “true cost,” and that offshoring multiples the wastes to be eliminated through Lean:  overproduction, waiting transport, overprocessing, inventory, motion, and defects. He stated that among the top ten reasons for reshoring are:  “quality/rework/warranty issues, freight costs, inventory, intellectual property risk, rising wages, and communication problems.”

He said, “By understanding the advantage of producing near the consumer, and the small TCO gap instead of the large price gap, U.S. companies can justify domestic investment, process improvement, automation, training, etc., and they do not have to sacrifice quality, delivery, time-to-market, or employees to be competitive and profitable.”  He announced two awards for reshoring for 2019: the first Sewn Products Reshoring Award and the second Metalworking Reshoring Award.

In conclusion, he invited attendees to cooperate with the Reshoring Initiative by testing Made-in-USA impact on volume and price, incorporating TCO in your lean efforts, and documenting their reshoring cases.

The day ended with a Townhall Conversation on “The Lean Economy” in which panelists Jim Huntzinger, Tom Jackson, Harry Moser, and Bill Waddell discussed how Lean business and practice can be one of the most profound impacts for elevating a strong economy.

On Friday morning, Mike Wroblewski, author of Creating a Kaizen Culture and President of Dantotsu Consulting LLC, was the keynote speaker on the topic of “Leading a Lean Transformation.”  He said, “Most companies measure performance by EBITDA, which he defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Cutting heads is the first thing management does to improve EBITDA by reducing costs. Which path are you on? Lean can be like the path to hell. You need upper management support but you also need lower level support. There are two things you can control – your effort and your attitude.”

He was taught Lean by Shifeo Shinzo from Japan in 1985 when he worked at Hill-Ron. He shared, “We did Kaizen events all week for SMED and after repeated Kaizen events, we got our die change from one hour down to 4 1/2 minutes.” He admonished, “ Kaizen needs to be your way life. It’s the culture. Lean isn’t meant to find blame faster. What do you do in the course of the day? Check email, respond to emails, make phone calls, plan, etc. How much time should you spend in Gemba? You should be spending 80% of your time in the Gemba. The standard you walk by is the standard you set for others.”

Space doesn’t permit me to highlight all the excellent breakout presentations during the summit.  If you haven’t started on your Lean journey, I recommend that you do so soon. If you are already on a Lean journey,I encourage you to put next year’s Lean Leadership Week on your calendar.

 

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

Lean Leadership Summit Focuses on Essentials to Becoming a Lean Company

Tuesday, December 12th, 2017

After being delayed for a few weeks because of Hurricane Irma, Lean Frontiers held its annual Lean Accounting Summit in Savannah, GA on October 24th and 25th.  This was my fourth year to be invited as a speaker at the conference. This year’s summit was different in that the Lean Accounting Summit was combined with Lean Management and Lean People Development into Lean Leadership to include the people development aspect of being a lean enterprise. Co-founder Dwayne Butcher, said, “It’s about time that the whole enterprise be involved in becoming a Lean company. Lean is a business model and must therefore include every part of the business, including those in Executive Leadership, Accounting, HR, Sales, Product Development, Supply Chain. We need to breakdown the silos between these departments.”

Between the keynote speakers, there were three tracks related to Lean Management, Lean Accounting, and Lean People Development.  Besides giving my own presentation, “Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity,” based on my new book of the same name, I attended all of the keynotes and some of the sessions in the Lean Management and Lean Accounting tracks.

Lean Frontiers is not a consulting firm. Its sole focus is to provide learning opportunities to address:  Enterprise?wide adoption of Lean and the foundational skills needed by Lean companies. Dwayne announced a new program, the Lean Learning Pod, that will be taught by Jean Cunningham on Lean accounting. Participating companies will meet in a virtual manner on a regular basis, and Jean will be a mentor to the companies.

Jim Huntzinger, said, “The first Lean Accounting Summit was held in 2005, and out of that summit, Lean Frontiers was born.  Lean is still perceived as a program with short term results by too many, and we need to make the transition to Lean as a business model.  We need to traverse unclear territory — trust the process to go from current condition to the target position. We can use XYZ Thinking:  If we do X, then we will get Y, but if we get Z instead, then we will learn.”

He introduced the first keynote speaker, Art Byrne, former Wiremold CEO, author of Lean Turnaround and now a consultant. He has been practicing Lean since 1982 when he was a General Manager at a General Electric facility. He wrote his book and then wrote the Lean Turnaround Action Plan to show what would happen if a company becomes Lean. The reader is supposed to be management of fictitious company – United Gear & Housing.  He asked, “What is Lean?” His answer was, “It is strategy to run any business to remove waste to deliver more value to customers.”

He described United Gear as a traditional batch company with long set ups of 2-3 hour, a six-week lead time, and a strong management team.  The company is purchased, and the new owner make it clear that everything has to change to with Lean as the strategy.  They will have to:  lead from the top, transform people, increase gross by 5 – 7. Puts, reduce inventory by $70 M increase value, and reduce set up by 90%.  He said, “The present capacity = work + waste., and waste is typically 60%.  I particularly liked his comment. “Think about the stupidity of putting all the same machines in the same department as if the machines liked to be near each other. Instead, we should be putting the machines in the sequence of operations to be performed to go from batch to continuous flow. You could rearrange the machines into cells to go from raw material to finished product. Fewer people would be doing the work, and lead time could drop dramatically from 6 weeks to 2 days.”

He said the Wiremold strategy was to: “Constantly strengthen our base operations, achieve 100% on-time delivery, 50% reduction in defects every year, do 20 inventory turns/year, double in size every 3 to 5 years, use visual control and 5S, do one piece flow and standard work, do Kaizen, use a Pull system, and stretch targets.”

In his concluding comments, he said, “Standard cost accounting and lean don’t go together. The key is for senior management to function as one team.”

In her presentation on “Overcoming Barriers to WOW Results,” Cheryl Jekiel, CEO of the Lean Leadership Resource Center, said that the International Labour Organization for the United Nations asked her to develop and teach a class on Lean HR to be taught in 46 countries.  She had to develop the course for others to use to teach. In developing the course, she used the following working definition of Lean:

  • 7 common practices to improve
  • It’s about the customer
  • Measurable improvement
  • Problem Solving
  • Repeatable processes
  • Overall involvement
  • Visual management
  • Engaging leadership

She said, “HR can make the difference in the results. HR owns the things that are the obstacles. HR has a role in the culture of the company and can weave improvement into activities. HR owns talent strategies: hiring, training & Development, performance management, and reword systems. HR can build lean competencies into job design. The greatest is the waste of human development. Most companies don’t tsp into the power of their people. We define people by the tasks they do and not their capability. People are endlessly creative. The power of the ideas to solve problems is in people. Lean is about building a muscle — the more you do it the better you are at doing it. Lean is a way of expanding capability.  HR tends to engagement, and engagement goes with Lean. Studies show that companies are 7-11% more profitable when employees are engaged. Convert categories into dollars to make the connection of engagement into money.”

One of my favorite presenters is Jerry Solomon, who gave the presentation, “Bridging the Gap Between Accounting & Operations.” He spent 40 years in the manufacturing industry and is now retired in Naples, FL.  His last 14 years were at Barry-Wehmiller in St. Louis as CFO.

He said, “Lean is two pillars to eliminate waste in pursuit of perfection in safety, quality, delivery, and cost.  The two pillars are:  respect for people and continuous improvement. Inspirational leadership and a profound cultural and organizational change are required to become a Lean company. Elimination of waste is driven by Kaizen events, which need to be narrow and deep. The respect for people means no layoffs and requires strong C-level support.”

He explained, “Lean Accounting is using Lean tools in accounting and “plain English” P & Ls. Accounting is one of biggest roadblocks to successful Lean journey. Lean is about being a cash and capacity generator.  We need to change the metrics we use. In the traditional cost accounting pie, overhead is 10-20%, Direct labor is 60-70%, and materials are 20-30%. Today in Lean accounting, overhead is still 10-20%, direct labor is 10-20%, and materials are 60%.  Standard cost accounting is replaced by actual costs and can be understood by everyone. The benefit of Lean accounting is relevant information when you need it that is understandable to the 99% of people and not just the 1% who are accountants. It provides real-time information to run the business.”

On Wednesday, the keynote presentation was “The Continuous Improvement Engine” by David Veech, The Ohio State University, author of Leadersights and The C4 Process.

He said, “The foundation of the continuous improvement engine is trust. Two key things are required: clear expectations with standardized work and leader vulnerability and mastery. Challenges lead us to acquire knowledge and skills. It’s how we lead that sets our stretch goals. It’s a process that occurs with repetition. No one is in this alone, so we have accountability. Learning and coaching is required for mastery. The goal is to have a team of experts.”

He explained, “You need a system for problem solving to find out if ideas work – you can use PDCA, DMAIC, or my C4 system.”  He said, “C4 is short for Concern, Cause, Countermeasure, and Confirm. C4 offers straightforward, easy-to-remember techniques for identifying and solving workplace problems. These four steps-clearly identify the concern, find the true root cause, correct the cause with an effective countermeasure, and confirm that the solution worked.”

He added, “Problem solving builds mastery. Mastery results in self-efficacy, and people that have self-efficacy are willing to try new things and keep trying until they succeed. They need to have intrinsic motivation, which comes from the heart. This intrinsic motivation turns into ideas and generates initiative. The “exhaust” of this continuous improvement engine is:  satisfaction, meaning, awareness, and responsibility. Building relationships in teams is critical to the process.”

In the first breakout session, I attended “Eliminate Standard Cost Step by Step” by Nick Katco, author of the Lean CFO series. He told us that there is nothing in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that would prevent using Lean Accounting methods. He said, “In GAAP, you need to calculate inventory valuation and Cost of Goods Sold. Using Standard Cost Accounting, you often have to make assumptions whereas in Lean Accounting, you use “Actual expenses incurred to get goods in condition for sale. A major objective of accounting for inventories is the proper determination of income through the process of matching appropriate costs against revenues.  In the continuous nature of manufacturing, there are difficulties in matching specific costs to revenue because products not sold in same period as produced, prices change over time, and production costs change over time.”

He explained how to do a Lean Inventory Valuation for material and production cost capitalization using three different methods:  days of inventory, units of inventory, and days of conversion cost.  He said, “Lean transformation is designed reduce inventory levels in manufacturing companies — 30-60 days is good target. There is no GAAP requirement to value every single product. Average costs replace standard costs. Capitalize total costs, not individual products by a journal entry.”  In conclusion, he advised:  “Design a lean inventory valuation methodology which works for your company and partner with your auditor to create a methodology they will be able to test.”

I had to leave early on Wednesday to catch my plane, so the last presentation I attended was “Lean Transformation from the CFO’s Seat” by CFO  Pete Gingerich of Aluminum Trailer Company. Last year I attended a presentation by the President and CEO, Steve Brenneman, so I was interested in what Mr. Gingerich had to share about their Lean transformation. He said, “In 2007, we did $27 Million and went down to $10 Million in 2009. We had to lay off half of our employees. Steve Brenneman started in 2009, and our first steps were office procedures for handling work folders and then we did 5S on the shop floor. We had lots of problems with material shortages, so we went to a Kanban system. We split into three value streams in 2012 and now have six.”

He explained, “Our big change was in how we pay our workers; we switched from piece rate to hourly and started at a rate of 10% higher than previous year’s rate. We also instituted a profit sharing plan. We didn’t use standard cost accounting, but we did have assumptions for material, labor, and overheads. Now, we know the actual costs for each value stream. Value stream planning is clearer and easier.”

He added, “We thought that our custom trailer was the most profitable, but it is actually our midline model trailer because too many engineers are involved in our custom trailer.

We have an annual meeting for top management, quarterly meetings for managers, and weekly meetings for team leaders. We have switched to rolling forecasts from budgeting, and we do weekly production planning forecasts and weekly P & Ls. Each value stream has its own weekly P& L with more detail. Lean accounting is based on shop floor metrics. We avoid allocations because if you can’t control them, why do you want to see them. We can close a quarter in one day. We clarified the definition of sales and revenue so employees would understand. We have had to work with suppliers on our Kanban system to cut inventory, such as having tires on a rack that is replenished daily. In 2009, we only did five turns of inventory, but in 2016, we did 19 turns.”

It’s always a pleasure to hear about a successful transformation into a Lean company rather than just a Lean manufacturer. I am a big proponent of Lean accounting because standard cost accounting is the biggest obstacle to more companies returning manufacturing to America using Total Cost Analysis.  When costs are divided into separate accounts, the purchasing agents and buyers do not have access to all of actual and hidden costs to be able to do a true TCO analysis. More CFOs need to take the time to attend the Lean Accounting Summit or get training from one of the qualified consultants and learn how to convert to Lean accounting.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Lean, Reshoring, Workforce Development | No Comments »

Reshoring has Become an Economic Development Strategy

Tuesday, May 24th, 2016

As a result of my writing and speaking about returning manufacturing to America through reshoring, I recently received information from the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) inviting me to educate my audience on the findings of their research and the tools and resources available when manufacturers are considering reshoring.

The IEDC is a non-profit membership organization serving economic developers with more than 4,700 members. Their mission as economic developers is to “promote economic well-being and quality of life for their communities, by creating, retaining and expanding jobs that facilitate growth, enhance wealth and provide a stable tax base.”

Last year, the IEDC received a grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration to “examine current reshoring practices and create materials to spread awareness of reshoring trends, tools and resources that are available to ease the process.” For the past 16 months, IEDC has conducted research on why companies are choosing to reshore and what resources are available to assist American companies that are considering reshoring. In the past year, IEDC has provided educational training sessions with reshoring experts, such as Harry Moser of the Reshoring Initiative, for economic developers.

IDEC also created the Reshoring American Jobs webpage, a project funded by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). “It is the go-to place to learn about and find resources to support activities encouraging reshoring in communities. Economic developers will find the latest news, case studies, and in-depth research on reshoring activity to help them stay in-the-know on reshoring trends information.” The micro site is divided into three sections:

Understanding Reshoring” discusses the critical role reshoring plays in strengthening the economy, identifies challenges to reshoring, and highlights lessons learned from communities that have worked with reshored companies.”

  • Defining the Reshoring Discussion” White Paper
  • National Assessment of Reshoring Activities
  • Webinars: Defining the Reshoring Discussion, Reshoring Tools….They’re Out There
  • Tools for Reshoring “provides resources and best practices in reshoring American jobs to aid economic developers in assisting reshoring companies.”
  • Reshoring in the Media “tracks the latest discussions on trends covered by popular and trade media. The content will help demystify the reshoring movement and serves as a practical reference for economic development professionals.”

In March 2016, IEDC published a 30-page white paper on “Defining the Reshoring Discussion,” in which the introduction and historical perspective states, “…as foreign countries strengthened their manufacturing competitiveness over the years, American manufacturers struggled to maintain their cost and productivity advantages on a global scale. Some American manufacturers adjusted to foreign competition by shifting their focus to complex, high-value products and industries—and increasing manufacturing investment, output, and employment. Others either closed U.S.-based factories or sought cost savings by offshoring some, or all, of their operations to less expensive foreign locations. Shortly after China joined the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001, a large exodus of U.S. manufacturers occurred.”

Now, however, supply chain dynamics have changed, and the report states, “…the cost savings that American firms had enjoyed began to erode around the year 2010. Changing macro-economic factors, such as labor and transportation cost increases, absorbed much of the savings from which manufacturers had previously benefited. Also, after experiencing offshoring firsthand, many companies found that hidden costs often outweighed the cost benefits of manufacturing overseas. Some of these hidden costs that were not always considered include factors such as increased costs of monitoring and quality control, uncertain protection of intellectual property, and lengthy supply chains.”

While the white paper presents a broad overview of the discussion of reshoring, some common themes emerged from their review of resources:

  • “The decision to reshore is often described as a response by business to both macroeconomic and internal business-related factors.
  • The term reshoring is used to describe a range of activities that occur in numerous industries, not just manufacturing.
  • A company’s decision to reshore can be encouraged through the creation of favorable business conditions, a skilled workforce, and incentives that encourage innovative manufacturing practices.
  • Reshored jobs will likely be different from the jobs that existed before offshoring gained momentum or jobs that currently exist offshore.”

The reason economic development agencies have become interested in reshoring is that “The impacts of reshoring extend beyond individual companies and provide benefits for entire regions as the effects multiply through local economies.”

From an economic development viewpoint, “it is important to understand that reshoring is fundamentally a location decision. In this sense, a company’s decision to stay in the U.S. or relocate will be based on its total operation costs in a given location.”

The white paper highlights some of the findings of the data from 25 national economies research studied by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) from 2004 to 2014. The BCG study

found that the following factors significantly impact manufacturing location decisions:

  • Increased wages – “China’s wages rose 15 to 20 percent per year at the average Chinese factory”
  • Fluctuating currency value – “when compared against the U.S. dollar, the Chinese yuan increased in value by 35 percent
  • “Labor productivity, which is measured as the gains in output per manufacturing Worker”
  • “Reduction of energy costs from 2004 to 2014, especially in energy-dependent industries such as iron and steel and chemicals industries”

Naturally, the white paper mentions the work of Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, in developing the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ in an effort “to help decision-makers estimate total costs of outsourced parts or products by aggregating, then quantifying all cost and risk factors into a single cost.”

The paper then discusses the different definitions of reshoring from a popular understanding to a more academic definition. The most common definition is “the return of Manufacturing to the U.S.” From an economic development perspective, the following definition may be more appropriate: “a manufacturing location decision that is a change in policy from a previous decision to locate manufacturing offshore from the firm’s home location.” (Ken Cottrill in his article titled “Reshoring: New Day, False Dawn, or Something Else.”) Cottrill divides reshoring into four categories:

“In-house reshoring refers to the relocation of manufacturing activities, which were being performed in facilities owned abroad, back to facilities in the U.S.”

“Relocating in-house manufacturing activities, which were being performed in facilities abroad, back to U.S.-based suppliers, is labeled “reshoring for outsourcing.”

Outsourced reshoring describes the process of relocating manufacturing activities from offshore suppliers back to U.S.-based suppliers.

Reshoring for Insourcing is “when a company relocates manufacturing activities being outsourced to offshore suppliers back to its U.S.-based facilities, it is considered reshoring for insourcing.”

The authors comment that reshoring applies to industries other than manufacturing, such as the information technology (IT) sector, stating that ”challenges such as time zone differences, identity theft, privacy concerns, and issues with utility infrastructure abroad led more companies to return their IT operations to the U.S.”

The white paper contains several pages describing what is currently being done to encourage reshoring by government programs such as the Make It in America Challenge and National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), which are too lengthy to discuss in this short article. However, I do want to describe the following tools that can be useful to economic development professionals as well as companies in the reshoring process:

Assess Costs Everywhere (ACE) Tool: This U.S. Department of Commerce tool was developed within the Economics and Statistics Administration, in partnership with the NIST-MEP, and with support from various agencies within the U.S. Department of Commerce, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and SelectUSA. “The tool provides a framework for manufacturers to assess total costs by identifying and discussing 10 cost and risk factors. These include: labor wage fluctuations; travel and oversight; shipping time; product quality; inputs such as energy costs; intellectual property protection; regulatory compliance; political and security risks; and trade financing costs.” ACE also provides case studies and links to public and private resources.

National Excess Manufacturing Capacity Catalog (NEXCAP): This resource was developed by the University of Michigan and “provides a catalog of vacant manufacturing facilities as well as critical data on skilled workforce supply, community assets, and other information pertinent to location decisionmaking.” It was funded by the Economic Development Administration.

U.S. Cluster Mapping Project: This is another project funded by the EDA and led by Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness by “conducting research and publishing data records on industry clusters and regional business environments in the United States…[allows] users to share and discuss best practices in economic development, policy and innovation.”

The paper discusses the importance of “industrial commons,” a term coined by Harvard Business School’s Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih in 2009,which refers” to a foundation of knowledge and capabilities that is shared within an industry sector in a particular geographic area. This includes technical, design, and operational capabilities as well as “R&D know-how, advanced process development and engineering skills, and manufacturing competencies related to a specific technology.”

Next, it discusses the impact of innovation and one point particularly worth noting is: “Manufacturing outputs have more than doubled since 1972, in constant dollars, even with a 33 percent reduction in employment…Improved output and efficiency is largely attributed to technological advancements that increase productivity and decrease labor-intensive activities. As gaps between wages in developed and developing economies continue to shrink, U.S. manufacturers will need to focus on innovation, using technology to improve productivity and reserving labor for value-added activities.”

In the section considering the need for more workforce development and what could be done in the future to encourage reshoring, “Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, argues that offering incentives focused solely on manufacturing reshoring is not enough… the focus should be on building the vibrancy of the critical advanced manufacturing industry sector. Muro argues that the U.S. must strengthen the depth of the nation’s regional advanced industry ecosystems…he calls for governments, companies, and individuals to work collectively to rebuild the nation’s local skills pools, industrial innovation capacity, and supply chains.”

While no in-depth studies have been conducted on the potential effect of reshoring on creating jobs, the paper provides the following chart showing estimates under various scenarios (recreated):

Scenario Description Source Jobs Reshored Cumulative Total Jobs
Using TCI analysis Reshoring Initiative 500,000 1,000,000
If Chinese Wage Trends continue at 18%/year Boston Consulting Group 1,000,000 2,000,000
Adoption of better U. S. training, increased process improvements & competitive tax rates Federal Government’s Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2,000,000 4,000,000
End of foreign currency manipulation Almost all manufacturing groups 3,000,000 6,000,000
Cumulative Total jobs is based on a two support jobs created for every manufacturing job reshored

The paper states, “The brightest reshoring prospects involve those that can profit from the current manufacturing environment. This would include manufacturers that depend on natural gas, require minimal labor, and need flexibility in production to meet changing customer needs.”

The authors’ conclusion in the paper echoes a conclusion in the second edition my book published in 2012:   They conclude that “there are opportunities for various levels of government, the private sector, and partnerships between the two to create an environment to support the manufacturers who can reshore.” Let’s not waste another four years coming to the same conclusion.

 

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

How Could the Trans Pacific Partnership Affect you or your Business

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

On February 4, 2016, President Obama signed the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement on behalf of the United States. The TPP agreement has been in negotiation behind closed doors since 2010 between the United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The TPP is a “docking agreement” so other countries could be added without the approval of Congress. India, China, and Korea have expressed interest in joining the TPP.

Our elected representatives in Congress had no involvement in writing the TPP – it was written by the staff of the U. S. Trade Representative office, with over 600 corporate advisors (think corporate lawyers) helping them write it. It contains more than 5,500 pages, and no member of Congress could view it as it was being negotiated until late 2014. Even then, they could not take any staff with them and were not allowed to take pen, pencil, paper, or a camera when they went to view it at the U. S. T. R.’s office.

The full text of the TPP was finally released to the public to review in November 2015, and it now awaits Congressional approval. According to the rules established by the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that passed Congress narrowly in June 2015, Congress will only be allowed 45 days for committee analysis after the bill is introduced, only 15 days after that is completed to bring it up for a floor vote, and only 20 hours of debate in the House and Senate. The TPA does not allow any amendments, filibuster, or cloture. Notice that the TPP is called an “Agreement,” as was NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS, and every other trade deal in the past 22 years. The purpose for this is to get around the requirement of the two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve a Treaty that is required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Treaty clause in the U. S. Constitution. The TPP requires only a simple majority vote (50% + one.)

Supporters of the TPP say that it represents 40% of the world’s economic activity (GDP), but they fail to mention that the U. S. and its current trading partners represent 80% of that 40%. The other five countries represent the other 20%, with Japan alone being 17.7% of that total.

The current goal of trade agreements as given by Congress to the U.S.T.R is to “remove trade barriers,” such as tariffs, quotas, etc. and increase U. S. exports. The U. S. cut tariffs and opened our markets by means of these trade agreements. However, our trading partners didn’t really open their markets to us. They played another game ? mercantilism, featuring rampant global currency devaluation, consumption taxes called Value Added Taxes (VATs) that are tariffs by another name, massive subsidies to their industries, and industrial policies that favor their domestic supply chains.

In brief, the effect to the United States of this unbalanced trade has been:

  • Loss of >600,000 mfg. jobs from NAFTA
  • Loss of 3.2 million mfg. jobs between 2000 – 2010 from China’s entry into WTO
  • Loss of >60,000 mfg. jobs since Korea-US Agreement went into effect in 2012
  • Loss of an estimated 3.4 million U. S. service & call center jobs since 2000
  • Loss of an estimated 700,000 public sector jobs (2008-2013)
  • Racked up cumulative trade deficit of $12 trillion in goods (average $500 billion each year) since 1994

As a result, we now have the worst trade deficit in U. S. history, and we are off to even a higher deficit this year based on the trade figures released for January ($45.9 billion) and February ($47.1 billion). As a recent example of the effect of trade agreements on our total trade deficit, our trade deficit with Korea has nearly doubled in less than four years, increasing from $14.7 billion in 2012 to $28.4 billion in 2015. Proponents of KORUS promised that it would create 70,000 jobs and $10 billion in exports.

As mentioned in a previous article, proponents of the TPP aren’t even giving such rosy predictions. The Peterson Institute’s analysis of the TPP states: “…GDP is projected to fall slightly (-0.54 percent), employment to decline by 448,000 jobs…”

What are some of the ways the TPP could affect you or your business?

Buy American Act would essentially be made Null and Void: The worst effect would be to those businesses who sell to the government, whether it be local, state, or federal because under the TPP procurement chapter, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. This means that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement would be provided access equal to domestic firms to bid on government procurement contracts at the local, state, and federal level. There are many companies that survived the recession and continue in business today because of the Buy American provisions for government procurement, especially defense and military. The TPP could be a deathblow for companies that rely on defense and military contracts. However, it would also affect procurement for infrastructure projects, such as bridges and freeways, as well as construction of local, state, or federal facilities.

Of course, this means that U. S. companies could bid on government procurement projects in TPP countries, but the trading benefit is miniscule. The U. S. government procurement market is 7X the size of current TPP partner countries (+550 billion vs. $55 -70 billion.) It is also highly unlikely that U. S. companies would be the low bidder against domestic companies in these TPP countries because of the vast difference in wages in countries such as Vietnam, where the average wage is 55 cents/hour. Past trade agreements has resulted in an average annual wage loss of 5.5% for full-time workers without college degrees, and U. S. wages have been stagnant for decades, growing by only about 2% per year since 2008. The result has been increased wage inequality from low to high wage earners.

Product Labeling could be Made Illegal: If you like to know if your food is safe, then you won’t like the fact that “Country of Origin,” “Non-GMO,” or “Organic” labeling could be viewed as a “barrier to trade” and thus be deemed illegal. According to Food & Water Watch, around 90% of the shrimp and catfish that Americans eat are imported. They warn, “The TPP will increase imports of potentially unsafe and minimally inspected fish and seafood products, exposing consumers to more and more dangerous seafood.” Many TPP countries are farm-raising seafood in polluted water using chemicals and antibiotics prohibited in the U. S. Farmed seafood from Malaysia, Vietnam, and China is being raised in water quality equivalent to U. S. sewers. Today, the FDA only inspects 2% of seafood, fruits and vegetables, and the USDA only inspects 4-5% of meat & poultry. Increased imports of food from TPP trading partners could swamp FDA and USDA inspections, so that even less is inspected.

TPP would Increase Immigration: If you are concerned about jobs for yourself or family members, then you won’t like the fact that the TPP increases “the number of L1 visas and the number of tourist visas, which can be used for business purposes.” Any service provider (phone service, security, engineers, lawyers, architects or any company providing a service) can enter into a TPP partner country and provide that service. Companies don’t have to hire Americans or pay American wages – they can bring in own workers and pay less than the American minimum wage.

TPP would Increase Job Losses in Key Industries: If you work in the automotive or textile industries, you may lose your job. The Center for Automotive Research projects a loss of 91,500 U. S. auto jobs to Japan with the reduction of 225,000 automobiles produced in the U. S. Also, the National Council of Textile Industries projects a loss of 522,000 jobs in the U. S. textile and related sectors to Vietnam.

TPP would Reduce Reshoring: Because TPP will reduce tariffs in trading partner countries, such as Vietnam, it will make the Total Cost of Ownership analysis to return manufacturing to America more difficult to justify. The high U. S. dollar has already diminished reshoring in the past year, so Harry Moser, Founder and President of the Reshoring Initiative, recently told me that “The combination of the high USD and TPP will reduce the rate of reshoring by an estimated 20 – 50%.”

Remember that the TPP is missing any provisions to address the mercantilist policies practiced by our trading partners: currency manipulation, Value Added Taxes that are both a hidden tariff and a hidden export subsidy, government subsidies/state owned enterprises, and “product dumping.”

 America is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing anything mined, manufactured, grown, or serviced to be outsourced to countries with predatory trade policies. Or, we can forge a new path by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth and strong domestic supply chains. If you support the latter path, then add your voice to mine and millions of others in urging Congress not to approve the TPP in either the regular session before the Presidential election or the “lame duck” session after the election.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Country of Origin, Inellectual Property, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Reshoring, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Is Reshoring Increasing or Declining?

Thursday, January 21st, 2016

In December, two conflicting reports were released, one by A.T. Kearney and one by the Boston Consulting Group. The A. T. Kearney report states that reshoring may be “over before it began”, and the Boston Consulting Group report states that it is increasing. Why the difference in opinion and who is right?

This was the second report by A. T. Kearney, in which their “U.S. Reshoring Index shows that, for the fourth consecutive year, reshoring of manufacturing activities to the United States has once again failed to keep up with offshoring. This time the index has dropped to –115, down from –30 in 2014, and it represents the largest year-over-year decrease in the past 10 years.”

In fact they conclude that “the rate of reshoring actually lagged that of offshoring between 2009 and 2013, as the growth of overall domestic U.S. manufacturing activity failed to keep pace with the import of offshore manufactured goods over the five-year period. The one exception was 2011.”

The authors of the A. T. Kearney report identify the two main factors contributing to the drop in the reshoring index to be “lackluster domestic manufacturing growth and the resilience of the offshore manufacturing sector.”

With regard to the lackluster domestic manufacturing, the report states that data from the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis predicted that U. S. manufacturing gross output would shrink by 3.6% through the end of 2015 based on data through November [December data not available.]

On the other hand, the Boston Consulting Group survey results showed that “Thirty-one percent of respondents to BCG’s fourth annual survey of senior U.S.-based manufacturing executives at companies with at least $1 billion in annual revenues said that their companies are most likely to add production capacity in the U.S. within five years for goods sold in the U.S., while 20% said they are most likely to add capacity in China…The share of executives saying that their companies are actively reshoring production increased by 9% since 2014 and by about 250% since 2012. This suggests that companies that were considering reshoring in the past three years are now taking action. By a two-to-one margin, executives said they believe that reshoring will help create U.S. jobs at their companies rather than lead to a net loss of jobs.”

The difference of opinion is based on different data. A. T. Kearney notes that “The manufacturing import ratio is calculated by dividing manufactured goods imports from 14 Asian markets [list of countries] by U. S. domestic gross output of manufactured goods. The U. S. reshoring index is the year-over-year change in the manufacturing ratio.”

In contrast, the Boston Consulting Group data is based on “an annual online survey of senior-level, U.S.-based manufacturing executives. This year’s survey elicited 263 responses. The responses were limited to one per company…Respondents are decision makers in companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenues, across a wide range of industries.”

“These findings underscore how significantly U.S. attitudes toward manufacturing in America seem to have swung in just a few years,” said Harold L. Sirkin, a BCG senior partner and a coauthor of the research, which is part of BCG’s ongoing series on the shifting economics of global manufacturing, launched in 2011. “The results offer the latest evidence that a revival of American manufacturing is underway.”

The BCG survey identified such factors “as logistics, inventory costs, ease of doing business, and the risks of operating extended supply chains” are driving decisions to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The primary reason for 76% of respondents reshoring production of goods to be sold in the U.S. was to “shorten our supply chain…while 70% cited reduced shipping costs and 64% said “to be closer to customers.”

The reasons cited by the BCG survey are consistent with the case studies that the Reshoring Initiative has captured, but the reshoring trend over the last few years has also been driven by a range of factors including rising offshore labor rates, especially in China, as well as the increased use of Total Cost of Ownership analysis to quantify the hidden costs of doing business offshore. The threat of Intellectual Property theft, cost of inventory (space to store and cost to buy larger size lots to get the “China price,) and quality/warranty/rework are also cited frequently. Longer delivery, cost and time of travel to visit offshore vendors, transportation costs, and communication problems also influence the decision to reshore.

About 60% of companies ignore these hidden costs and only look at wage rate, quoted piece price or at best, landed cost. Because of inaccurate data, many companies make the decision to offshore on the basis of faulty assumptions. The reality is that many companies are saving less than they expected, and in some cases, the hidden costs exceed the anticipated cost savings.

As an authorized speaker for Harry Moser’s Reshoring Initiative for the past five years, I have been conducting my own informal surveys of manufacturers that I meet at trade shows and conferences. Most of these companies are Tier 2 or 3 suppliers of assemblies, sub-assemblies and component parts. Each year, more and more companies have told me that they are benefitting from reshoring.

At the trade shows I attended last year and conducted my informal survey, I didn’t meet a single company that hadn’t gotten new business or recaptured an old customer because of reshoring. I believe that there is a great deal more reshoring going on than A. T. Kearney or even the Boston Consulting Group can quantify because it isn’t a whole product. It is an assembly, subassembly, or component part, such as metal stamped part, machined parts, sheet metal fabricated parts and assemblies, plastic and rubber molded parts, printed circuit boards, etc.

I now have slides for 300 case studies of companies that have reshored in the last six years provided to me by the Reshoring Initiative to use in my presentations. I can tailor my presentation to include slides for particular industries or geographical location. For example, when I spoke at the Lean Accounting Summit in Jacksonville, Florida in October, I shared case studies of companies that had reshored to the Southeast and when I spoke at the Design2Part show in Pasadena later that month, I shared case studies for companies that had reshored to California.

The Reshoring Initiative estimates that “if all companies used Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis, 25% of the offshoring would come back.” Their data reveals that about 100,000 manufacturing jobs have already been reshored in the last six years. Harry Moser states, “Excess offshoring represents an economic inefficiency that can be corrected at low cost. It is less expensive to educate companies than to incentivize them.”

During a recent conversation with Harry Moser, he said, “The economic bleeding due to increasing offshoring has stopped. The rate of new reshoring is now equal to the rate of new offshoring. The challenge is now to reshore the 3 to 4 million manufacturing jobs that are still offshored.” He provided me with the following chart to use in the presentations I gave last fall:

  Manufacturing Jobs / Year
  2003 2013 % Change Feasible 2016
New offshoring * ~150,000* 30-50,000* – 70% 20,000
New reshoring    2,000* 30-40,000** + 1,500 % 70,000
Net reshoring -148,000 ~0 -100% +50,000

*Estimated / ** Calculated

In the past, corporate cultures, supply chain reward systems, and investment have been heavily focused on offshoring. Many companies followed each other offshore in what Harry and I call “herd behavior.” We are endeavoring to change the mindset from offshoring is cheaper to sourcing domestically may be the better choice.

Another way would be to change the way buyers/purchasing agents in supply chain groups are being evaluated and rewarded on the basis of their success in achieving purchase price variance; i.e., selecting sources on the basis of the cheapest price. Chief Financial Officers need to allow their company’s supply chain department to utilize expenses in the other accounting categories that need to be taken into consideration in doing a Total Cost of Ownership analysis, such as transportation costs, travel and communication costs related to the supply chain, and the cost of quality problems related to rejected parts and reworking of salvageable parts.

Transforming to the value stream method of Lean Accounting would also facilitate being able to do a Total Cost of Ownership analysis more than Standard Cost Accounting because all of the costs related to that value stream are put into the category of Conversion costs and not put in the separate accounting categories of standard cost accounting.

The reality is that companies will only bring back the majority of offshored work if the economics of producing in the U.S. improve. The actions needed for more reshoring are the same as needed for manufacturing in general. These include developing a national manufacturing strategy that encompasses skilled workforce training, corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, and Border Adjustable Taxes (aka VATs) while addressing the predatory mercantilist practices of other countries with regard to currency manipulation, product dumping, and government subsidies.

Let’s return to the question of the status of the reshoring trend. The government keeps no related data. ATK tries to measure reshoring indirectly by measuring imports. It would be better to measure the actual phenomenon. BCG uses surveys of reshoring plans, but companies’ actions often differ from plans. The Reshoring Initiative counts the actual reshoring cases and jobs reported in the media and privately by companies. Readers can help resolve the dispute by reporting their cases of successful or failed reshoring to Harry Moser or to me, so I can write about them in future articles.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economic Development, National security, Reshoring | No Comments »

CPA Releases Competitiveness Strategy for the United StatesCPA Releases Competitiveness Strategy for the United States

Friday, November 20th, 2015

For several years, organizations and elected representatives in Congress have proposed developing a national manufacturing strategy. For example, the Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” in April 2011 and the Alliance for American Manufacturing has repeatedly put forward a “Plan to Save Manufacturing,” calling for a national manufacturing strategy to reverse the decline in U.S. manufacturing and the good jobs that come with it. Bills sponsored by Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski (D) have even passed the House of Representatives, but have died in the Senate.

On November 11th, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released “A Competitiveness Strategy for the United States – America at a Crossroads,” which addresses other sectors of our economy in addition to manufacturing.

“America needs to start winning again,” said Michael Stumo, CEO of CPA. “That is why the mission of the Competitiveness Strategy is to:

‘Win the international competition for good jobs, sustained real economic growth and prosperity with a national strategy to counter foreign mercantilism, balance trade and grow strong domestic supply chains.’”

“Across the USA, localities and states employ plans to attract jobs,” said Brian O’Shaughnessy, CPA Chief Co-Chair and Chairman of Revere Copper Products. “Other countries have sophisticated national strategies to acquire industries and bring good paying jobs to their countries. The USA has no comprehensive national strategy for domestic production and good paying jobs to guide trade negotiators and administration officials.”

CPA’s Competitiveness Strategy argues that:

The United States is losing an economic competition against other nations whose mercantilist strategies are destroying our manufacturing jobs, critical industries, our standard of living, our national security, the security of our food supply, and our children’s futures.

The threat to the U. S. economy and national security is grave. Other trading nations are using comprehensive strategies to import jobs across all economic sectors, but are particularly focused on strategically significant technologies and industries. American companies in these sectors face not only wide-ranging mercantilist practices and non-tariff trade barriers such as currency manipulation, tariffs and subsidies, but also much more sophisticated and specific strategies aimed at identifying, acquiring, or otherwise controlling critical technologies.

CPA’s strategy holds out the promise that the U. S. is in control of its own destiny and can re-assert itself as a great manufacturing and producing nation with a rising standard of living for all. We can develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that retains and reinforces our leadership in innovation, locates investment and production in the United States, and raises employment by creating good paying jobs.

The ultimate mission of the strategy is to win the international competition for good jobs and sustained economic growth. The mission recognizes we are in competition with other countries. The Competitiveness Strategy includes nineteen action steps focused upon three interrelated goals:

  1. Identifying and countering foreign mercantilist strategies that grow their economies at the expense of other countries through achieving a persistent trade surplus
  2. Balancing the national trade deficit
  3. Growing domestic supply chains

“All three goals are interrelated and must be pursued together,” continued Stumo. “The President rightfully created the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to grow domestic supply chains, but the effort cannot succeed unless we combat powerful foreign tactics to take those industries away. Further, a new effort to counter foreign mercantilism and trade cheating is essential, but must have the goal of balancing trade to be fully effective.”
“Additionally, balancing trade is essential, but merely exporting raw materials is insufficient. American must grow and retain a diverse array of industries that add value to our products and create good jobs, with special attention paid to advanced and critical industry supply chains,” Stumo concluded.

CPA’s competitiveness strategy shown below is succinct, yet comprehensive:

“Identify and counter foreign mercantilist strategies that grow their economies at the expense of other countries through achieving a persistent trade surplus

  1. End both currency exchange rate imbalances and the accumulation of excessive US dollar holdings by non-US public and private entities.
  2. Impose offsetting tariffs to neutralize foreign government subsidies to industries and supply chains that compete with ours.
  3. 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 requirements, while their exporters have access to US markets without these conditions.
  4. Ensure that foreign greenfield investments in the US and acquisitions of existing US companies provide a clear “net benefit” to the US with special scrutiny in cases of state influenced foreign entities.
  5. Protect US food security from foreign government tactics to seize markets.

Balance trade

  1. Offset cumulative trade deficits of recent decades and excessive accumulations of dollar reserves through sustained trade surplus to ultimately achieve a long term overall trade balance.
  2. Insure that the composition of trade includes a substantial trade surplus in high value added and advanced manufactured goods.
  3. Make the US workforce more cost competitive by promoting fair pay, rising living standards and safe working conditions for workers everywhere.
  4. Reduce US producers’ trade disadvantage through tax reform which finances the reduction of payroll taxes and health insurance costs with a border adjustable consumption tax in a revenue and distribution neutral manner.
  5. Lower corporate tax rates and end corporate inversion and profit shifting tax avoidance by taxing the income of unitary business groups, whether domestic or foreign, based upon proportion of global sales in the US.

Grow Domestic Supply Chains

  1. Preserve and develop domestic manufacturing and agricultural supply chains to maximize value added production in the US.
  2. Develop, build and maintain a world-class land, water, air, communications and energy infrastructure.
  3. Safeguard our military strength and national security by insuring that critical technologies, weapons & IT components are developed and manufactured in America by American controlled companies.
  4. Develop, commercialize and retain strategic and economically significant advanced technology and grow their manufacturing supply chains in the US.
  5. Increase public support for, and incentives for private investment in, basic and applied research, infra-technologies and new product and process technologies.
  6. Continually raise the competitiveness of American workers by improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education available at all levels, systematically enhance lifelong learning for existing workers, and fostering a national system of apprenticeship and paid internships through collaborative public-private endeavors that are connected to actual opportunities in the labor market.
  7. Raise the competitiveness of small and medium sized domestic enterprises by increasing long-term private sector financing, the sharing of research on common issues and the diffusion of new technologies and production methods.
  8. Preserve our right to adopt and enforce domestic policies that insure the quality of our food and goods, and protect the health, safety and general welfare of our citizens without restrictions from international trade agreements.
  9. Ensure that domestic manufacturing and agriculture benefit fully from an expanded supply of low cost US produced energy”

Anyone involved in efforts to revitalize American manufacturing already has a bookshelf full of books, studies, and reports containing recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy. My book, Can American Manufacturing Be Saved? Why we should and how we can has a chapter on “How Can We Save American Manufacturing?” that contains a summary of the recommendations of many organizations as well as my own recommendations, which I incorporate into articles and presentations whenever possible. As chair of the California chapter of CPA, I plan to incorporate this competitiveness strategy into future articles and presentations whenever possible.

The brilliance of CPA’s strategy is that it is not limited to manufacturing and is not a “to do list” of actions to take. The Competitiveness Strategy will work best when pursued as a whole. The three objectives are interrelated because, for example, we cannot balance trade without growing domestic supply chains to produce more, and add more value in the U. S. We cannot grow domestic supply chains unless we neutralize foreign mercantilism (trade cheating) that offshores otherwise competitive industries that we started and developed in the U. S. We cannot address foreign mercantilism without the guidance of a balanced trade objective.

Businesses must have a strategic plan to start and grow. This strategic plan guides the business with regard to product development, finance, marketing, production, procurement, etc. Many other countries have an economic strategy to grow their economy. A country’s strategy guides their economic, fiscal, trade, innovation, finance and monetary policy, so that they all work together to enhance their competitiveness as a nation.

The United States has no comprehensive strategy ? just a hodgepodge of laws and rules. Trade negotiators have had no strategic plan to guide them, and neither do the administrative agencies relevant to manufacturing, agricultural, and use of natural resources. The United States needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy that clearly expresses exactly what we want to achieve for our country… not for an industry or special interest… but our country as a whole.

We do not have to “keep reinventing the wheel.” It is time for our leaders to “stop fiddling while Rome burns” and show some real leadership. Action, not lip service is what we need now!

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economic Development, Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Reshoring, Trade, Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries