The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Would Harm our Environment

July 9th, 2013

Proponents say that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement would be a platform for economic integration and government deregulation for nations surrounding the Pacific Rim and facilitate free trade to counter China’s financial influence in Asia and the Pacific. The negotiating parties include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Japan also announced its intention to join the agreement last spring. Because the TPP is intended as a “docking agreement,” other Pacific Rim countries could join over time, and the Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, and others are already expressing interest.

The TPP is poised to become the largest Free Trade Agreement in the world. The ongoing, multi-year negotiations over the TPP are supposed to conclude this year, so the window of opportunity for preventing this free trade agreement is rapidly closing.

Among other reasons about which I have written previously, opponents of the TPP say it would harm our planet’s environment, subverting climate change measures and regulation of mining, land use, and biotechnology. The Pacific Rim is an area of great significance from an environmental perspective. It includes Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef system, home to more than 11,000 species. It includes Peru and its Amazon Rainforest—one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth.

In May 2007, citizen-led advocacy groups including the Sierra Club forged a bipartisan consensus   that set the minimum standards for environment, labor and other provisions to be included in future trade agreements. According to sections of the TPP that have been leaked, it appears that these minimum standards are being ignored.

It is essential that the environment chapter of the TPP build on the environmental protection progress that has been made. “At a minimum, the environment chapter should be binding and subject to the same dispute settlement provisions as commercial chapters; ensure that countries uphold and strengthen their domestic environmental laws and policies and their obligations under agreed multilateral environmental agreements; and include biding provisions to address the core environment and conservation challenges of the Pacific Rim region, such as efforts to combat illegal trade in wood, wood products, and wildlife and to strengthen fisheries management.”

If you “Google” TPP and the environment, you come up with more than 20 pages of articles by one organization after another and one author after another expressing reasons why the TPP would harm the environment. The opposition to the TPP began as early as 2011 when the first drafts were leaked and intensified in 2012. These organizations include the Sierra Club, Public Citizen group (founded by Ralph Nader), the Citizens Trade Campaign, and Economy in Crisis, among many others.  A common thread of the articles is either a subtle or overt accusation that President Obama has “sold out” to Wall Street/big banks and multinational/transnational corporations.

On their website, Union-backed We Party Patriots states, “…the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being put together in extreme secrecy. This secrecy comes complete with a total lack of mainstream media coverage despite serious potential long-term effects. Leaked documents show that the TPP will have a chilling effect on the ability of the United States government to take legal action against multi-national corporations for their abuses of environmental, agricultural, and labor laws.”

The Fair World Project’s website states that in late 2012, “a group of labor leaders, trade justice advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, food sovereignty groups and others from the U.S., Canada and Mexico created a ‘North American Unity Statement Opposing NAFTA Expansion through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),’ with the goal of uniting 1,000 organizations in opposition to the TPP.”

On March 7, 2013, Friends of the Earth announced that it had released a new video, “Peril in the Pacific: Trans Pacific trade agreement threatens people and the planet.” The video illustrates these threats by telling the story of “Chevron v. Ecuador” international investment suit brought under an existing U.S. treaty. The video raises questions like: “Who should pay to clean up what has been called the “Rainforest Chernobyl” in the Ecuadorian Amazon? Why are the people of the rainforest who suffered the most not represented at the international tribunal hearing the case? Is it U.S. policy to favor the financial interests of multi-national corporations over people and the environment in such disputes?”

The video also asks why the negotiating framework for the TPP favors Wall Street and multinational corporations at the expense of current U. S. environmental and climate policy and why does it  allow multinational corporations to challenge laws that protect our air, land and water.

Because the Asia-Pacific region accounts for about one third of all the threatened species in the world, Friends of the Earth is concerned that the TPP trade agreement potentially checkmates many of our country’s past environmental victories and would block new initiatives. The natural environment and rich biodiversity of the Pacific Rim are threatened by illegal and/or unsustainable commercial exploitation of the ocean, natural resources, and forests.

Friends of the Earth recommends that the TPP negotiators must address the following issues to avoid the most serious environmental harms by:

  • Including an environment chapter that would obligate countries to enforce domestic environmental protections and abide by global environmental agreements that are enforceable through international lawsuits.
  • Rejecting the proposed TPP investment chapter that would authorize foreign investors to bypass domestic courts and bring suit before special international tribunals biased in favor of multinationals to seek awards of unlimited monetary damages in compensation for the cost of complying with environmental and other public interest regulations.
  • Rejecting “provisions of the TPP intellectual property chapter that would provide international legal protections for corporate patents on plant and animal life, granting companies ownership and sole access to these building blocks of life.”
  • Rejecting the regulatory coherence chapter that could hamstring environmental regulation and “encourage cost-benefit analysis that exaggerates financial costs and minimizes the intrinsic value of protecting living things, wild places, and the stability of the ecosystem.”

Friends of the Earth urges that the TPP “must serve to strengthen environmental protection and support the biodiversity in the Pacific Rim and not facilitate a race to the bottom in environmental deregulation.”

What surprises me is that all of the above organizations supported President Obama in his bid for re-election last year despite the fact that he had gone back on his pledge “to oppose Bush-style free trade agreements that lead to thousands of lost American jobs”  and his word to ”not support NAFTA-type trade agreements” in his 2008 campaign. Now that he is elected for his second and last term, what incentive does he have to listen to the opinions of these organizations that oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement? None!

A few conservative news outlets such as WorldNet Daily began to recognize the dangers of the TPP early this year, beginning with the article, “Obama skirting Congress in globalist plan?” in which Jerome Corsi warn that “the administration apparently plans to restrict congressional prerogatives to an up-or-down vote” utilizing the  “fast-track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review a FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote. Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments to ensure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process.

In a more recent article, “Obama’s 2-ocean globalist plan,” Jerome Corsi writes, “Quietly, the Obama administration is systematically putting into place a two-ocean globalist plan that will dwarf all prior trade agreements, including NAFTA, with the goal of establishing the global sovereignty envisioned by New World Order enthusiasts. The two agreements are the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TIPP. WND has learned the Obama administration plans to jam the TPP through Congress no later than Dec. 31.”

We certainly cannot expect to influence the President to oppose the TPP near the end of three-years of negotiations that took place under his direction. With the virtual black out  of coverage about the TPP in the mainstream media, the best we can do is make our opinions heard loud and clear to our Senators and Congressional representatives and urge our family, friends, and  members of our personal and business network to do the same. We must urge our elected representatives to vote against granting President Obama “fast track authority” under the Trade Promotion Authority. There is no time to waste. Contact your congressional representative and tell them we cannot afford another damaging “free trade” agreement that would destroy our national sovereignty, hurt American manufacturers, and harm our environment. Tell them to vote “no” to granting the President “fast track authority.”

 

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Environment, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act Would Develop National Manufacturing Strategy

June 25th, 2013

On June 20, 2013, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL-) introduced H.R. 2447, “The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013,”a bill that would bring together the private and public sectors to develop recommendations to revitalize American manufacturing and create good-paying, middle-class jobs here at home.” U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) is the lead Republican cosponsor.

This bill is a pillar of the “Make It in America” jobs plan in the House and would require the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology to develop a national manufacturing competitiveness strategic plan that would be updated every four years. The goals of the strategic plan would be to promote growth of the manufacturing sector, support the development of a skilled manufacturing workforce, enable innovation and investment in domestic manufacturing, and support national security.

In order to develop a manufacturing strategy, the bill would also require the Committee to conduct an analysis of factors that impact the competitiveness and growth of the United States manufacturing sector, such as “the adequacy of the industrial base for maintaining national security,” “Trade, trade enforcement, and intellectual property policies, and financing, investment, and taxation policies and practices…”

The Secretary of Commerce, or a designee of the Secretary shall serve as the chairperson of the Committee, and the Committee would be required to transmit the strategic plan developed to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Act.

I laud Rep. Lipinski for being so persistent in attempting to get a bill passed that would develop a national manufacturing strategy. Last year, he and Rep. Kinzinger introduced “The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012” (HR-5865). The bill passed the House on September 12, 2012, by a roll call vote of 339-77. However, the Senate did not act on the bill.

H. R. 5865 was actually a renaming of H.R. 1366, “The National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011,” that Rep Lipinski also introduced, which died in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Senators Brown and Kirk had introduced the Senate version of this bill in 2011, but it was never voted on by the Senate. Rep Lipinski had previously introduced H.R. 4692, “The National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010,” which passed the House in July 2010 with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced the same bill in the Senate, but it was not voted on by the Senate.

Let us hope this new bill not only passes the House this year, but actually gets voted on and passed by the Senate. This new bill is far superior to last year’s bill in that it would utilize an existing committee rather than set up a new committee with a complex appointment structure for the proposed 15-member committee. It builds on the successful development of the 2012 National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing and utilizes the expertise and knowledge that was developed in that plan. It would be accomplished with less cost and be consistent with prior Administration work and legal authority. By using the existing committee of the NSTC, the strategy will bring together the many agencies and their expertise that interact with American manufacturing.

“American companies and their workers are operating at a severe disadvantage as they face foreign competitors who benefit from coordinated, strategic government policies that benefit manufacturing,” Rep. Lipinski said. “We need to recognize this reality and bring the public and private sectors together to develop a national manufacturing strategy that specifies recommendations for the optimal tax, trade, research, regulatory, and innovation policies that will enable American manufacturing to thrive. Manufacturing is critical for national security, an essential source of good-paying jobs for the middle class, and drives high-tech innovation.”

“Manufacturing is vital to our economic and national security, and it is critical that we do all we can to promote American competitiveness in the global economy,” Rep. Kinzinger said. “I’m proud to work with Congressman Lipinski to put forward bipartisan legislation that focuses our attention on the challenges facing American manufacturers.”

America has a long and proud manufacturing history. Manufacturing is the foundation of our economy and fostered the development and growth of the middle class in the 19th and 20th centuries. Since the 1970s, however, the number of manufacturing jobs has shrunk, from 20 million in 1979 to fewer than 12 million today. We lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs just since 2000. The recent recession hit workers in manufacturing especially hard. The hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs has contributed to the stagnation of middle-class wages – since 2000, the median household income, after it’s been adjusted for inflation, has fallen by $4,787.

In a press release dated June 21st, Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said, “We commend Congressmen Lipinski and Kinzinger for their authorship of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013. Our nation’s manufacturers and their workers stand poised for a manufacturing resurgence, but Washington must do its part by implementing a strategy that actively responds to the challenges of the 21st Century.”

The Alliance for American Manufacturing recommends that “a national manufacturing strategy support private business by focusing government programs on increasing national competitiveness, reducing programmatic inefficiencies and redundancy, and coordinating policies across various agencies and departments.” This type of strategy would require the American government to act smarter in its efforts to promote growth, entrepreneurship, and innovation. AAM recommends that a national manufacturing strategy should:

  • Keep our Trade Laws Strong and Strictly Enforced
  • Combat Currency Manipulation
  • Reduce the Trade Deficit
  • Support Buy America
  • Defend America with American Made Product
  • Prepare for the Next Super Storm
  • Invest in American Infrastructure
  • Create New Ways to Invest in America.
  • Use the Tax Code to Incentivize Domestic Manufacturing
  • Educate Americans for Quality Jobs
  • Invest in Energy Efficiency

The Alliance for American Manufacturing is just one of many organizations that have made recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy. In my book, Can American Manufacturing Be Saved? Why we should and how we can, the chapter on “How Can We Save American Manufacturing?” contains a summary of the recommendations of such organizations as the American Jobs Alliance, Coalition for a Prosperous America, Economy in Crisis, National Association of Manufacturers, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and the U. S. Business and Industry Council, along with my own recommendations.

In April 2011, The Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” that makes a strong case for such a strategy. Authors Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson recognize that “most U.S. manufacturers, small or large, cannot thrive solely on their own; they need to operate in an environment grounded in smart economic and innovation-supporting policies with regard to taxes, talent, trade, technological development, and physical and digital infrastructures.”

Ezell and Atkinson recommend adoption of the following actions as part of the national strategy:

  • Increase public investment in R&D in general and industrially relevant in particular
  • Support public-private partnerships that facilitate the transition of emerging technologies from universities and federal laboratories into commercial products
  • Coordinate state, local, and federal programs in technology-based economic development to maximize their combined impact
  • Provide export assistance to build upon the National Export Initiative, which seeks to double U. S. exports by 2015.
  • Increase export support for U. S. manufacturers through the Export-Import Bank loans

In the past eight years since the National Summit on Competitiveness in 2005, there has been a summit or conference held every year on the topic of revitalizing American manufacturing. A first Conference for the Renaissance of American Manufacturing was held in September 2010, and a second Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing: Jobs and Trade was held on March 27, 2012. This conference focused on solutions to the decline of manufacturing in America and highlighted manufacturing and trade issues.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report, “Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing,” in July 2012, prepared by the Advance Manufacturing Partnership Working Group, which makes 16 specific recommendations for policies to enable the United States to resume its leadership in the manufacturing industry and strengthen our position in advanced manufacturing technologies.

We need a committee that will review the many recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy we already have and select the ones that will have the most impact in enabling the United States to have a real renaissance in the manufacturing industry. Since a similar bill has passed the House two out of three times since 2010, it is time for the Senate to pass this legislation and “stop fiddling while Rome burns.” We need real leadership in action, not just words. Contact your Congressional representative to ask them to cosponsor the bill and urge your Senator to bring it to a vote in the Senate after it passes the House.

Tags: ,
Posted in Jobs, Manufacturing, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Innovative Products Featured at Annual San Diego Inventors Forum Contest

June 19th, 2013

On June 13, 2013, over 100 people gathered at the conference center of AMN Healthcare for the annual inventors contest of the San Diego Inventors Forum demonstrating that innovation is alive and well in the U. S. Ten contestants were selected out of 28 applicants to present their latest inventions for the audience to pick the top three inventions. The products ranged from those that make cooking in the kitchen easy to items to make smart phones more functional and easy-to-use products that provide portable solar power and feed the world. Applicants were limited to those that had attended the Inventors Forum three or more times in the past year and had an invention that was either already patented or was “patent pending” in addition to having a  working model or being ready for sale to the marketplace.
Adrian Pelkus won the first place prize of $1,000 for his patented O2MislyTM CWT, Chronic Wound Treatment System, which uses Vaporous Hyperoxia Therapy, oxygen infused with a vapor to deliver an anti-microbial to the affected area. Diabetic foot ulcers, bedsores, and other wounds that have not healed in as long as several years are being healed in weeks. In clinical trials, nearly every patient showed 50% wound reduction in two weeks. Treatment is now available on a private pay basis in San Diego, but will be expanded nationwide in the future. For further information, email Adrian at apelkus@iyiatechnologies.com.

Phyllis Davis won the second place prize of $500 for the patent pending Portable Farms™ Aquaponics Systems’ Modular Aquaponics Systems. Aquaponics University (AU) was created to teach individuals the skills, procedures and techniques for used for growing chemical-free food and fish in a system with minimal use of power, water and labor. Aquaponics University (AU) offers the Portable Farms™ Aquaponics System Course© that teaches individuals how to grow chemical-free food and fish in a closed-loop system. After completing the course, participants will receive one Portable Farms Kit to be able to build their own Portable Farms™ Aquaponics System that feeds up to eight people forever. For further information, contact Phyllis at pdavis@aquaponicsuniversity.com.

Jon Doogan won the $250 third place prize for the Aculief Wearable Acupressure that was launched at the Natural Products Expo West in March 2013. Aculief is a patented wearable acupressure device for active lifestyles, designed for anyone suffering from tension, health imbalance or discomfort. Aculief applies pressure to the LI4 acupressure point, located between the thumb and forefinger. The LI4 has been used for thousands of years in traditional Chinese medicine to relieve tension and to promote your body’s natural flow of energy. Aculief is currently available through their online store, www.amazon.com, www.Pharmaca.com or in Pharmaca’s 24 retail locations throughout the US.

Other presenters (in no particular order) were:
William Benn for his patented SunLight Harvester ? a mobile, renewable energy solar electric generator and power storage system. It is designed for southwest Sunbelt residents living in the reduced living space of townhomes and condominiums with patios, duplexes, with small backyards, and homes without a south facing roof that want an affordable, clean, and environmentally friendly renewable energy source of electricity. For further information, contact Ben at wmpb72y@gmail.com.

Randall J. Kendis for his patent pending iPhone Hat Cradle ?  a removable cradle to hold an iPhone or other Smartphone on a hat with a brim to provide a platform for hands-free, real-time video transmission and recording without hindering free movement and mobility. The cradle can be quickly switched from one hat to another. For further information, contact Randall at rkendis@gmail.com.

Sia Malek for his patent pending Window Blind Remote Control ? a simple battery-operated device that will turn your current horizontal or vertical window blinds into a remote controlled system. It takes only a couple of minutes to install and can be maintained and relocated easily. For further information, contact Sia at siamalek@hotmail.com.

Judith Balian for her patented system to promote positive thinking. The system acts as a gentle personal trainer to help people become aware of their thoughts and to use the law of attraction to their advantage. While many people know about the power of using affirmations and intentions, few are able to control their wandering minds to harness the greatest potential of this natural law. This system helps users develop the habit of positive thinking to create what they want in live. For further information, contact Judith at jbalian@excoveries.com.

George Octavio Flint for his patent pending Uni-Mattress ? three air mattresses in one ? twin, full, and queen so you can fit the right sized mattress into your available space. For further information, contact George at goflint@gmail.com.

Joshua D. Mackenroth for his Gravity±Seat ? is a revolutionary new bicycle suspension seat post that provides greater control and better handling for a faster, smoother ride.  The radical design is far superior to any of the off-road suspension seat posts in the market today. It is also the first suspension seat post in the world intended for the road bike market as well. Gravity±Seat is true crossover technology that lowers the center of gravity for road bikes and increases the amount of usable suspension travel for off-road bikes. The patented reverse angle design allows the seat to travel downward to lower the center of gravity while the damping shock absorbs sharp impacts. This gives riders the ability to drop down and back toward the rear of the bicycle through rough sections and steep down hills rather than being thrown over the handlebars. The end result is better handling, better traction, faster cornering, and a smoother ride. For further information, contact Joshua at sdlawyerhelp@gmail.com.
Gene McGuinness for his Wave – Fat-Free Cooking aids designed to form and cook taco shells, tortilla chips and bowls without any fat, oil, or grease in your own microwave. For further information, contact Gene at president1956@gmail.com.

If you are ready to turn that idea into a product, let us help you get started at the San Diego Inventors Forum. You will get motivated by hearing successful local San Diego inventors speak how they developed their marketable products. You will be able to network with fellow creative people and get guidance and encouragement to take your first or next steps necessary to turn your ideas into a reality. You will have the opportunity to meet “mentor” inventors and professionals in many fields. First-time attendees are invited to introduce themselves and briefly describe their idea/invention. At the end of the meeting, the “who needs who” period  provides the opportunity to express a need for help with such issues business structure, licensing, marketing, funding, legal and engineering questions.

We members of the SDIF steering committee invite all innovators, inventors, engineers, artists and start-up entrepreneurs to attend our monthly meetings, held the second Thursday of the month from 6:30pm to 7pm for networking and 7pm to 8:30pm for the meeting at the conference center of AMN Healthcare in San Diego.

Now that the annual contest is over, the 2013-2014 topics schedule begins again in August. August’s topic will be “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” – harnessing your creative mind, and September will continue with “IP 101” – when, why and how to search for patents, trademarks and copyrights. During the course of the year, topics covered include marketing, licensing, branding, networking, and funding. I will be giving my annual presentation in the fall on “Manufacturing 101” – how to select the right manufacturing processes and sources to make your product. For further information, the San Diego Inventors Forum can be reached at http://www.sdinventors.org or by calling Forum president Adrian Pelkus at 760-591-9608.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Innovation | No Comments »

Is India a Better Place for Manufacturing than China?

June 4th, 2013

You would think that because India was formerly part of the British Empire and became an independent democracy, there would be less pollution and better working conditions than in China. Well, you would be wrong.

You wouldn’t find it any healthier to live in many of the industrial cities of India than the industrial cities in China. India is developing more slowly, but its growth is already taking a toll on the health of its people. India’s population has more than tripled since independence in 1947, from 350 million people to 1.2 billion, severely straining the country’s environment, infrastructure, and natural resources.

In my last article, I mentioned that four cities in India were listed in the Blacksmith Institute’s “Dirty 30” of the 2007 report, “The World’s Worst Polluted Places.” Consider Vapi, at the southern end of India’s “Golden Corridor,” a 400 km belt of industrial estates in the state of Gujarat. There are more than 50 industrial estates in the region, containing over 1,000 industries and extending over more than 1,000 acres. Many estates are chemical manufacturing centers, producing petrochemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, textiles, dyes, fertilizers, leather products, paint, and chlor-alkali. Waste products discharged from these industries contain heavy metals (copper, chromium, cadmium, zinc, nickel, lead, and iron), cyanides, pesticides, aromatic compounds like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and other toxins.

The Indian Medical Association reports that most local drinking water is contaminated because of the absence of a proper system for disposing of industrial waste. Industrial waste instead drains directly into the Damaganga and Kolak rivers. Vapi’s groundwater has levels of mercury 96 times higher than World Health Organization standards. Approximately 71,000 people have no choice but to drink contaminated well water, as clean water sources are more than a mile away. The water is so discolored by contaminants it looks like a bottle of orange soda. Local produce contains heavy metals up to 60 times the safe standard. There is a high incidence of respiratory diseases, chemical dermatitis, and skin, lung, and throat cancers. Women in the area report high incidences of spontaneous abortions, abnormal fetuses, and infertility. Children’s ailments include respiratory and skin diseases and retarded growth.

It isn’t any better in Sukinda, in the state of Orissa, where 97 percent of India’s chromite ore deposits are located. Twelve mines operate without any environmental management plans, and more than 30 million tons of waste rock is spread over the surrounding area and the banks of the Brahmani River. The mines discharge untreated water directly into the river. Approximately 70 percent of the surface water, and 60 percent of the drinking water, contains hexavalent chromium at more than double national and international standards. The polluted Brahmani River is the only water source for 2,600,000 people. Health problems include gastrointestinal bleeding, tuberculosis, asthma, infertility, birth defects, and stillbirths.

The Indian economy is growing rapidly, but pollution is quickly spiraling out of control and rivers are dying by the dozens. Fully 80 percent of urban waste, including industrial waste, winds up in the country’s rivers. Much of this comes from untreated sewage. The Ganges River has levels of fecal coliform, a dangerous bacterium that comes from untreated sewage, 3,000 percent higher than what is considered safe for bathing. More than three billion liters of waste are pumped into Delhi’s Yamuna River each day. “The river is dead, it just has not been officially cremated,” said Sunita Narain, director of the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, one of India’s top environmental watchdog groups, to Spiegel-Online.com in reference to the Yamuna.

Air pollution is also a growing problem. There are four main sources: vehicles, power plants, industry, and refineries. India’s air pollution is exacerbated by its heavy reliance on coal for power generation. Coal supplies more than half the country’s energy needs and nearly three-quarters of its electricity. Reliance on coal has led to a 900 percent increase in carbon emissions over the past 40 years. India’s coal plants are old and not outfitted with modern pollution controls. Also, Indian coal has a high ash content, which creates smog. Vehicle emissions are responsible for 70 percent of the country’s air pollution. Exhaust from vehicles has increased 800 percent, and industrial pollution 400 percent, in the past 20 years.

Although the Constitution of India guarantees free and compulsory education to children between the age of 6 to 14 and prohibits employment of children younger than 14 in any hazardous environment, child labour is rampant. According to an article, “The Hidden Factory: Child Labour in India,” in The South Asian, May 7, 2005, many consumer goods  are “the products of a hidden factory of countless children, many as young as five years old, toiling for tireless hours, under harsh, hazardous, exploitative, often life threatening conditions for extremely low wages.” The article states “India has the largest number of working children in the world.” Credible estimates range from 12 to 15 million child laborers. What is even more horrible is that a large percentage of these children are de facto slaves, bonded to their jobs, with no means of escape or freedom until they can repay their parents’ loans. The major industries using child labor are:

Carpets – An estimated 50,000 to 1,050,000 children, as young as six, are often chained to carpet looms in confined, dimly lit workshops, making the thousands of tiny wool knots that become expensive hand-knotted carpets for export. Recruiters or organized gangs pay landless peasants cash advances to “bond” their children to their jobs. The children suffer from spinal deformities, retarded growth, respiratory illnesses, and poor eyesight.

Brassware – An estimated 40,000 to 45,000 children, as young as six, are involved in brassware production, including jobs like removing molten metal from molds and furnaces, electroplating, polishing, and applying chemicals. If they survive being injured from molten metal and exposure to furnaces operating as high as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, they often suffer from tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases due to inhalation of fumes from the furnaces and metal dust.

Leather – As many as 25,000 children, from 10 to 15, are involved in the manufacture of shoes. They suffer from respiratory problems, lung diseases, and skin infections from continuous skin contact with industrial adhesives and breathing the vapors from glues.

Gemstones – Children are commonly engaged as “apprentices” in the gem polishing industry. The learning process takes five to seven years and they work an average of 10 hours a day. Major health issues include tuberculosis and respiratory diseases.

Glass – This industry employs an estimated 8,000 to 50,000 children as young as eight. They work in an inferno due to the intense heat of glass furnaces (1,400-1,600o C) and suffer from skin burns, tuberculosis, respiratory diseases, mental retardation, and genetic cell damage.

Silk – An estimated 5,000 children, mostly girls from five to 16, are employed in silk manufacturing, which includes sericulture, dyeing, and weaving the silk. Chemicals and boiling water in the dyeing process are common health hazards; skin burns from the boiling water and respiratory diseases from the chemicals often result.

Agriculture –Parents pledge children as young as six to landlords as bonded laborers. The number of bonded laborers is not categorized by adults and children, but the total is estimated to range from 2.6 to 15 million. Children are involved in all types of agriculture and are completely controlled by their masters, receiving a bare minimum of food and lodging. More than 90 percent of bonded laborers in India, many of whom became bonded as children, never had the opportunity to go to school.

Mining – A 2006 report, “Our Mining Children,” prepared by a team of non-profit organizations, described the condition of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers in the mining industry.

Karnataka, for example, is a state with vast mineral resources, of which the Bellary district has the most extensive range. Minerals mined include iron ore, manganese, quartz, gold, copper, granite, and decorative stones. India is the fourth-largest iron-ore producer in the world. As a result of new government economic policies, a shift to privatization, an open market economy, and wide-open markets in China, South Korea, and Australia, mining companies have bought up thousands of acres of land in the district since 2000.

All of the mines visited by government teams had child laborers, some as young as five. It is estimated that as many as 200,000, or 50 percent, of the workers are children. The mining economy is only profitable because of large-scale child labor and the flouting of social and environmental laws. The mine owners say they only employ the adults, but as the families live at the mine site, the children join in the work. The parents force their children to work because they say they cannot survive otherwise.

As you can see, India is not any better than China for products to be made ? the pollution is just as bad, working conditions are as bad or worse, and child labor is rampant. Make the better choice ? Made in USA!

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

Does it Matter Where Products are Made?

May 28th, 2013

We now live in a globalized economy, and many people say it doesn’t matter where something is made. They say that the industrialization of third world countries is good because it has provided jobs for millions of people and raised their standard of living. American consumers have benefitted from cheaper prices for the products they need and want. However, where products are made should matter to people who are concerned about the environment and the health and well-being of people around the world.

Manufacturing in America developed over a period of more than 200 years. It developed gradually, so there was the opportunity to learn about the hazards of industrialization on a smaller scale than has been possible with the rapid industrialization of developing countries. Pollution caused by specific industries affected small geographic areas, like West Virginia’s coal mining and Pennsylvania’s steel regions.

The Bill of Rights provided freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble, enabling affected communities and workers to address unsafe working conditions and pollution. Residents spoke out against pollution’s health effects in their communities. Workers formed unions to fight for better working conditions and higher wages, especially in hazardous occupations. Newspapers, and later radio and TV, made the public aware of what was happening in factories and mines. After sufficient pressure was put on elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels, laws were passed that improved working conditions, protected worker safety, and reduced pollution.

As a result, great strides on these issues were made in the U.S. in the 20th century. These efforts culminated in the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in December 1970, consolidating 15 components from five agencies for the purpose of grouping all environmental regulatory activities in a single agency.

Since then, the U.S. has developed a comprehensive body of law to protect the environment and prevent pollution. The EPA enforces more than 15 statutes or laws, including the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Pollution Prevention Act; and the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticides Act. In turn, each of the 50 states has its own body of law to comply with federal laws and regulations.

Cleaning up the nation’s air, water, and land hasn’t come cheap. Since passing these laws, the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars to clean up and prevent pollution. Individuals, small businesses, and corporations paid the taxes that funded these programs. But businesses were hit with a double whammy. They not only had to pay taxes for the government to carry out its end of these programs, they had to pay cleanup costs for their own sites and buy the equipment to prevent future pollution. In addition, they had to hire and train personnel to implement and maintain mandated pollution prevention systems and procedures.

According to a Census Bureau report “Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures,” as a result of a survey of 20,000 plants last conducted in 2005, U.S. manufacturers spent $5.9 billion on pollution equipment, and another $20.7 billion on pollution prevention.

The EPA has achieved some major successes:

  • New cars are 98 percent cleaner than in 1970 in terms of smog-forming pollutants.
  • Dangerous air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, lead poisoning have been reduced by 60 percent.
  • Levels of lead in children’s blood have declined 75 percent.
  • 60 percent of the nation’s waterways are safe for fishing and swimming.
  • 92 percent of Americans receive water that meets health standards.
  • 67 percent of contaminated Superfund sites nationwide have been cleaned up.

As a result, we now have cleaner air in our cities and cleaner and safer water in our streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and harbors than at any time since the Industrial Revolution began. These vast environmental improvements made in the last 40 years have benefitted every single American.

In contrast, India and China have been getting more polluted in the last 30 years as they have industrialized. Since 2006, Blacksmith Institute’s yearly reports have been instrumental in increasing public understanding of the health impacts posed by toxic pollution, and in some cases, have compelled cleanup work at pollution hotspots. Blacksmith Institute reports have been issued jointly with Green Cross Switzerland since 2007.

Six cities in China and four cities in India were listed in the Blacksmith Institute’s “Dirty 30” of the 2007 report, “The World’s Worst Polluted Places.” This list was based on scoring criteria devised by an international panel including researchers from Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Mt. Sinai Hospital, along with specialists from Green Cross Switzerland who participated in assessing more than 400 polluted sites.

It’s hard to describe the horrors of pollution in Chinese cities. Imagine living in Xiditou (pronounced shee-dee-tow), about 60 miles east of Beijing, where the Feng Chan River that runs through the town is now black as ink and clotted with debris. The local economy has doubled in just four years, but at a terrible cost. More than 100 factories occupy what were once fields of rice and cotton. These include dozens of local chemical plants, makers of toxins including sulfuric acid, and these factories disgorge wastewater directly into the river. Industrial poisons have leached into groundwater, contaminating drinking supplies. The air has a distinctively sour odor. The rate of cancer is now more than 18 times the national average.

According to the USA Today article, “Pollution Poisons China’s Progress,” of July 4, 2005, “People regard their drinking water as little better than liquid poison, but unable to afford bottled water for all their daily needs, most adults continue to drink it. They buy mineral water only for their children.”

Another horrible location is Tianying, in Anhui province, which is one of the largest lead production centers in China, with an output of half of the country’s total. Low-level technologies, illegal operations, and a lack of air-pollution control measures have caused severe lead poisoning. Lead concentrations in the air and soil are 8.5 to 10 times national standards. Local crops and wheat at farmers’ homes are also contaminated by lead dust, at 24 times the national standard.

The ironic note to these statistics is that China actually has more stringent restrictions on lead than the U.S. The difference is that neither the local nor the national government is enforcing the laws. Residents, particularly children, suffer from lead poisoning, which causes encephalopathy, lower IQs, short attention spans, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, hearing and vision problems, stomachaches, kidney malfunction, anemia, and premature births.

Perhaps you would like to live in Wanshan, China, termed the mercury capital of China because more than 60 percent of the country’s mercury deposits were discovered there. Mercury contamination extends throughout the city’s air, surface water, and soils. Concentrations in the soil range from 24 to 348 mg/kg, 16 to 232 times the national standard. To put this into perspective, the mercury from one fluorescent bulb can pollute 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels for drinking, and it only takes one teaspoon of mercury to contaminate a 20-acre lake – forever. Health hazards include kidney and gastrointestinal damage, neurological damage, and birth defects. Chronic exposure is fatal.

China is now the largest source of CO2 and SO2 emissions in the world (SO2 causes acid rain). Japan, South Korea, and the northwest region of the U.S. suffer from acid rain produced by China’s coal-fired power plants and higher CO2.readings from easterly trade winds.

The horrific effects of pollution in China and its staggering cost in human life, are a graphic example of why Chinese companies can outcompete American companies – not only because of their disparity in wages, but also because their government does not enforce the same environmental and social standards. As Americans, who place a high value on human life and protecting our environment, we wouldn’t have it any other way. But American manufacturing industries do pay a penalty competing against China.

During China’s rapid industrialization of the last 30 years, the U.S. has spent billions on technologies and equipment to clean up and prevent pollution. China had a golden opportunity to benefit from all the hard lessons learned by developed countries during their own industrialization. If China had purchased the pollution abatement equipment developed in the U.S., their industrialization would not have caused such horrendous pollution. Millions of lives would have been saved!

In the U.S., our landfills wouldn’t be filling up with discarded products from China that are so cheap that it is easier to throw them away than repair them. Wouldn’t it be worth paying more for “Made in USA” products that are higher quality and last longer?

Thus, if you are concerned about global pollution and want to save lives in both China and the U. S., you should choose to buy “Made in USA” products that have been produced in the most non-polluting manner that is technically feasible at present. My next article will take a look at India’s environment.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Cleantech, Manufacturing, Outsourcing | 1 Comment »

Why our Economy Struggles to Create Jobs

May 14th, 2013

There have been many opinions expounded via TV news shows, radio talk shows, newspapers, and magazines over the last four years as to why our economy has struggled to create jobs after the recession of 2007-2009 more than any other recession since WWII.

The economic collapse of the real estate and financial markets in 2008 had more impact on job losses than the recession of 2000-2001 caused by the dot.com bust because jobs related to real estate and construction represented a much higher component of employment than software/dot.com did at the time. During the recession of December 2007-June 2009, construction employment fell from 7,490,000 to 6,008,000, representing a loss of 1.5 million jobs or 19.8 percent of the construction workforce. It has remained less than 6 million as of April 2013 (Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics).

When consumer demand dropped sharply because of so many people losing their jobs and homes, this eliminated the last thing keeping the domestic market floating on a bubble.

Since then, our economy has limped along at monthly average of a 1.5 to 2 percent growth rate in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is not enough to create the amount of jobs we need. The main reasons why our economy is struggling to create jobs are:

Decline of U. S. Manufacturing

We lost 57,000 manufacturing firms and 5.7 million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we recouped about 500,000 jobs (489,000 or 4 percent) since the low in January 2010.

As I have discussed in both editions of my book and numerous blog articles, this loss of manufacturing firms and jobs was mainly the result of “predatory mercantilism”; i.e., unfair competition/product dumping by China and other Asian nations and the fact that a large number of multinational and American companies outsourced manufacturing offshore and/or set up plants in China and other parts of Asia. These companies literally outsourced American jobs in an attempt to compete with the “China price,” take advantage of less stringent environmental regulations, reduce taxes, and thereby maximize profits.

Transition to Service Economy

In addition to the many reasons previously discussed by myself and others, a key factor was revealed by the in-depth analysis of national and state data presented in the report, “Goods, Services, and the Pace of Economic Recovery” by Martha L. Olney and Aaron Pacitti, Berkeley Economic History Laboratory (BEHL), University of California, Berkeley March 2013.

Their hypothesis was:  Do service-based economies experience slower economic recoveries than goods-based economies? They argue that they do. They conclude that “service-dependent economies experience longer recoveries because they cannot respond to anticipated demand.” Thus, in a service-based economy, the recovery from a recession will take about one year longer than in a goods-based economy.

Why is this? They state, “An economy recovers from a downturn when businesses increase production. Both goods and services can be produced in response to actual demand. But only goods—and not services—can be produced in response to anticipated increases in demand, allowing optimistic forward-looking producers to inventory goods until anticipated buyers appear. Services cannot be inventoried. The more services an economy produces relative to goods, the more production is dependent upon only actual increases in demand, and the slower the recovery.”

Services have to be delivered in real-time by doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, web designers, graphic artists, etc. Even in the industrial realm, services such as engineering design, product testing, shipping, and delivery services are performed as needed. These services cannot be produced ahead of the need and “stored.”

The authors argue that there is a connection between the steady rise of services in the U.S. economy over the last half century and the slower pace of recovery from economic downturns. They state, “…as services become a larger share of output in an economy, more production is dependent on just actual and not also anticipated demand, slowing the pace of recovery from an economic downturn.”

The increase in the services share over the past 60 years has been striking. “In 1950, 40 percent of expenditures for U.S. GDP were for services and service-producing jobs were 48 percent of employment. By 2010, services constituted over 65 percent of expenditures for GDP and service-producing jobs were nearly 70 percent of employment.” The rise in services in the U.S. has led to longer recoveries, causing the current recovery to last about one year longer than it would have a half century ago.

End of NASA’s Manned Flight Program

The official retirement of the Space Shuttle program in 2011 resulted in a 19 percent drop in employment from 2007 to 2010 according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) industrial base assessment of the 536 companies in NASA’s manned space flight supply chain. If this steep a drop in employment occurred before the retirement of the Space Shuttle, it will be far worse by the time of the next assessment now that the program has ended.

Of the 536 companies, 50 percent of them are manufacturing companies, of which 21 percent are based in California, and 9 percent based in Florida. The report said that companies that supplied the Space Shuttle and Constellation launch program are facing “large-scale layoffs and facility closures across both industry and government.”

Near the Kennedy Space Center, more than 7,400 people in Brevard County, Florida alone lost their jobs when the shuttle program ended. The mainly contractor positions cut by NASA accounted for just under 5% of the county’s private sectors jobs. Thousands of formerly well-paid engineers and other workers around the country are still struggling to find jobs to replace the careers that flourished during the space shuttle program.

The machinery and tools used to support a manned space program are in danger of being discarded. In a separate assessment of the space flight industry, BIS found that 52 companies that were major suppliers (Tier I) had 48,623 pieces of tools and machinery, 91 percent of which had been paid for by the government. This classifies them as “Government-Furnished Property” so that the General Services Administration can process them by being transferred, sold, scrapped, or donated.

The danger is that the U. S. government may never be able to re-establish a manned space flight program to support ongoing missions to the International Space Station once the supplier base of the manned space flight program has been decimated. At the present, the U. S. has no way of sending astronauts to space in its own vehicles, and NASA is relying on the Soviet-made Soyuz capsules to send U.S. astronauts to space station. Thus, the United States may never again be a leader of space exploration.

Wind Down of War on Terrorism

The end of the Cold war with the Soviet Union resulted in a major downsizing of the military-industrial complex in the early 1990s, causing the recession of 1991-1992 and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Likewise, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the ramp down of troops in Afghanistan are having a similar effect on the defense/military industry, with a resulting loss of funding for new programs, cutbacks in existing programs, and job loss.

Sequestration

The additional cuts in the Defense Department’s procurement are taking a toll on some critical industries such as ship repair. In February, the Navy canceled all FY 2013 ship repair contracts that had been awarded to San Diego ship repair companies but not yet started. How many companies can survive having all their new contracts canceled?

What can we do?

It is interesting to note that one of the policy recommendations of the authors of the Berkeley report on goods vs. service’ corroborate some that I have presented previously:

“Therefore we believe that industrial policy aimed at restoring the country’s manufacturing sector could be beneficial. For example, tax policy that provides large re-shoring tax credits for goods-producing firms and levies large tax penalties on firms that offshore goods production could increase the share of goods in total output.”

Additional recommendations the authors make are:

  • Targeted investment in public goods and infrastructure would accomplish the same end.
  • Full employment policies and direct job creation programs could be enacted.
  • Targeted and aggressive fiscal spending and an employer of last resort program that guarantees full employment.

The authors conclude, “Longer and slower recoveries place a greater strain on state and federal budgets by decreasing tax revenue and increasing expenditures on automatic stabilizers. States will be forced to cut spending since all states with the exception of Vermont are required by law to run a balanced budget.” We have certainly seen this conclusion take effect as one state after another faces a staggering budget deficit, and our federal deficit has skyrocketed since 2009.

In the past two years, the general public and more economists and policymakers have begun to recognize the importance of U. S. manufacturing. Manufacturing is the foundation of our economy and is crucial to providing the quantity and quality of higher paying jobs we need.

It is high time for Congress and the Obama administration to develop a comprehensive national manufacturing strategy for the United States. Until we make a national manufacturing strategy a top priority, our economy will continue to struggle to create jobs.

 

Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing | 1 Comment »

Is Reshoring a Myth or Reality?

May 7th, 2013

When I first started talking about saving America manufacturing and returning manufacturing to America four years ago after the first edition of my book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can, came out, I was met with a great deal of skepticism. Some typical comments were:  “I don’t think we can.” “It’s too late.” “I wish we could.” “We need to.” Very few thought we actually could return manufacturing to America.

A lot has changed in four years. At last week’s Del Mar Design and Electronics Show (DMEDS) in San Diego, CA, a very successful fellow manufacturers’ sales rep, stopped me in the parking lot and said, “I used to think you were nuts, but you were right. Manufacturing is returning to America.” While this manufacturers’ representative sales agency is headquartered in southern California, it has affiliate companies in Mexico, Malaysia, China (Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen) and Taiwan (Taipei and Hsinchu) so I did not take this admission lightly.

The theme of this year’s DMEDS was “The Re-Birth of American Manufacturing, and it featured a full-day Reshoring track. This track began with my presentation on “Reshoring: Bringing Manufacturing Back to America Using Total Cost Analysis and ended with “Reshoring:  What is a Fit and How Can it Save Your Company Money?” This track also featured “Lean Manufacturing is the Path to Operational Excellence,” “3D Printing:  What it is, Isn’t, Will Be and Won’t Be,” and “Save Your Factory with Robotic Automation.”

While there were offshore companies exhibiting at DMEDS, it was dominated by U. S. manufacturers, regional contract manufacturers, and local sales reps and distributors. The buzz at the show was that manufacturing is returning to America, and every contract manufacturer I spoke to at the show had experienced a “reshoring” event.

In the past year, there have been numerous articles debating whether “reshoring” is a myth or really happening. For example, the cover article of the April 22, 2013 issue of Time magazine was “Made in USA – Manufacturing is Back ? But Where are the Jobs? The first page of the article is full of pictures of products that have returned from offshore, representing an unbelievable cross section of consumer goods, ranging from toys such as the Frisbee. Slinky and Crayola crayons to electric mixers, barbecues, saws, hammers, and many more.

The reason the article poses the questions about how many jobs are being created by the return of manufacturing to America is that the manufacturing plants of the present and future have more machines and fewer workers than in the past. Robotics, automation, and lean manufacturing are helping companies do more with fewer people, and the rapidly improving technology of additive manufacturing is changing the way parts are being made.

The article featured a glimpse of manufacturing’s future in the stories of two companies:

  • ExOne, near Pittsburgh, PA, providing Digital Part Materialization (DPM) that transforms engineering design files directly into fully functional objects using 3D printing machines
  • GE’s highly automated battery factory in Schenectady, NY.

ExOne needs only two workers and a design engineer per shift to support its 12 metal-printing machines. The GE plant produces Durathon sodium batteries that are large and powerful enough to power cell phone towers. Because of being highly automated, the plant only employs 370 high-tech workers in a 200,000 sq. ft. facility.

What was most encouraging to me was that the article reported that Ashley Furniture is building a new plant south of Winston-Salem, NC that will employ 500 people. This is an industry that even I doubted would ever come back to the U.S.

Key statistics pointed out in the article were that China’s average hourly wage was only $0.50 in 2000 but is projected to be $4.50 by 2015. This is probably a conservative estimate because China’s wages rose by 15-20% over the last five years but are expected to increase by another 60% in 2013 alone. Another factor noted is that the cost to ship a 40-ft. container from China to the West Coast rose from $1,184 in 2009 to $2,302 this year. These facts corroborate the Boston Consulting Group’s 2011 report that there will be a convergence in the total costs between China and the U. S. by 2015.

 

This quote from GE CEO Jeff Immelt concluded the article:  “Will U.S. manufacturing go from 9% to 30% of all jobs? That’s unlikely. But could you see a steady increase in jobs over the next quarters and year? I think that will happen.” I agree and so does Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative and developer of the Total Cost of OwnershipTM spreadsheet.

 

Mr. Moser’s organization promotes and tracks cases of reshoring across the U.S. He estimates that between 2010 and 2012, about 50,000 jobs were created in the U.S. because of the trend—which equates to 10% of the 500,000 manufacturing jobs created in the past three years.

 

On the myth side of the debate, the 2012 Hackett Group’s report, “Reshoring Global Manufacturing:  Myths and Realities” by Michel Janssen, Erik Dorr and David P. Sievers

states, “By next year, China’s cost advantage over manufacturers in industrialized nations and competing low-cost destinations will evaporate.” However, they conclude that “few of the low-skill Chinese manufacturing jobs will ever return to advanced economies; most will simply move to other low-cost countries.

 

Using hard data from their 2012 Supply Chain Optimization study, they analyzed the trend in “reshoring” of manufacturing capacity, and their findings debunk the myth that manufacturing capacity is returning in a big way to Western countries as a result of rising costs in China. The report states, “The reality is that the net amount of capacity coming back barely offsets the amount that continues to be sent offshore.”

The report also offers recommendations on how companies should plot their manufacturing sourcing strategies. Interestingly, their recommendations incorporate some of the factors that Mr. Moser and I include as part of a Total Cost of Ownership analysis, such as “integrate the views of manufacturing, procurement, finance and business-unit leadership,” “Establish a game plan to deal with risk: Geopolitical, supply base, environmental and commodity risks are a given,” “Establish a proactive approach to anticipate risks, creating mitigation plans with clear triggers for implementation,” and “Broaden the decision making approach beyond total landed cost.”

The Hackett Group’s definition of “Total landed cost” is not as broad and encompassing as the definition of Total Cost of Ownership I provide in the 2009 edition of my book and that Mr. Moser uses in the TCO spreadsheet he developed in 2010. Their definition is “Total landed cost is the set of end-to end supply chain costs to transform raw materials and components into a finished good ready for sale. Key components include: raw material and component costs, manufacturing costs (fixed and variable), transportation and logistics, inventory carrying cost, and taxes and duties.

My definition of TCO includes the “hidden costs of doing business offshore,” such as Intellectual Property theft, danger of counterfeit parts, the risk factors of political instability, natural disasters, riots, strikes, technological depth and reserve capacity of suppliers, currency fluctuation. Mr. Moser’s TCO spreadsheet includes calculations for factors such as Intellectual Property risk, political instability risk, effect on innovation, product liability risk, annual wage inflation, and currency appreciation.

While the number of companies bringing products lines back to America is increasing, I have to admit that as manufacturers’ sales reps for all American companies; we are still losing business to China for individual parts our principals are quoting. Just recently, we lost several rubber parts that our rubber molder has made for a customer in our territory for 15 years. Our customer had been purchased by a multinational awhile back that has a subsidiary in China, so the new management decided to tool up these parts in China and discontinue ordering them from our molder. I am sure that the decision was made based on the lower piece price without doing a TCO analysis.

You can help your company get the most value for its dollars and help return manufacturing to America by doing the following:

  • Use the TCO spreadsheet available for free at www.reshorenow.org
  • Use the archived webinars to inform staff and customers
  • Work with groups being trained on TCO – Manufacturing Extension Program (MEPs) sites around the country
  • Prepare your workforce for reshoring
  • Submit cases of reshoring for publication and posting using the Reshoring Initiative’s  template
  • Sponsor the Reshoring Initiative

I strongly believe that if more companies would learn to understand and utilize the TCO estimator spreadsheet of the “Reshoring Initiative,” they would realize that the best value for their company is to source their parts, assemblies, and products in America. Doing this would help return manufacturing to America to create a far higher percentage of jobs than the 10% that have been brought back to America thus far and help maintain more manufacturing in U. S.

 

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

Why the Trans Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers

April 30th, 2013

The Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that was requested by Congress. Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a previous blog, it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt American manufacturers.

The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933 and required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products. For manufactured products, the Buy American Act used a two-part test:  first, the article must be manufactured in the U.S., and second, the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

“Buy American” provisions do not help all U.S. firms equally. Corporations headquartered in the U.S. that offshore most of their manufacturing operations do not benefit from the system designed to promote domestic production in the way that companies with actual U.S. manufacturing operations do. However, strengthening the “Buy American” provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing.

If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms.

In certain government procurements, the requirements may be waived if purchasing the material/parts domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost, as when the price differential between the domestic product and a identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a certain percentage, or the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years, the requirements have been increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense components and products.

In addition, the President has authority to waive the Act in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on Government Procurement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, access to government procurement by certain U.S. agencies of goods for the other parties to these agreements is granted. Every one of these trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these agreements.

The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific agreement the same privileged status. What this means is that the TPP’s procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries.
Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to all the countries signing the agreement, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The question is whether this new access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement?

Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In an article titled, TPP Government Procurement Negotiations:

Buy American Policy Banned, a Net Loss for the U.S., she points out that the total U.S. procurement market is more than seven times the size of the combined procurement market of the current TPP negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But the United States already has trade deals with procurement provisions with six of these countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore. Removing these countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total “new” TPP procurement market.

She concludes “the size of the new procurement markets that the TPP may open for the United States is in the order of $53 billion (national) to $72 billion (total), which is a terrible trade for giving up the U.S procurement market of $556 billion (federal) to $1.7 trillion (total).”

In addition, she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and services, as well as the qualifications for bidding companies.

She warns that if we do not conform our domestic policies to the TPP terms, the U.S. government would be subject to lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until our policies changed. “Also, any “investor” that happens to be incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with the U.S. federal government.”

A letter from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and 68 other Congressional Reps to President Obama on May 3, 2012 states in part, “We are concerned about proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs, workers, and manufacturers…We do not believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries, such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam, could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries’ manufacturing sectors, rather than our own.”

On November 30, 2012, 24 Senators sent a letter to President Obama outlining guidelines for the TPP and calling for Congressional consultation for the TPP. The letter urged that the TPP:

“Maintain “Buy American” government procurement requirements. The American people, through their elected officials, should not be prohibited from establishing government procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict “Buyer American” and ”Buy Local” government procurement policies at the Federal or sub-federal level.

Require strong Rules of Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects.

Ensure that State-Owned and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level playing field.  Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S., the TPP should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate and make decisions on a commercial basis.  The agreement should also incorporate a reporting requirement so that countries have to provide information on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on a regular basis.”

Country of Original labeling is another one of the recommendations I’ve written about in previous blog articles and is the main recommendation of Alan Uke in his book Buying Back America. This would help American consumers make choices when they purchase consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to choose to support American manufacturers through “Buying American.”

The TPP treaty would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening “Buy American” requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP, we need to strengthen the requirements.

This drastic curtailment of “Buy American” procurement provisions is another reason why we must make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Please join me in opposing granting fast-track authority by signing the petition at the American Jobs Alliance website and contacting your representatives directly at http://act.americanjobsalliance.com/5516/tell-obama-no/

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Making Manufacturing “Cool” for our Youth

April 23rd, 2013

If we want to attract today’s youth to manufacturing careers, We need to make manufacturing “cool,” so they will choose to be part of the modern advanced manufacturing. We need to show them what great career opportunities exist in the industry and expose them to the variety of career opportunities in manufacturing.

Most outsiders have no idea of the variety of management jobs available at manufacturing companies. Besides the usual executive jobs, other management jobs available at medium and large manufacturers are in these areas: operations, plant and facilities, manufacturing and production, purchasing and procurement, sales and marketing, quality, supply chain, lean manufacturing and continuous improvement, human resources, R&D and product development, and safety and regulatory compliance.

In an article in July 2, 2008 issue of Industry Week magazine, John Madigan, a consultant with Madigan Associates, observed, “Jobs paying $20 per hour that historically enabled wage earners to support a middle-class standard of living are leaving the U.S. Public sector aside; only 16 percent of today’s workers earn the $20-per-hour baseline wage, down 60 percent since 1979.

We need to help our youth realize that manufacturing careers, and particularly the advanced manufacturing that now dominates the U.S. industrial sector, creates more wealth than any other industry. Moreover, manufacturing pays higher wages and provides greater benefits, on average, than other industries. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. manufacturing worker earned $77,186 annually, including pay and benefits. The average non-manufacturing worker earned $56,436.

The Society of Manufacturing Engineers Education Foundation (SME) is working to change the image of manufacturing and make it “cool” by sponsoring the ”Manufacturing is Cool” award winning, interactive website, which challenges and engages students in basic engineering and science principles and provides interesting and useful educational resources for teachers. This fun and information rich website was recently “re-engineered” (updated) and marketed around the country. SME has received positive feedback from teachers, parents, and students about its usefulness.

“The explosion of technology and advanced manufacturing processes are evolving faster than it can be learned and applied,” says Bart A. Aslin, CEO, SME Education Foundation. “We designed the Manufacturing is Cool website to inspire, prepare and support young people for careers in advanced manufacturing without patronizing them. We’re giving them access to real-world – people, jobs and technologies, all critical to them finding their place in a global economy.”

The site engages students in basic engineering and science principles and provides interesting and useful educational resources for parents and teachers. Today’s tech-savvy K-12 audience can explore the exciting world of advanced manufacturing engineering 24/7 to learn about the careers it offers and how its advanced technologies affect their daily lives.

In 2011, the SME Education Foundation initiated PRIME® (Partnership Response in Manufacturing Education) as a major national initiative to take a community-based approach to advanced manufacturing education and create strong partnerships between exemplary schools, businesses and organizations. Through its advanced manufacturing education program, SME is re-tooling and building the pipeline with technically skilled workers as business, industry and academia form partnerships and accelerate their collaborative efforts to provide funding, equipment, mentoring, teacher training and co-op programs for high school students to begin manufacturing products in the classroom. The manufacturing sector is on the upswing and public perception of manufacturing as a career is more positive as students see first-hand the kinds of things they are capable of making.
Since 2011, the following schools have been designated as PRIME® schools:

ALABAMA:  Calera High School provides an enrollment of approximately 900 students, grades 9-12, provides a pre-engineering program offers opportunities for student scholastic achievement with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) curriculum.

CALIFORNIA:

Hawthorne High School, Los Angeles, CA – the School of Engineering and Manufacturing has 347 students and has a rigorous educational program built on the Project Lead the Way (PLTW) curriculum

Esperanza High School, Anaheim, California – a comprehensive four-year public high school serving an enrollment of 1808 students in the northeast part of Orange County.

Petaluma High School, Petaluma, CA – a public high school in which students can self-select a pathway leading to certification at graduation, leading to post-secondary opportunities, credit enhancement, or directly to the workforce.

ILLINOIS:   Wheeling High School, Wheeling, Il – is a public, culturally diverse, four-year comprehensive high school with a STEM providing college credit bearing courses and entry level career certifications including information technology, engineering, architecture and advanced manufacturing. It has a newly equipped fabrication, prototyping lab rivaling local manufacturing companies and a team of engineering students who are quickly becoming advanced manufacturing savvy. The lab includes a 3D printer for rapid prototyping, HAAS CNC lathes and mill, CNC Plasma Cutter, CNC training stations, robotic workstation, surface grinder and more.

“Our students graduate with more than a diploma in hand,” says Dr. Lazaro J. Lopez, principal, Wheeling High School. “Students have an opportunity to leave here with 14 college credits and be on their way to securing an associate degree in manufacturing technology as well as NIMS certification in two or three areas, plus all four MSSC safety certifications. Students who want to work after graduation will be able to meet the expectations of the hiring manufacturer.”

INDIANA: McKenzie Center for Innovation and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. The McKenzie Center for Innovation and Technology houses state-of-the art equipment, materials and curriculum. A high concentration of student population is involved with PLTW courses in pre-engineering and biomedical science. Students receive dual college credit and national certifications in their fields of study.

Walker Career Center, Indianapolis, IN offers 24 career and technical education programs equipped with state-of the-art technology. Each program offers excellent instruction and most programs lead to an industry certification or college dual credit which in most cases, is free to their students.

The Walker Center also provides Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) using Chris and Jim’s CIM, a web resource that makes it possible for students, teachers and even industry pros to find solutions to problems they might encounter with this technology. This resource site, created by CIM educators Jim Hanson of Walker Career Center and Chris Hurd of Cazenovia High School in New York, started as a tool to help their students continue to learn outside of the classroom but developed into a knowledge, research and exploration instrument used by many industry professionals. Chris and Jim’s CIM is another way to help educate and train a new generation of engineers to deal with state-of-the-art technology in designing, manufacturing, maintaining, selecting, and procuring manufacturing engineering systems.

IOWA: Cedar Falls High School provides courses that satisfy elective requirements for World Studies, Personal Economics, Health, Practical Arts, and General Administrative. Because of a partnership with Hawkeye Community College, students may enroll in college-level courses taught during the regular school day. Upon successful completion of the course, students will earn both high school and college credit.

MASSACHUSETTS: Westfield Vocational Technical High School recognizes career and technical education as an integral part of the public school system. Westfield students are prepared for careers which are common in modern industry and offer an abundance of job opportunities upon graduation.

MICHIGAN: The Jackson Area Career Center provides its students with career and technical educational classes, industry certifications, and free college credit, and guidance counseling services. More than 38,000 students have experienced Career Center CTE opportunities and possibilities through hands-on and applied learning.

MISSOURI:  Summit Technology Academy, Kansas City – located on the campus of the Summit Technology Center in Lee’s Summit. It is an off-campus pre-professional learning opportunity for high school students seriously interested in the course technology-based courses of study. Professional IT certifications and dual college credit is offered through Metropolitan Community College, University of Central Missouri, Missouri University of Science and Technology, and the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

OHIO:

Centerville High School in Dayton provides a curriculum that includes vocational courses in the Performing Arts, Music, Preparatory College-Career, and the School of Possibilities offering an alternative educational pathway. It also offers 25 Advanced Placement tests in 18 courses in science, mathematics, history, government, language, economics, and psychology.

Kettering Fairmont High School is a public four-year comprehensive high school with a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) based education. A majority of students move on to higher education or specialized training. Kettering is an industrial first-ring suburb of Dayton, Ohio that has a local manufacturing base and is in close proximity to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The curriculum supports these industries with PLTW manufacturing curriculum.

OKLAHOMA:   Francis Tuttle Technology Center in Oklahoma City encompasses six public school districts serving 11,780 students who may attend Francis Tuttle tuition-free while in high school. The Center works closely with business and education partners with specific focus on workforce needs of the marketplace with the delivery of on time, just-in-time, customized training.

WISCONSIN:  Lynde & Harry Bradley Technology and Trade School is the premier technology and trade school of Milwaukee and offers a broad range of scholastic options, including clear pathways for students into four-year universities, tech/trade education, and apprenticeships.

During the previous recession, the National Association of Manufacturers heard from its members that they were still having trouble attracting employees with the right mix of skills in certain job functions despite layoffs. To learn more, NAM and Deloitte & Touche conducted extensive quantitative and qualitative research across the U.S. They found that an estimated 80 percent of manufacturers reported a moderate-to-serious shortage of qualified job applicants during the recent recession, a problem growing increasingly urgent with the increase in global competition and retirement of Baby Boomers.

 

They also found that manufacturing has an outdated image, filled with stereotypes of assembly line jobs, that has kept young people from pursuing careers in it. The “Dream It. Do ItTM” campaign was created because these perceptions are out-of-step with manufacturing’s broad range of interesting and financially rewarding careers. Examples include an electrical engineer for a private jet manufacturer, a product developer for a candy manufacturing plant, or a designer at an MP3 manufacturing company.

NAM’s Manufacturing Institute/Center for Workforce Success received almost $500,000 in November 2004 from Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor, for this campaign. Over a period of 36 months, the campaign created, tested, and disseminated a growing set of creative materials. These include radio advertising spots, billboard designs, newspaper and magazine ads, student and parent brochures, and a style-branding guide. The materials are ready to use and provide the national brand to local users.

The campaign has formed strong and committed coalitions with local civic, political, education, and business entities; launched a focused advertising campaign; created a world-class website on the array of highly paid manufacturing jobs; and formed local partnerships with community colleges, technical schools and universities for students pursuing manufacturing careers.

NAM’s “Dream It. Do It TM” Manufacturing Careers Campaign is currently operating in the following regions:

Phoenix, Arizona
Connecticut
Florida 

Will County, Illinois
Indiana
Southeast Indiana 

Kentucky
Western Michigan
West Central Minnesota
Kansas City, Missouri
Mississippi
Nevada
 

Chautauqua County, NY

Northeast Ohio
Pennsylvania Upstate South Carolina
The Tennessee Valley
North  and South Central Texas
Virginia
Southwest Virginia
Washington State 

Wisconsin

The SME and NAM programs described above will help expose our youth to the modern manufacturing environment and change the image of manufacturing to one that is “cool” and full of exciting career opportunities for our youth.

 

Posted in Education, Manufacturing | 2 Comments »

Innovative Programs Provide Career and Technical Education in High Schools

April 16th, 2013

According to a 2012 Pew Research Center analysis of census data, for the first time, a third of American 25- to 29-year-olds have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. That share has been slowly edging up from fewer than one-fifth of young adults in the early 1970s to 33 percent this year. What happens to the other two-thirds of young adults? In Germany, they typically hold an occupational certification by the age of 20, but in the United States, non-college grads are often left without marketable skills or qualifications.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. And we’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering and math — the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill the jobs that are there right now and will be there in the future.”

There are already a number of innovative high schools across the country that are pioneering a model for career and technical education that has little to do with the narrow vocational classes of yesteryear, like wood shop and auto shop. Instead, at Linked Learning schools in California, at the MET schools in Rhode Island, and at Tech Valley High outside Albany, high school students complete internships in real workplaces, exploring fields as diverse as baking, engineering, and biotechnology. Students have the opportunity to check out more than one profession so they can see how adults use their education in the workplace. This helps students stay motivated to earn a degree and introduces them to the behaviors and practices specific to the working world.

California is one of the states that put vocational training back into the curriculum at high schools and community colleges. During his terms as California’s governor from 2003-2010, Arnold Schwarzenegger identified workforce skills, referred to as Career Technical Education (CTE), as a priority for California. The State plan specifies learning goals in 58 career pathways organized around 15 industry sectors. The CTE is delivered primarily through K-12/adult education programs and community college programs and includes the following:

K-12/Adult Programs:

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

Community College

  • Occupational programs offered at all 109 colleges, leading to certificates, associate degrees, and transfer to four-year universities
  • Noncredit instruction for short-term CTE programs offered by 58 colleges
  • Apprenticeship offering over 160 apprenticeship programs at 39 colleges
  • Middle College High Schools (13) and Early College High Schools (19)
  • Tech Prep programs delivered through 80 Tech Prep “consortia,” comprising 109 colleges and their feeder high schools

As a result, California developed “Linked Learning,” which is an approach that is transforming education for California students by integrating rigorous academics with career-based learning and real world workplace experiences. Linked Learning ignites high school students’ passions by creating meaningful learning experiences through career-oriented pathways in fields such as engineering, health care, performing arts, law, and more.

The Linked Learning pathway is defined as:  A multiyear, comprehensive high school program of integrated academic and career technical study that is organized around a broad theme, interest area, or industry sector. Pathways connect learning with students’ interests and career aspirations, preparing them for the full range of post-graduation options including two- and four-year colleges and universities, apprenticeships, formal employment training, and military service.

In 2012, sixty three districts and county offices of education in California committed to making Linked Learning a district-wide improvement strategy and participate in the state Linked Learning Pilot Program, authorized by Assembly Bill 790. The scale of the state Linked Learning Pilot Program will give many more students in more regions around the state access to Linked Learning. When the pilot is fully implemented, Linked Learning will be available to more than one third of the state’s high school students – that’s approximately 700,000 students.

Linked Learning can be implemented through various models such as the California Linked Learning District initiative, which includes nine districts that have already implemented the Linked Learning approach:

  • Antioch USD
  • Long Beach USD
  • Los Angeles USD, Local District 4
  • Montebello USD
  • Oakland USD
  • Pasadena USD
  • Porterville USD
  • Sacramento City USD
  • West Contra Costa USD

Additional models include California Partnership Academies, career academies, National Academy Foundation academies, charter schools, and small-themed schools to name just a few. Today in California, 500 California Partnership Academies are organized around one of the state’s California’s 15 major industry sectors, and another approximately 300 career academies are in operation. Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs) play an important part in many of these academies. In many other high schools, ROCPs are experimenting with innovative approaches to integrate academic and technical education.

While my hometown of San Diego hasn’t implemented the Linked Learning approach, Clairemont High School has an Academy of Business & Technology (AOBT), which is a “school within a school” that focuses on business, computer, and communication skills. The three-year program provides college-prep core classes and business career-technical electives to provide students the technological, financial, and communicative skills necessary to succeed in a college and career environment.

The academy program is committed to providing students with an array of unique educational activities and opportunities that are not typically incorporated into general education courses such as: • Internships in the business field • Mentorships with community partners • Entrepreneurship training • Instruction in finance and economics • Online business simulations • Field trips to businesses and colleges • Guest speakers on various careers • Job interview & resume guidance • Computer skills in Microsoft applications • Public speaking preparation  • Project-based group assignment • Team-building and leadership exercises • Problem-based learning projects • Group simulations.

On a nationwide basis, the non-profit organization Project Lead The Way® (PLTW) has been working since 1997 to promote pre-engineering courses for middle and high school students. PLTW forms partnerships with public schools, higher education institutions, and the private sector to increase the quantity and quality of engineers and engineering technologists graduating from our educational system. The PLTW curriculum was first introduced to 12 New York State high schools in the 1997-98 school years. A year later, PLTW field-tested its four unit Middle School Program in three middle schools. Today, there are over 400,000 students enrolled in programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

PLTW has developed innovative and mutually beneficial partnerships with more than 100 prestigious colleges and universities, called University Affiliates, to facilitate the delivery of the PLTW programs. They provide and coordinate activities such as professional development, college-level recognition, program quality initiatives, and statewide/regional support and communication.

PLTW has nearly 100 leading corporate sponsors, including 3M, BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, Chevron, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Qualcomm, Rockwell Automation, Solar Turbines, and Sprint. Some of non-profit sponsors are the Kauffman Foundation and the Society of Manufacturing Engineers Education Foundation. Corporations and philanthropic organizations generously provide PLTW with:

  • capital resources which it allocates to schools so that they may deliver leading-edge STEM curriculum, technology, materials and equipment to students;
  • access to experienced and talented employees who assist teachers in PLTW classrooms.

Another PLTW program sponsored by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers Education Foundation and other organizations is the Gateway Academy, a one- or two-week day camp for 6th – 8th graders that is a project based, hands-on curriculum designed by PLTW to introduce middle school students to the fundamentals of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) learning. The camp typically includes team-building exercises, individual and team projects, and utilizes the latest technology to solve problems. The camp is hosted by high schools or middle schools offering PLTW programs, such as Gateway To Technology (GTT) or Pathway To Engineering (PTE).

Campers work together in a fun, exciting environment using leading-edge technologies to sample such disciplines as robotics, aeronautics and eco-design. They brainstorm ideas, solve problems and build bridges, race cars and other working models.

Participation in a Gateway Academy prepares students for the middle school Gateway to Technology pre-engineering curriculum. The PLTW Middle School program is called Gateway To Technology, consisting of nine-week, stand-alone units, which can be implemented in grades six through eight, as determined by each school. The curriculum exposes students to a broad overview of the field of technology. The units are:

•           Design and Modeling

•           The Magic of Electrons

•           The Science of Technology

•           Automation and Robotics

•           Flight and Space

If all 50 states would establish career technical education in their high schools based on the successful PLTW curriculum, we could eliminate the skills shortage of manufacturing workers within the next five to six years and prepare the next generation of manufacturing and biotech workers to ensure that we have enough skilled workers for manufacturers to employ as more and more companies return manufacturing to America from outsourcing offshore and replace the “baby boomers” as they retire over the next 20 years.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »