Why Manufacturing is Important to America

May 27th, 2020
This week’s article begins a series of short articles on why manufacturing is important to the America economy. Our country’s Founding Fathers recognized the importance of developing a domestic manufacturing base instead of continuing to rely on imports from England, France, and the Netherlands.  They established the U.S. patent system and protected the developing manufacturing industry with tariffs to discourage imports.  This allowed the United States to be the world’s number one manufacturer for more than 100 years, accounting for as much as 25 percent of global manufacturing output in 2007. In 2010, China overtook the U.S. to become the world’s top manufacturing country by output. 
The first reason why manufacturing is important is:  Manufacturing Supplies Millions of Jobs

Manufacturing is the engine that drives American prosperity and is the foundation of the U.S. economy and the basis for its middle class. In February 2020, manufacturing employed 12.6 million workers. According to the National Association of Manufacturers’ facts about manufacturing, “manufacturers contributed $2.381 trillion to the U.S. economy in the fourth quarter of 2019, a new all-time high…Overall, manufacturing accounted for 11% of GDP in the economy.”

In addition, “For every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, another $2.74 is added to the economy. That is the highest multiplier effect of any economic sector. In addition, for every one worker in manufacturing, there are another five employees hired elsewhere.”

The U.S. lost 5.8 million jobs in manufacturing from the year 2000 to 2010 due to a combination of factors, such as the offshoring of jobs to Asia, especially to China, increased productivity of American workers, automation, and robots, as well as the domestic outsourcing of service jobs within a manufacturing company, such as accounting and payroll services, janitorial services, cafeteria/food services, and legal departments. Thus, jobs that may have been classified as manufacturing are now classified as service jobs.

The below chart shows that the U. S. has regained about 1.5 million jobs since the end of the recession. 

American workers achieve a high productivity rate year in and year out, and the growing trend of training in “Lean manufacturing” has accelerated the increase in the productivity of American workers

In 2019, the ten states with the largest manufacturing workforces were:  California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and New York. California’s manufacturing workforce of more than 1.2 million exceeds Illinois and Pennsylvania’s combined manufacturing workforce

A blog article by Alex Carrick of January 14, 2019 on the website www.constructconnect.com, states:  “The five major contributors to U.S. manufacturing employment are:  transportation equipment, a 13.2% share; food manufacturing, 12.9%; fabricated metal products, 11.7%; machinery, 8.9%; and computer and electronic products, 8.4%.

Michigan (with an 11.4% share) leads all states in number of transportation equipment jobs. It’s followed by Indiana (8.2%). California and Ohio (each with 7.3% shares) are tied for third.

By a wide margin, California is out front among states in number of food manufacturing jobs.

California and Texas provide the most ‘fabricated metal product’ jobs; Ohio is in third spot.

Texas, which is big in oil and gas drilling equipment, is the nation’s leader in machinery manufacturing jobs.

More than a quarter of U.S. ‘computer and electronic products’ manufacturing jobs are in California. Second-place Texas has only about one-third of California’s contingent.”

The sooner we reopen all manufacturing, instead of just allowing manufacturers in critical industries to remain open, the sooner we will get millions of manufacturing workers off the unemployment roles and back to producing the goods we need to remain a strong industrial nation, while protecting the health and national security of all Americans.  

Posted in General | 1 Comment »

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

May 12th, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Are My Heroes? Part Two

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 »

Who Are My Heroes? Part One

April 21st, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: , ,
Posted in Economy, General, Jobs, Made in America, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Reshoring Critical Pharmaceuticals and Manufactured Goods Would Create Millions of Jobs

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 »

Would H.R.3666 – STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 be Beneficial to Inventors?

March 10th, 2020

On July 10, 2019, H.R. 3666, the “STRONGER Patents Act of 2019,” was introduced in Congress and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The purpose of the Act is “To strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy.”

This bill is a reintroduction of the Stronger Patents Act of 2017 that never got out of committee.  It has a long list of bi-partisan co-sponsors:  Rep. Stivers (R-OH), Rep. Mr. Foster (D-IL), Rep. McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Velázquez (D-NY), Rep. Babin (R-TX), Rep. Burgess (R-TX), Rep. Hill (R-AK), Rep. Huizenga (R-MI), Rep. Joyce (R-OH), Rep. King (R-NY), Rep. Norman (R-SC), Rep. Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Rep. Suozzi (D-NY), Rep. Peters (D-CA), Rep. Gosar (R-AZ), and Rep. Davidson (R-OH).

The “Findings of Congress” in the Act make several points similar to those made in the “Findings of Congress” for H.R. 5478, the Inventor Rights Act, regarding the importance of patents as “the foundation for the exceptional innovation environment in the United States” and “an essential part of the country’s economic success.” It includes reference to the fact that “strong patent protection improves the chances of success for small companies and increases their chances of securing financing from investors.”

Of particular note, the “Findings” state that “unintended consequences of the comprehensive 2011 [America Invents Act] reform of patent laws are continuing to become evident, including the strategic filing of post-grant review proceedings to depress stock prices and extort settlements, the filing of repetitive petitions for inter partes and post-grant reviews that have the effect of harassing patent owners, and the unnecessary duplication of work by the district courts of the United States and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;”

This “Finding” refers to the abuse of invalidating patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board mentioned in my blog article of February 12th about the Inventor Rights Act.

In addition, the “Findings” point out that “efforts by Congress to reform the patent system without careful scrutiny create a serious risk of making it more costly and difficult for legitimate innovators to protect their patents from infringement, thereby weakening United States companies and the United States economy.”

The Stronger Patents Act of 2019 is much more complex that the simple one-page bill for the Inventor Rights Act.  Since I am not a lawyer, I do not have the legal expertise to analyze each of the specific clauses of the Act.  However, I will highlight certain sections that are particularly beneficial to inventor rights and attempt to correct specific problems created by the America Invents Act of 2011.

For example, in “SEC. 102. Inter partes review,” the proposed amendments would help reduce the invalidation of patents that is now occurring in PTAB cases. The bill states:

“(A) each challenged claim of a patent, or claim proposed in a motion to amend, shall be construed as the claim would be construed under section 282(b) in an action to invalidate a patent, including by construing each such claim in accordance with—

(i) the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains; and

(ii) the prosecution history pertaining to the patent; and

(B) if a court has previously construed a challenged claim of a patent or a challenged claim term in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party, the Office shall consider that claim construction.”

The “Burden of proof.—Section 316(e) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(1) PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.—The presumption of validity under section 282(a) shall apply to a previously issued claim that is challenged during an inter partes review under this chapter.

(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability of a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence.”

One of the important amendments in Sec. 103. Post Grant Review, adds the following new subsection: “(d) Persons that may petition.—

(2) NECESSARY CONDITIONS.—A person may not file with the Office a petition to institute a post-grant review of a patent unless the person, or a real party in interest or privy of the person, demonstrates—

(A) a reasonable possibility of being—

(i) sued for infringement of the patent; or

(ii) charged with infringement under the patent; or

(B) a competitive harm related to the validity of the patent.”

Two of the amendments to SEC. 104. Composition of post-grant review and inter partes review panels, amend Section 6(c) of title 35, United States Code as follows:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Each appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review shall be heard by at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, who shall be designated by the Director.

(2) INELIGIBILITY TO HEAR REVIEW.—A member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board who participates in the decision to institute a post-grant review or an inter partes review of a patent shall be ineligible to hear the review.”

SEC. 105. Reexamination of patents amends the process of requesting a reexamination, while SEC. 106. Restoration of patents as property rights states is amended to provide injunctive relief stating:

“(b) Injunction.—Upon a finding by a court of infringement of a patent not proven invalid or unenforceable, the court shall presume that—

(1) further infringement of the patent would cause irreparable injury; and

(2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury.”

One of the problems that this Act addresses is the diversion of fees paid to the USPTO. Currently funds can be diverted to fund other agencies and cover other government expenses.  By this Act, SEC. 107. Elimination of USPTO fee diversion, clause regarding  (a) Funding.—Section 42 of title 35, United States Code, is amended as follows:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Fees authorized in this title or any other Act to be charged or established by the Director shall be collected by the Director and shall be available to the Director until expended to carry out the activities of the Patent and Trademark Office.”

Item “(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Treasury a revolving fund to be known as the ‘United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund’.”

I particularly support the addition of SEC. 109. Assisting small businesses in the U.S. patent system, which states in part:

“(b) Small Business Administration report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Small Business Administration, using existing resources, shall submit to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a report analyzing the impact of—

(1) patent ownership by small business concerns; and

(2) civil actions against small business concerns arising under title 35, United States Code, relating to patent infringement.

(c) Expansion of patent pilot program in certain district courts.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall designate not fewer than 6 of the district courts of the United States that are participating in the patent cases pilot program established under section 1 of Public Law 111–349 (28 U.S.C. 137 note) for the purpose of expanding that program to address special issues raised in patent infringement suits against individuals or small business concerns.

(2) PROCEDURES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, each district court designated under paragraph (1) shall develop procedures for expediting cases in which an individual or small business concern is accused of patent infringement.

While this bill addresses many of the problems caused for the America Invents Act of 2011, it does not address the most egregious provision of that Act; namely, changing our patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system.  This change has done the most damage to the individual inventor or small business entity.  While a provisional patent that is good for one year is relatively inexpensive, it is expensive and time consuming to pursue obtaining a non-provisional patent (3-5 years average).  Individual inventors have to be extremely cautious not to reveal information on their technology to prevent others from being first to file a patent for the technology they invented. 

Because of the complexity of this bill, I don’t think it has any greater chance of getting out of committee to be voted on by the whole of Congress this year than the Stronger patent Act of 2017. In fact, it may have less chance in the Democrat-controlled House with many more Republican than Democrat co-sponsors. In my opinion, I think the simple, one-page Inventor Rights Act has a much better chance of being brought to the House floor for a vote this year, and it will restore the rights of inventor to their patents.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Legislation, Patent Reform | No Comments »

Prairie State College Starts Innovative Mobile Training Program

February 26th, 2020

At the Made in America trade show last October, I stopped by the booth of Prairie State College in Chicago Heights, IL and met Craig Schmidt. V. P. of Community and Economic Development and Jim Kvedaras, Consultant. They were at the show to publicize the launch of their new Mobile Training Center (MTC) program that will provide innovative ways to train and retain workers and minimize workplace interruptions. Craig told me, “We recently received an Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant to create the MTC.  We used that grant and matching college funds to build two mobile training centers that can be moved at will to bring hands-on training to a company site.”

Last week, I checked back with Craig and Jim to see how the program was going.  He said they have been identifying manufacturers that would benefit from the program and will start the program at Ford Motor Company’s Stamping plant the week of March 16.  They have additional companies lined up.

He explained, “By using the MTCs, employers save the time and expense of sending employees off site to locations for industrial skills training, and workers will not be inconvenienced by having to commute to a community college campus or other location for training. We’ve been offering training in manufacturing skills about 41 of the 60 years since the College opened in 1958. Today, manufacturers need new ways to address the skills gap and retain their workers to be competitive in the global economy. Mobile training can provide some of those ways, and our local manufacturers wanted the training to be brought to them.”

“We’re the first in the area to have these,” he said. “Larger companies that operate three shifts around the clock will be able to provide equal and training opportunities to employees.  It’s all focused on advanced manufacturing. The top priority is to upskill current employees.”

He explained, “The MTCs are two 53 ft. highway truck trailers that are temperature controlled, Wi-Fi enabled, and handicap accessible.  The MTCs can come on demand, so that training doesn’t have to be confined to whatever facilities an employer can make available without shutting down production lines. The MTCs can be moved to other plant locations, providing training opportunities for more employees, and then moved to other employers.  Employers can work with the college to design a training curriculum based on their goals, while minimizing production downtime while the training takes place.”

Craig provided me with a brochure that explained that one trailer is a welding unit and the other is a manufacturing unit.  The welding trailer is “equipped with eight multiprocess welding stations and two virtual reality/augmented Arc welding simulation.” Students will learn “welding setup, operation, and troubleshooting using Miller multiprocess welders.”

The manufacturing unit is described as being equipped with the following equipment:

  • “Emco machines
  • Haas simulators,
  • Manual mill/lathe Combo machining centers
  • ABB Robotic operations for operation and troubleshooting
  • 3D printing capabilities”

The students will learn “PLC and electronics operation and troubleshooting using Siemens and Allen Bradley components” and be trained on “all CNC industry controls that are common to the market.”

The brochure states that MTCs offer:

  • “On-site, hands-on training using current technology
  • Customizable curriculum, including classroom instruction and practical application
  • Training that can be applied toward a college degree or as professional development
  • Lab exercises designed to enhance employee competence and performance”

The benefits to employers are described as:

  • “Minimize loss of production time and travel expenses
  • Increase engagement, efficiency, and retention
  • Maintain a competitive edge
  • Increase safety performance by uniform adherence to industry standards
  • Reduce the manufacturing skills gap”

Craig said, “We are also seeking company sponsorships to assist in offsetting the College’s match of the grant.  The College intends to put a portion of the sponsorship back into the community to promote manufacturing jobs to youth and train individuals who may not have easy access to education.”

I thanked Craig and Jim for the information and said that I hoped to see them at this year’s Made in America trade show in Detroit.  To learn more about the Prairie State College Mobile Training Center program, visit https://prairiestate.edu/MTC, call (708) 709-7722, or email mtc@prairiestate.edu.

When I browsed the College website, I learned that it also has a Department of Corporate and Continuing Education, which offers customized programs that are delivered either to company facilities or on their campus. Besides the typical business topics of business ethics, business writing, customer service, Secrets of Selling, and time management, the College also offers training in computer software and employee development topics.  The latter includes such topics as coaching and mentoring, leadership, and team building.

I was particularly pleased that the College offers training in Lean on such subjects as 5S Workplace Organization, Continuous Improvement, Six Sigma, and Total Productive Maintenance because becoming a Lean enterprise is key to being competitive in the global marketplace. 

All across the country, Community Colleges are taking the lead in providing education and training in the skills needed by today’s manufacturers.  What is still needed is more high schools restoring hands-on skills training at the high school level.  Let’s restore the “shop classes,” such as wood shop and machine shop and start mentoring middle school age children on the importance of choosing STEM careers. STEM careers include manufacturing because nearly all manufacturing today is based on advanced technology.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Education, Training, Workforce Development | No Comments »

H.R. 5478 would Protect Inventors Rights

February 11th, 2020

On December 18, 2019, H.R. 5478 was introduced by introduced by Representatives Danny K. Davis (D-IL) and Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (R-AZ), and on January 28, 2020, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. This Act that would restore patent protection for inventors and mitigate a generation of laws, regulations, and court decisions discouraging innovation by failing to secure to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.

It is crucial that this Act be passed this year because our patent system is in crisis. The text of the Act states “Recent changes to patent laws and procedures and Supreme Court decisions have adversely affected inventors such that the promise of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of ‘securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries’ is no longer attainable.”  The biggest change to the U. S. patent system was made by the America Inventors Act of 2011,  

The Act states that “Inventors are denied the fundamental right to ‘exclude others’ by the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC.” Thus, inventors have lost their injunctive rights granted by the Constitution.  It also states that “Inventors were stripped of the right to file suit in their own judicial district by the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC.”

Imagine if you invested in a house, moved in, started to enjoy it, and then had squatters arrive, whom you can’t legally kick out. Yes, you could charge them rent, but if you can’t kick them out, they have no incentive to pay! They would just keep squatting and living in your house for free. That’s what has happened to our patent system.

The ability to stop others from infringing on inventor’s patent rights was what helped big tech companies years ago. Amazon never would have existed without Jeff Bezos’ patent for “the one click purchase” that he licensed to Apple to use for their app store.  Amazon and Microsoft ere helped to grow by their patent licensing revenue.

Now, large companies are stealing patents and inventors can’t stop them from using the technology. These large corporations are choosing to spend years in court in a process called “efficient infringement,” by paying legal fees to harm new innovation by inventors instead of paying fair licensing royalties to grow the new innovation. The inventors have to incur extensive legal fees to protect their patents, which often bankrupts them if they can even afford to initiate a lawsuit.

  While American innovation is faltering to grow here, China has out legislated America, (learning from our mistakes by mandatory licensing and punitive damages on intentional infringement to quickly grow innovation. Their strong patent legislation is growing their economy exponentially. They now have a billion dollar start up every three days in crucial fields like AI, 5G, and other new technologies, while in America we have none.

Instead, we only have large USA corporations stealing innovation from small companies, then bankrupting them in Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB) trials by judges appointed by the USPTO at a rate of around 86%.

For further information on the patent crisis, you may watch the trailer for the documentary Invalidated: The Shredding of the U.S. Patent System  The full version is available on Amazon and iTunes.

Attempts to undo the damage of the America Invents Act of 2011 and Supreme Court decisions isn’t new.  There were three bills related to patents/inventor rights were introduced in the 115th Congress (2017-2018), but they never got out of committee for a vote on the House floor:

H.R.6557, Inventor Protection Act – “To amend title 35, United States Code, to restore patent rights to inventors, and for other purposes.” It was designed to restore patent protection for inventors by reversing a generation of laws and regulations.  (Sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-CA)

S.1390, Stronger Patents Act of 2017 – A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy. (Sponsored by Sen Chris Coons (D-DE)

H.R.6264 – Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018 – A bill “to promote the leadership of the United States in global innovation by establishing a robust patent system that restores and protects the right of inventors to own and enforce private property rights in inventions and discoveries, and for other purposes.” (Sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)

H.R 5478 is a simple bill that would protect inventor’s rights. The main provisions of H.R. 5478 are:

“SEC. 3. Inventor protections.

(a) Inventor-Owned patent. —Section 100 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(k) The term ‘inventor-owned patent’ means a patent with respect to which the inventor of the invention claimed by the patent or an entity controlled by that inventor—

(1) is the patentee; and

(2) holds all ‘substantial rights.’

(b) Inventor-Owned patent protections.—Chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

§ 330. Inventor protections

(a) Protection from post issuance proceedings in the united states patent and trademark office. —The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall not undertake a proceeding to reexamine, review, or otherwise make a determination about the validity of an inventor-owned patent without the consent of the patentee.

(b) Choice of venue. —Any civil action for infringement of an inventor-owned patent or any action for a declaratory judgment that an inventor-owned patent is invalid or not infringed may be brought in a judicial district—”

As the findings cited in the Act state, “Inventors have contributed significantly to innovation in the United States and their continued dedication to inventing and sharing solutions to modern technical challenges is essential for the United States to maintain leadership in the global economy.” It is crucial for inventors to be able to have some assurance that the rights to their patents will be reviewed in a consistent manner, so that they will be able to secure investors and get their product into the marketplace.

Josh Malone, volunteer advocate and inventor of top selling Bunch O Balloons emailed me, “Our patent system was intended to incentivize individual inventors but has recently been captured by trillion-dollar corporations. Small businesses have virtually no chance when it costs tens of millions of dollars and takes a decade or more to bring an invention thief to justice. Inventors need to make their voices heard by contacting their Senators and Representatives to tell them to repair our innovation system by passing the Inventor Rights Act.”

In order to ensure that H.R. 5478 gets out of committee review and is voted upon by Congress, more co-sponsors are needed. Please urge your Congressional Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 5478, which would restore patent protection for inventors and mitigate the laws, regulations, and court decisions that have discouraged innovation by failing to secure to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.

Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Legislation, Patent Reform | No Comments »

FAME Develops World Class Manufacturing Technical Talent

February 4th, 2020

Over the past several years, I’ve written nearly 30 articles about programs that address the shortage of skilled manufacturing workers. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of being connected by a friend to interview Dennis Dio Parker, who heads up the Federation for Advanced Manufacturing Education (FAME). The purpose of FAME “is to be the driving force for developing global-best technical talent for manufacturing and other employers of technical workers.  FAME strives to be a powerful conduit between industry and education.”

Dennis told me that according to the 2018 Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute Skills Gap and Future of Work study. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution is transforming the world of work through artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, automation, analytics, and the Internet of Things. Despite common fears, these technologies are likely to create more jobs than they replace—as illustrated by the tight labor conditions in the US and global manufacturing industry.”

While there was a shortage of about 500,000 unfilled jobs in 2018 due to the skills gap of manufacturing workers, the “study reveals that the skills gap may leave an estimated 2.4 million positions unfilled between 2018 and 2028, with a potential economic impact of 2.5 trillion.” The reason why 2028 is a watershed year for the age of workers is because the last of the Baby Boom generation (1946-1964) and the first of Generation X (1961-1981) would be starting to retire.

Dennis explained that the FAME Advanced Manufacturing Technician Program was an outgrowth of training that Toyota Motor North America provided for employees when they built their new manufacturing plant for vehicles in Georgetown, KY in 1987.  Dennis was one of the first 13 trainers hired to start the training in 1987 and he is the last one still working of the original 13 as he transitions to support transfer of the program after The Manufacturing Institute and Toyota Motor North America announced a partnership to hand-over operation and stewardship of FAME in September 2019.

Dennis added, “Toyota had the advantage of having a culture of continuous improvement, and we continually improve the program. The original vision was to have the training program set up at eight locations where Toyota has a manufacturing presence in North America. We wanted to have other manufacturers as partners in these regions to create a pool of skilled workers for all.  Part of our goal was to help solve the problem of the lack of skilled workers, but the problem is too big and endemic for one program to solve.  There are a lot of good programs, but FAME is different from the others in the way it is structured. This is an employer-led program, not an education-led program.”

When I asked how the training expanded out of Toyota, he said, “In 2005, Ernie Richardson and I made a proposal to Keith Bird, Kentucky Community Technical College Chancellor and Jim Kerley, BCTC President to build a new community college in Georgetown to introduce a new education program. The new campus design was established at NAPSC in 2006 and began operation with the first students in 2007.

With the campus in place, we completed development of the Advanced Manufacturing Technician program establishing an employer group to participate in it. I contacted Ken Carroll, then V. P. of the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers, and worked with him to develop an employer collaborative to support the AMT program. We held the first discussions with other companies in 2008 – 2009, and by October we had formed an organization and elected officers. The first name was the Bluegrass Manufacturing Development Collaboration. (B-MDC)”

He explained why the program stalled, saying, “The Great Recession hit full force in 2009, and we decided to be inactive until business conditions improved. However, Toyota began the first AMT training class in August 2010 at the new campus. By 2011, business conditions had improved to the point that Ken and I decided that it was time to restart the B-MDC. On September 29, 2011, the group met again. We had invited a number of special guests to help relaunch the effort, including Jennifer McNelly, president of the Manufacturing Institute; Wil James, president of Toyota’s Kentucky plant; Dr. Vince Bertram, national president of Project Lead the Way; and Dr. Stanley Chase, a national expert on educational collaboration with business and industry. Since that meeting, the employers group supporting the AMT Program has been in continuous operation.”

Continuing, he said, “Other companies sponsored their first students in the AMT Program with the class of 2012 when 3M, Central Motor Wheel Manufacturing, and GR Spring added their students. In March of 2013 the re-born B-MDC elected new officers, installing Terry McMichael of 3M as President and Danette Wilder of SealingLife as Vice President.”

When I asked how the name was changed to FAME, he said, “The West Virginia Toyota plant started the AMT Program with their college and in close partnership with the West Virginia Manufacturers Association (WVMA). When West Virginia governor announced the start of the AMT Program, he also announced “WV FAME” as the name for the future group of manufacturers which would support AMT in West Virginia.  The “FAME” name was immediately recognized as a powerful promotional identifier for the whole Advanced Manufacturing Career Pathways effort, and with permission of the WVMA, we adopted FAME as the name for North American use, and the B-MDC voted to change the name of the group to KY FAME.”

He added, “On January 14, 2014, Governor Steve Beshear announced the formal incorporation of KY FAME as a state-wide organization with a state board of directors to guide it and direct support of the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development. The Kentucky Community and Technical College System adopted AMT as a state-wide degree track, available anywhere that a local FAME chapter formed. a KY FAME chapter.

Dennis expressed that the results of the training were so compelling that the FAME sites became a destination for educators and educational researchers, business and industry, and news organizations. The AMT programs in Kentucky began contributing to research and study efforts, and had over 1000 visitors from across the U.S. and six foreign nations.  It was judged by many national educators and workforce leaders to be the best 2-year technical program in the U.S.  

He said, “The results of the program and the publicity fueled the growth beyond what Toyota ever expected. It became more than what Toyota could effectively support.  Toyota wanted to maintain what they had, but wanted to establish it on a long-term basis. This is what led to the program being transitioned to management by The Manufacturing Institute. In order to help make this transition successful, I am now on assignment by Toyota for the next few years to manage the transition.”

Dennis explained, “There are currently 403 participating companies at 34 community college campuses and four universities in 13 states, and the numbers are growing every year. The reason for the success is that the employer, not the student, is the number one customer and the profoundly higher outcomes of FAME AMT graduates compared to traditional graduates.  The program incorporates the six professional behaviors, the seven essential behaviors, and the five professional practices, all soft skills, in addition to the manufacturing core exercises that are based on five Lean manufacturing practices.  As a result, the program provides globally competitive technicians that support the success of U. S. manufacturing. The program is a core pipeline for students to continue to Advanced Manufacturing Business and Advanced Manufacturing Engineer degrees. In the AMT program, students go to school three days a week, and work for their sponsoring manufacturer two days a week.  The students are paid for their work, and the student makes enough to pay their tuition, so they can graduate without any student debt.”

He elaborated on future strategies by saying, “We want to proactively change the equation for technical career pathways.  We have been partnering with Project Lead the Way (PLTW) to engage PreK-12 students in the career pathway because they have a comprehensive, seamless, and coordinated PreK -12 program nationwide.  Toyota and others are already providing plant tours to high school students in PLTW programs.  Currently, the PLTW national office supports FAME with development or material and other engagement activities and FAME supports the PLTW national office with PR and involvement with activities on a regional basis.

We also partner with the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE) because they focus on encouraging young woman and minorities to choose STEM careers.  Their “Make the Future” program, developed at our request, is connecting girls to manufacturing.”

I told him this topic is dear to my heart as I have been a woman in manufacturing since starting as an engineering secretary at age 18. I concluded the interview by saying it was a pleasure to learn about FAME and hope that it will expand westward in the future all the way to California where I live.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Education, Training, Workforce Development | No Comments »

U.S. Private Sector Jobs Have Declined since 1990

December 10th, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The paper is divided into five parts:

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

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

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

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

Part V — Conclusion: An Index for our Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »