How we can Solve the Skills Shortage and Attract the Next Generation of Manufacturing Workers

April 2nd, 2013

We lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs between the year 2000 and 2010, and over 57,000 manufacturing companies went out of business. We have only gained about 500,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2010, so some ask why we have nearly 600,00 jobs going unfilled when the unemployment rate for the manufacturing industry jumped is still ranging from 6.4 percent in November 2012 to 7.2 percent in February 2013. The main reasons are:

  • Unemployed workers are mainly from industries that have been decimated by trade deficits with China and American manufacturers choosing to outsource manufacturing offshore.
  • Fewer young people choosing manufacturing as a career choice because of poor image
  • Attrition from retirement that is getting worse as baby boomers started to retire

First, a large percentage of the people who lost their jobs came out of industries that were decimated by Chinese product dumping and the offshoring of manufacturing – textiles, furniture, tires, sporting goods, and the garment industry, to name just a few.

Most of these industries were dominated by large manufacturers employing hundreds to thousands of workers in plants located in the northeast, Midwest, and south. These workers either worked on assembly lines or utilized specific skills suited to their industries. In some cases, a textile plant, furniture plant, or automotive plant was the only large employer in a town. When the plant closed, workers either had to take whatever other job they could find or relocate to another area. In most cases, these workers didn’t have the specific skills needed in high-tech manufacturing industries.

An added blow was the decimation of the automobile and auto parts industry during the Great Recession when North American auto production dropped from a high of 17 million vehicles per year down to below 10 million vehicles in 2008 before climbing back up to about 13 million in 2012.

Second, manufacturing’s tarnished image has led young people entering the workforce to choose other career paths. In an article titled, “What the shortage in skilled manufacturing workers means to a hungry industry” of the e-newsletter Smart Business, Kika Young, human resources director at Forest City Gear Co. Inc. of Rockford, IL, said “Most people in Gen Y out of high school don’t think of manufacturing as a career or as a good option. They don’t think of it as glamorous; they think of it as dark and dingy and dirty and aren’t interested in going into that.”

Emily Stover DeRocco, president of The Manufacturing Institute of Washington, D.C., said, “It’s absolutely true that the image and the definition of manufacturing in this country has not kept up with the industry.” She added, “Companies need to invest more in employee training and make workforce skills a top strategic priority. Our education system must also do a better job aligning education and training to the needs of employers and job seekers. In the face of a global recession and intense international competition, American manufacturers must differentiate themselves through innovation and a highly skilled workforce.”

Third, the attrition of skilled workers through retirement, death, and disability year after year is compounding the problem. Harry Moser, retired president of GF AgieCharmilles and founder of the Reshoring Initiative, estimates that “about 8 percent of the manufacturing workforce is lost each year due to retirement, promotion, career changes, disability, and mortality.” In the machining industry, this means a loss of “about 20,000 to 25,000 skilled machinists per year…In contrast, only about 8,000 per year receive sufficient machining training in high school, community college and apprentice programs to be considered good recruits.”

In 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics estimated that 2.8 million, nearly a quarter of all U.S. manufacturing workers, are 55 or older. While manufacturing has led the United States out of the recession, the improvement has been a mixed blessing because as more skilled workers are needed, the supply is limited because baby boomers are retiring or getting close to retirement. What makes the situation worse is that there are not enough new ones to replace them because the subsequent generations were smaller and fewer chose manufacturing as a career.

The convergence of all of these factors has resulted in an insufficient number of workers trained for advanced manufacturing jobs. It is more of a skills gap in the specific skills needed by today’s manufacturers than a shortage of skilled workers. In the past 15 years, the manufacturing industry has evolved from needing low-skilled production-type assembly workers to being highly technology-infused.

The 2012 ManpowerGroup annual Talent Shortage Survey revealed that 49 percent of U.S. employers are experiencing difficulty filling mission-critical positions within their organizations despite continued high unemployment. According to the more than 1,300 U.S. employers surveyed, the positions that

are most difficult to fill include Skilled Trades, Engineers and IT Staff, all of which have appeared on the U.S. list multiple times since the survey began in 2006.

Jonas Prising, ManpowerGroup president of the Americas, said, “This skills mismatch has major ramifications on employment and business success in the U.S and around the globe. Wise corporate leaders are doing something about it, and we increasingly see that they’re developing workforce strategies and partnerships with local educational institutions to train their next generation of workers.”

Training to Address Skills Shortage:

According to a 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office study of fiscal year 2009, the federal government had 47 programs run by nine different agencies. The GAO noted that more information is needed to measure the true effectiveness of the programs. “Almost all of the 47 programs tracked multiple outcome measures related to employment and training, and the most frequently tracked outcome measure was ‘entered employment,’ “the agency stated. “ However, little is known about the effectiveness of employment and training programs because, since 2004, only five reported conducting an impact study, and about half of all the remaining programs have not had a performance review of any kind.”

Obviously, we could make government work better and save money in the process by consolidating some of these programs and giving some of the money to the states for programs that work best for their workers. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean programs can be combined. It might not make sense, for example, to combine the “Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program” with the “Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program,” or the “Native American Employment and Training Program” with the “National Guard Youth Challenge Program.” In addition, the programs are not equal in size or scope. The GAO reported that seven programs accounted for 75 percent of the $18 billion spent on job training, while two programs (“Wagner-Peyser funded Employment Service” and “Workforce Investment Act Adult”) served about 77 percent of all participants.

However, we don’t need to rely solely on government-funded training for manufacturing jobs. A great deal has already been done industry, trade and professional organizations, colleges, and universities to train and retrain today’s workers and prepare the next generation of manufacturing workers.

For example, the National Institute for Metalworking Skills (NIMS) was formed in 1995 by the metalworking trade associations to develop and maintain a globally competitive American workforce. NIMS sets skills standards for the industry, certifies individual skills against the standards, and accredits training programs that meet NIMS quality requirements. NIMS operates under rigorous and highly disciplined processes as the only developer of American National Standards for the nation’s metalworking industry accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

NIMS has a stakeholder base of over 6,000 metalworking companies and major trade associations in the industry. The Association for Manufacturing Technology, the American Machine Tool Distributors’ Association, the National Tooling & Machining Association, the Precision Machine Products Association, the Precision Metalforming Association, and the Tooling and Manufacturing Association have invested over $7.5 million in private funds for the development of the NIMS standards and its credentials.  The associations also contribute annually to sustain NIMS operations and are committed to the upgrading and maintenance of the standards.

NIMS has developed skills standards in 24 operational areas covering the breadth of metalworking operations, and there are 52 distinct NIMS skill certifications. The Standards range from entry to a master level. All NIMS standards are industry-written and industry-validated, and are subject to regular, periodic reviews under the procedures accredited and audited by ANSI. NIMS certifies individual skills against the national standards and requires that the candidate meets both performance and theory requirements that are industry-designed and industry-piloted.
NIMS accredits training programs that meet its quality requirements. The NIMS accreditation requirements include an on-site audit and evaluation by a NIMS industry team that reviews and conducts on-site inspections of all aspects of the training programs, including administrative support, curriculum, plant, equipment and tooling, student and trainee progress, industry involvement, instructor qualifications and safety. Officials governing NIMS accredited programs report annually on progress and are subject to re-accreditation on a five-year cycle.

The Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), the world’s leading professional society advancing manufacturing knowledge, also provides the following professional certifications:  Manufacturing Technologist, Manufacturing Engineering, Engineering Manager, Lean Certification (Bronze, Silver, and Gold), and Six Sigma. SME’s Certified Manufacturing Technologist program is utilized as an outcome assessment by numerous colleges and universities with Manufacturing, Manufacturing Engineering or Engineering Technology programs.

In 2010, the Society of Manufacturing acquired Tooling University LLC (Tooling U) based in Cleveland, Ohio to provide online, onsite, and webinar training for manufacturing companies and educational institutions. With more than 400 unique titles, Tooling U offers a full range of content to train machine operators, welders, assemblers, inspectors, and maintenance professionals. These classes are delivered through a custom learning management system (LMS), which provides extensive tracking and reporting capabilities. The competencies tie the online curriculum to matching hands-on tasks that put the theory to practice.

The Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International (FMA) champions the success of the metal processing, forming, and fabricating industry.  FMA educates the industry through the following programs:

FabCast – FMA’s webinar platform utilizes Internet connection and telephone to deliver live, interactive technical education programs directly to manufacturers on such topics as laser cutting, roll forming, metal stamping, etc. Companies can train their whole team at once, even from multiple locations. Companies can break up full days of instruction into modules and spread out over a period of time (i.e. two hours four days a week, four hours once a week for a month, etc.).

FMA also offers on-site, live training conducted at companies on their equipment as well as on-line training (e-Fab) that allows a company to get the training that they need, when they need it. E-Fab courses combine a full day’s worth of instruction by FMA’s leading subject matter experts with the flexibility of online delivery, available 24/7, 365 days a year.

FMA provides a Precision Sheet Metal Operator (PSMO) Certification – the metal fabricating industry’s only comprehensive exam designed to assess a candidate’s knowledge of fundamental precision sheet metal operations. Fabrication processes covered in the exam include shearing, sawing, press brake, turret punch press, laser cutting, and mechanical finishing.

Attracting the Next Generation of Manufacturing Workers:

If we want to attract today’s youth to manufacturing careers, we need to change their perceptions about what the manufacturing industry is like and show them what great career opportunities exist in the industry. We need to expose them to the variety of career opportunities in manufacturing and help them realize that manufacturing careers pay 25-50 percent higher than non-manufacturing jobs, so they will choose to be part of modern manufacturing.

We need to reacquaint youth with the process of designing and building products from an early age and provide them with the opportunities to learn in both traditional and non-traditional ways. Here are some suggestions:

Conduct manufacturing summer camps – In 2011, the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International (FMA) Nuts, Bolts and Thingamajigs Foundation (NBT) and the National Association for Community College Entrepreneurship (NACCE) partnered to launch a unique summer camp program called Gadget Camp, where teenagers learn how to build things from concept to creation. Attendees are required to design a product through computer-aided design (CAD) technology and oversee the design to completion. The initial summer camp will eventually develop into a national program with as many as 300 locations across the United States.

Restore shop classes to our high schools – The elimination of these courses from our school systems has inevitably had a negative impact on the way we view making a living with our hands. 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, and today, the programs are offered in over 1,300 schools in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

Improve the image of manufacturing careers – The National Tooling and Machining Association (NTMA) is another trade association that has a program to encourage youth to consider manufacturing as a career. NTMA is the Founding Sponsor of an exciting educational program that provides unlimited career awareness experiences in advanced manufacturing technology for students from middle school through college age. The approach has three components: a robotics curriculum based on national standards, teacher training workshops, and competitive events where students showcase their custom-built machines and compete for top honors. NTMA has six active regional leagues in their National Robotics League, a competition of battling robots that generates huge excitement among high school students.

Establish Apprenticeship Programs – In 2011, NIMS launched a new Competency-based Apprenticeship System for the nation’s metalworking industry. Employers are able to customize training to meet their own needs while maintaining the national integrity of apprenticeship training. Developed in partnership with the United States Department of Labor, the new system is the result of two years of work. Over 300 companies participated in the deliberations and design. The new National Guideline Standards for NIMS Competency-based Apprenticeship have been approved by the Department of Labor. NIMS has trained Department of Labor apprenticeship staff at the national and state level in the new system.

Portray manufacturing careers as fun and exciting – the convergence of cloud computing, mobile apps, and gamification within the manufacturing sector is in its infancy. Gamification is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context to capitalize on youth’s obsession with video games. The best example is Plantville, a new online gaming platform that simulates the experience of being a plant manager, introduced by Siemens Industry, Inc. in March 2011. Players are faced with the challenge of maintaining the operation of their plant while trying to improve the productivity, efficiency, sustainability and overall health of their facility.

The existing programs described and recommendations outlined in this article are a good start 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, Training | No Comments »

How we could Create Jobs while Reducing the Trade Deficit and National Debt

March 26th, 2013

There are numerous ideas and recommendations on how we could create jobs but most job creation programs proposed involve either increased government spending or reductions in income or employment taxes at a time of soaring budget deficits and decreased government revenue. Other recommendations would require legislation to change policies on taxation, regulation, or trade that may be difficult to accomplish. The recommendations in this article focus on what could be done the fastest and most economically to create the most jobs while reducing our trade deficit and national debt.

Manufacturing is the foundation of the U. S. economy and the engine of economic growth. It has a higher multiplier effect than service jobs. Each manufacturing job creates an average of three to four other supporting jobs. So, if we focus on creating manufacturing jobs, we would be able to reduce the trade deficit and national debt at the same time.

The combined effects of an increasing trade deficit with China and other countries, as well as American manufacturers choosing to “offshore” manufacturing, has resulted in the loss of 5.7 million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000. If we calculate the multiplier effect, we have actually lost upwards of 17 to 22 million jobs, meaning that we have fewer taxpayers and more consumers of tax revenue in the form of unemployment benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

In 2012, the U.S. trade deficit with China reached a new record of $315 billion. According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the trade deficit with China cost 2.7 million U.S. jobs from 2001-2011. The Department of Commerce estimates that each $1 billion in trade deficit translates to about 13,000 lost jobs, so the $738 billion trade deficit in goods for 2012 cost upwards of 9,599,200 jobs.

What Congress Could Do

First, Congress should enact legislation that addresses China’s currency manipulation. Most economists believe that China’s currency is undervalued by 30-40% so their products may be cheaper than American products on that basis alone. To address China’s currency manipulation and provide a means for American companies to petition for countervailing duties, the Senate passed S. 1619 in 2011, but GOP leadership prevented the corresponding bill in the House, H. R. 639, from being brought up for a vote, even though it had bi-partisan support with 231 co-sponsors. On March 20, 2013, Sander Levin (D-MI), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), and Mo Brooks (R-AL) introduced the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act in the House and a corresponding bill will be introduced in the Senate.

Second, Congress should strengthen and tighten procurement regulations to enforce “buying American” for all government agencies and not just the Department of Defense. All federal spending should have “buy America” provisions giving American workers and businesses the first opportunity at procurement contracts. New federal loan guarantees for energy projects should require the utilization of domestic supply chains for construction. No federal, state, or local government dollars should be spent buying materials, equipment, supplies, and workers from China.

My other recommendations for creating jobs are based on improving the competitiveness of American companies by improving the business climate of the United States so that there is less incentive for American manufacturing companies to outsource manufacturing offshore or build plants in foreign countries. The following proposed legislation would also prevent corporations from avoiding paying corporate income taxes:

  • Reduce corporate taxes to 25 percent
  • Make capital gains tax of 15 percent permanent
  • Increase and make permanent the R&D tax credit
  • Eliminate the estate tax (also called the Death Tax)
  • Improve intellectual property rights protection and increase criminal prosecution
  • Prevent sale of strategic U.S.-owned companies to foreign-owned companies
  • Enact legislation to prevent corporations from avoiding the U.S. income tax by reincorporating in a foreign country

It is also critical that we not approve any new Free Trade Agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Partnership that are currently proposed. The U.S. has a trade deficit with every one of its trading partners from NAFTA forward, so Free Trade Agreements have hurt more than helped the U.S. economy.

What States and Regions Could Do

State and local government can work in partnership with economic development agencies, universities, trade associations, and non-profit organizations to facilitate the growth and success of startup manufacturing companies in a variety of means:

Improve the Business Climate – Each state should take an honest look at the business climate they provide businesses, but especially manufacturers since they provide more jobs than any other economic sector. The goal should be to facilitate the startup and success of manufacturers to create more jobs. I recommend the following actions:

  • Reduce corporate and individual taxes to as low a rate as possible
  • Increase R&D tax credit generosity and make the R&D tax credit permanent
  • Institute an investment tax credit on purchases of new capital equipment and software
  • Eliminate burdensome or onerous statutory and environmental regulations

Establish or Support Existing Business Incubation Programs, such as those provided by the members of the National Business Incubation Alliance. Business incubators provide a positive sharing-type environment for creative entrepreneurship, often offering counseling and peer review services, as well as shared office or laboratory facilities, and a generally strong bias toward growth and innovation.

Facilitate Returning Manufacturing to America – The Reshoring Initiative,  founded by Harry Moser in 2010, has a  mission to bring good, well-paying manufacturing jobs back to the United States by assisting companies to more accurately assess their total cost of offshoring, and shift collective thinking from “offshoring is cheaper” to “local reduces the total cost of ownership.” The top reasons for U. S. to reshore are:

  • Brings jobs back to the U.S.
  • Helps balance U.S., state and local budgets
  • Motivates recruits to enter the skilled manufacturing workforce
  • Strengthens the defense industrial base

According to Mr. Moser, the Initiative has documented case studies of companies reshoring showing that “about 220 to 250 organizations have brought manufacturing back to the U.S….with the heaviest migration from China. This represents about 50,000 jobs, which is 10% of job growth in manufacturing since January 2010.”

State and/or local government could facilitate “reshoring” for manufacturers in their region by conducting Reshoring Initiative conferences to teach participants the concept of Total Cost of Ownership, how to use Mr. Moser’s free Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™, and help them connect with local suppliers.

Establish Enterprise Zones and/or Free Trade Zones: Enterprise Zones provide special advantages or benefits to companies in these zones, such as:

  • Hiring Credits – Firms can earn state tax credits for each qualified employee hired (California’s is $37,440)
  • Up to 100% Net Operating Loss (NOL) carry-forward for up to 15 years under most circumstances.
  • Sales tax credits on purchases of up to $20 million per year of qualified machinery and machinery parts;
  • Up-front expensing of certain depreciable property
  • Apply unused tax credits to future tax years
  • Companies can earn preference points on state contracts.

States located on international borders could also establish Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs), which are sites in or near a U.S. Customs port of entry where foreign and domestic goods are considered to be in international trade. Goods can be brought into the zones without formal Customs entry or without incurring Customs duties/excise taxes until they are imported into the U. S. FTZs are intended to promote U.S. participation in trade and commerce by eliminating or reducing the unintended costs associated with U.S. trade laws

What Individuals Could Do

There are many things we could do as individuals to create jobs and reduce our trade deficits and national debt. You may feel that there is nothing you can do as an individual, but it’s not true! American activist and author, Sonia Johnson said, “We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.”

If you are an inventor ready to get a patent or license agreement for your product, select American companies to make parts and assemblies for your product as much as possible. There are some electronic components that are no longer made in the U. S., so it may not be possible to source all of the component parts with American companies. There are many hidden costs to doing business offshore, so in the long run, you may not save as much money as you expect by sourcing your product offshore. The cost savings is not worth the danger of having your Intellectual Property stolen by a foreign company that will use it to make a copycat or counterfeit product sold at a lower price.

If you are an entrepreneur starting a company, find a niche product for which customers will be willing to pay more for a “Made in USA” product. Plan to sell your product on the basis of its “distinct competitive advantage” rather than on the basis of lowest price. Select your suppliers from American companies as this will create jobs for other Americans.

If you are the owner of an existing manufacturing company, then conduct a Total Cost of Ownership analysis for your bill of materials to see if you could “reshore” some or all of the items to be made in the United States. You can use the free TCO worksheet estimator to conduct your analysis available from the Reshoring Initiative at www.reshorenow.org. Also, you could choose to keep R&D in the United States or bring it back to the United States if you have sourced it offshore.

If enough manufacturing is “reshored” from China, we would drastically reduce our over $700 billion trade deficit in goods. We could create as many as three million manufacturing jobs, which would, in turn, create 9 – 12 million total jobs, bringing our unemployment down to 4 percent.

You may not realize it, but you have tremendous power as a consumer. Even large corporations pay attention to trends in consumer buying, and there is beginning to be a trend to buy ‘Made in USA” products. As a result, on January 15, 2013, Walmart and Sam’s Club announced they will buy an additional $50 billion in U.S. products over the next 10 years.

U.S. voters supported Buy America policies by a 12-to-1 margin according to a survey of 1,200 likely general election voters conducted between June 28 and July 2, 2012 by the Mellman Group and North Star Opinion Research. The overwhelming support has grown since prior iterations of the same poll – Buy America received an 11-to-1 margin of support in 2011 and a 5-to-1 margin in 2010. A survey by Perception Services International of 1400 consumers in July 2012, found that 76% were more likely to buy a U.S. product and 57% were less likely to buy a Chinese product.

As a consumer, you should pay attention to the country of origin labels when they shop and buy “Made in USA” products whenever possible. Be willing to step out of your comfort zone and ask the store owner or manager to carry more “Made in USA” products. If you buy products online, there are now a plethora of online sources dedicated to selling only “Made in USA” products. Each time you choose to buy an American-made product, you help save or create an American job.

In his book, Buying America Back:  A Real-Deal Blueprint for Restoring American Prosperity, Alan Uke, recommends Country of Origin labeling for all manufactured products that “puts control in the hands of American consumers to make powerful buying choices to boost our economy and create jobs,” as well as reduce our trade deficit. The labels would be similar to the labels on autos, listing the percent of content by country of all of the major components of the product. This Country of Origin labeling would enable American consumers to make the decision to buy products that have most of their content “made in USA.”

If every American would make the decision to buy American products and avoid imports as much as possible, we could make a real difference in our nation’s economy. For example, if 200 million Americans bought $20 worth of American products instead of Chinese, it would reduce our trade imbalance with China by four billion dollars. During the ABC World News series called “Made in America,” Diane Sawyer has repeatedly said, “If every American spent an extra $3.33 on U. S.-made goods, it would create almost 10,000 new jobs in this country.”

In conclusion, if we want to create more jobs, reduce our trade deficit and national debt, we must support our manufacturing industry so that it could once again be the economic engine for economic growth. Following the suggestions in this article could make the “Great American Job Engine” roar once again.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, General, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How to Fix America’s Economy

March 19th, 2013

 

Last week, I participated in the “Fly-in” for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) in Washington, D. C.  I was part of several teams that held 105 meetings with legislative assistants for Congressional Representatives and Senators.

We presented informational flyers on the following topics that would help fix America’s economy:

Trade Deficits – In 2012, the U. S. trade deficit was $735 billion, and our trade deficit with China hit an all time high of over $300 billion. This means that we currently consume more than we produce, and we need to reverse this dynamic and produce more of what we consume.  The goal for successful trade is balanced trade, not more trade.  We aren’t going to solve this problem with just doubling exports while we continue to increase our imports at a faster rate.  Trade deficits are our biggest jobs, growth and fiscal problem.  Congress should establish a national goal for balancing trade by the year 2020. Persistent trade deficits are not “free trade, but are “dumb trade.”

Foreign Currency Cheating – currency manipulation is trade cheating because it is both an illegal tariff and a subsidy.  China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore have manipulated their currency values.  However, China’s currency is estimated to be at least 35% undervalued so our exports to China cost 35% more than they should to the Chinese.  In the past two Congresses, one bill addressing the problem passed the House, and one bill passed the Senate, but we need a similar bill to pass both Houses and be signed into law.  Senator Levin is introducing a new bill this week.

The ENFORCE Act – we need to stop the evasion of countervailing and antidumping duty orders by such means as “transshipment” where goods covered by an Order are shipped to a third country before import to the U.S., with falsified U.S. customs documentation claiming the product to be origin of that third country. Other goods covered by an Order are shipped directly with fraudulent paperwork claiming that they were produced in a country that is not covered by the Order or have incorrect import classification codes or inaccurate descriptions that falsely identify the imports as goods that are not subject to an Order.

The ENFORCE Act would establish a formal process and reasonable deadlines for action when the Customs and Border Protection is presented with an allegation of evasion, require CBP to report on its enforcement activities, and order the retroactive collection of duties on entries that illegally evaded duties.

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) – On March 8, 2013, te USDA announced it is proposing a new COOL rule that will comply with the WTO request to provide more information to consumers and/or reduce the burden on imported product.  The    proposed rule would require labels for muscle cuts of meat to identify the country where each of the three production steps – birthing, raising, and slaughtering – occurred.

Foreign Border Taxes (aka Value Added Tax – VAT) Over 150 countries have at VAT, but the U. S. is one of the few countries that doesn’t.  VATs are “border adjustable” and range from 13% to 24% (average is 17%).  This means that our exports are taxed with a VAT when our goods cross that country’s border. Thus, when we negotiate a trade agreement that lowers or eliminates tariffs, a VAT can be added by our trading partners that is a “tariff by another name.”  Trade agreements do not address VATs when tariffs are lowered, and the WTO allows VATs.  Other countries use the VATs to reduce their corporate taxes to help their manufacturers be more competitive in the global marketplace. VATs are rebated to manufacturers in foreign countries for products that are exported, and the result is a $500 billion hole in U. S. Trade.  We need reject trade agreements that do not neutralize the VAT tariff and subsidy and consider implementing a U. S. consumption tax system to erase this foreign advantage and reduce domestic taxes on income and jobs.

Trans-Pacific Partnership – We need “Smart Trade” not “Dumb Trade” so a summary of CPA’s “Principles for a 21st Century Trade Agreement” was presented that would fix past mistakes in trade agreements. CPA recommends that new trade agreements must include the following principles to benefit America:

  • Balanced Trade
  • National Trade, Economic and Security Strategy
  • Reciprocity
  • Address State Owned Commercial Enterprises
  • Currency Manipulation
  • Rules of Origin
  • Enforcement
  • Border Adjustable Taxes
  • Perishable and Cyclical Products
  • Food and Product Safety and Quality
  • Domestic Procurement
  • Temporary vs. Permanent via renewal or sunset clauses

In the past, Congress has used Trade Promotion Authority to give the executive Branch directives on which countries to negotiate with and what terms to seek in the negotiations. “Fast Track” provisions that prevent Congress from amending any agreement and requiring an accelerated timeline for the vote have also been included. However, the Executive Branch ignored most of the provisions of the 2002 TPA and Congress had no role in the negotiations. Thus, CPA recommends that “Fast Track” provisions not be included because Congress should retain its trade power.

I also took the opportunity to provide copies of my blog article on the dangers to our national sovereignty that the current draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement includes. I enjoyed meeting other businessmen and women from other parts of the country that have similar concerns about the direction of our country and are working to fix our country’s economy.

It was a pleasure to take advantage of my rights as a citizen to express my opinions and those of an organization of which I am a member to our elected representatives in government. If more American businessmen and women would take the time to do the same, we would be more successful in our efforts to fix our trade and national deficit problems and create jobs for more Americans.

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

Import Penetration Still Outweighs Reshoring Trend

March 11th, 2013

In January, the U. S. Business and Industry Council released a report, “Import Penetration Rises again in 2011; Challenges Manufacturing Renaissance, Insourcing Claims,” by Alan Tonelson. According to the report,” the share of U.S. markets for advanced manufactured goods controlled by imports reached another all-time high in 2011… and domestic manufacturing’s highest value sectors keep falling behind foreign-based rivals.”

The USBIC report shows that “imports captured 37.57 percent of the collective $2.01 trillion American market in 2011 for a group of more than 100 advanced manufactured products,” up from 37.07 percent in 2010. When government data to calculate import penetration rate were first issued in 1997,”imports controlled 24.49 percent of substantially the same group of U.S. manufactured products.”

“Fully 29 of the 106 sectors for which reliable data were available featured import penetration rates of 50 percent or more in 2011. In 2010, 31 of these industries had lost half of their home U.S. market to imports, and in 1997, only 8 of the 114 sectors initially studied were in this situation.”

Between 1997 and 2011, 98 industries lost shares of their home market while only 8 gained shares. The industries that gained shares are:  “semiconductor machinery; saw mill products; paperboard mill products; motor vehicle stamping operations; transformer, inductor, and coil manufacturing; electron tubes; computer storage devices; and heavy duty trucks and chassis.”

The 98 industries include:  “semiconductors; electro-medical apparatus; pharmaceuticals; turbines and turbine generator sets; construction equipment; farm machinery and equipment; mining machinery and equipment; several machine tool-related categories; and ball and roller bearings.”

The report states that “from 1997-2011, output fell in 38 of the 106 total industries studied over this time span – nearly 36 percent of the total. These ‘declining’ industries include electricity measuring and test instruments; relays and industrial controls; motors and generators; motor vehicle engines and engine parts; several machine tool-related categories; and environmental controls.” In 11 more sectors, output growth was less than 10 percent, “including semiconductors; semiconductor production equipment; motor vehicle transmission and power train equipment; miscellaneous industrial machinery; and medicinals and botanicals.”

Mr. Tonelson writes, “High and rising import penetration rates for this many critical domestic industries over nearly a decade and a half represent powerful evidence of chronic, significant weakness in domestic manufacturing.”

In a section titled, “The Manufacturing Renaissance that Isn’t, he disputes the predictions of the Boston Consulting Group’s 2011 report, “Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S.” This report contends that American manufacturing would experience a renaissance because of rising costs in China and other parts of Asia so there would be a convergence in the total costs of manufacturing by some regions of the U. S. by 2015.

If U. S. manufacturers are still losing market share to foreign competitors through import penetration in their home market, this is a sign that “the United States has not even started to become “increasingly attractive for the production of many goods sold to consumers in North America” as predicted by the Boston Consulting Group, much less experiencing a Manufacturing Renaissance.

What is even more troubling to Mr. Tonelson is that the USBIC report focuses on the capital-and technology-intensive sectors that are “keys to maintaining national prosperity, technological leadership, and national security.”  The report shows that “dozens of America’s most advanced manufacturing industries are becoming just as vulnerable to import competition – and in some cases to import domination – as labor-intensive industries like clothing and toys.”

He concludes that the conventional stimulus strategies have had the disappointing results of “less growth and employment bang per investment-target stimulus buck with each passing year” because “U. S. imports of capital goods as such generates much less American output supported by much less American employment than purchases of domestically produced capital goods.”

In his opinion, President’s Obama’s goal of doubling exports during the 2009-2014 period isn’t going to improve the situation either when imports keep rising faster than exports. While there was a 15.45 percent improvement from 2010 to 2011, the January-October 2012 period only showed a 4.56 percent improvement.

Mr. Tonelson points out that negotiating new trade agreements isn’t producing the desired effect of increasing exports. The latest agreement negotiated with Korea has had the opposite effect  ? U. S. exports to Korea dropped by more than 18 percent while imports from Korea are up 4.74 from when it came into force in March 2012.

He concludes that the continued rise of import penetration in the U. S. indicates that American industry is losing ground relative to foreign-based competitors and “the nation is not making enough of the structural changes needed to create healthy growth and avoid reflating the last decade’s credit bubble.”

In an interview by Richard McCormack in the January 15, 2013 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News, Mr. Tonelson, stated, “I think the only way that these trends reverse meaningfully is if American trade policy changes. Unless we reduce the incentives of U.S. companies and companies all over the world to supply the U.S. market from overseas, this tide will not turn.”

While reducing the incentives of U. S. companies and foreign companies to supply the U. S. market from overseas is an important step in turning the tide, it would be the first of many steps we need to take. As I have written previously, we need to change our trade, tax, and regulations policies to help U. S. manufacturers be more competitive in both their home market and the global marketplace. We need to develop a national manufacturing strategy that would address all of the various factors that are resulting in the decline in the decline in the United States’ share of the global manufacturing output.

I did take exception to Mr. Tonelson’s dispute of the predictions of the Boston Consulting Group’s report and told him that the data is lagging reality ? “reshoring” is happening. As a manufacturers’ sales rep for American companies that perform fabrication services, I am in the “trenches” competing with offshore companies. Nearly every manufacturer I represent has experienced gaining new customers that are “reshoring” manufacturing from China. I have interviewed dozens of companies at trade shows over the past year and a half, and every company I interviewed had experienced “reshoring.” Nearly all of the San Diego region’s contract manufacturers of electronic manufacturing services have benefitted from “reshoring” in the past year.

The Reshoring Initiative, founded by Harry Moser in 2010, has documented case studies of companies reshoring. In the article, “Pumping Muscle into U.S. Manufacturing,” by Craig Barner in the March 6, 2013 issue of Forbes magazine, Mr. Moser said, “For example, about 220 to 250 organizations have brought manufacturing back to the U.S….with the heaviest migration from China. This represents about 50,000 jobs, which is 10% of job growth in manufacturing since January 2010, he said.”

“The top reshoring industries include electrical equipment, appliances and components; transportation equipment; and machinery, Moser said. Key reasons for returning to the U.S. include rising wages offshore, better quality of goods produced in the U.S., easier access to repairs and lower delivery costs, he said.”

On March 4, 2013, Prime Advantage, the leading buying consortium for midsized manufacturers, announced the findings of its eleventh semi-annual Group Outlook Survey. “A large majority — more than 70% of respondents — have increased their material and service purchases from American suppliers and service providers. Mexico is the second choice for sourcing, with nearly 28% of respondents moving sourcing to that region. The most frequently cited benefits that manufacturers hope to see in nearshoring are shorter lead times, as indicated by 67% of respondents, and lower inventories (49%). Among other benefits, companies cited better supply chain control (40%) and better overall communication (39%).”

If more American manufacturers would utilize the free Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ developed by Harry Moser, more companies would understand the benefits of “reshoring” and foster a true renaissance in American manufacturing.

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Reshoring, Trade Policy | 2 Comments »

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Destroy our National Sovereignty

February 26th, 2013

In his State of the Union address, President Obama declared in his intent to complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The Obama administration has pursued the TPP through the offices of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk instead of under the auspices of the Department of State.

This was the first time negotiations to create a free trade zone with Pacific Rim countries were made public although 15 rounds have been concluded. Eleven nations are participating: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Although Japan and China are not presently participating in TPP negotiations, “docking provisions” being written into the TPP draft agreement would permit either Japan or China to join the TPP at a later date without suffering any disadvantage.

To implement the TPP free-trade agreement, Congress will be asked to surrender its responsibility under Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and grant President Obama extra-constitutional “Trade Promotion Authority” to negotiate the final TPP agreement. The administration seeks to gain “fast-track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review an FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote by a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote, as required for the ratification of a formal treaty.

Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority also treats the FTA as if it were trade legislation being negotiated by the executive branch. The purpose is to assure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process.

A report released Jan. 24 by the Congressional Research Service, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress,” makes clear that the present negotiations are not being conducted under the auspices of formal trade promotion authority as the latest TPA expired July 1, 2007. However, the Obama administration is acting as if fact-track authority were in effect already.

The report states that the TPP is being negotiated as a regional free-trade agreement that U.S. negotiators describe as a “comprehensive and high-standard” FTA. The U.S. hopes the agreement “will liberalize trade in nearly all goods and services and include commitments beyond those currently established in the World Trade Organization (WTO.)”

Oppostion to the TPP ranges from one end of the political spectrum to the other ? from the liberal Public Citizen non-profit, consumer rights advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to the far-right, conservative news organization, World Net Daily founded in 1997 by Joseph Farah.

Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. According to her review of TPP, foreign firms would gain the follow privileges:

  • Risks and costs of offshoring to low wage countries eliminated
  • Special guaranteed “minimum standard of treatment” for relocating firms
  • Compensation for loss of “expected future profits” from health, labor environmental, laws (indirect or “regulatory” takings compensation)
  • Right to move capital without limits
  • New rights cover vast definition of investment: intellectual property, permits, derivatives
  • Ban performance requirements, domestic content rules. Absolute ban, not only when applied to investors from signatory countries

Ms. Wallach opines that U.S. multinational corporations have the goal of imposing on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system. “This system elevates individual corporations and investors to equal standing with each TPP signatory country’s government- and above all of us citizens.” This would enable “foreign investors to skirt domestic courts and laws, and sue governments directly before tribunals of three private sector lawyers operating under World Bank and UN rules to demand taxpayer compensation for any domestic law that investors believe will diminish their ‘expected future profits.’ Over $3 billion has been paid to foreign investors under U.S. trade and investment pacts, while over $14 billion in claims are pending under such deals, primarily targeting environmental, energy, and public health policies.”

This opinion was confirmed by Jerome Corsi in an article last week on World Net Daily, in which he reported that a “leaked copy of the TPP draft makes clear in Chapter 15, ‘Dispute Settlement,’ that the Obama administration intends to surrender U.S. sovereignty to an international tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising under the TPP. Disputes concerning interpretation and application of the TPP agreement, according to Article 15.7, will be adjudicated by an “arbitral tribunal” composed of three TPP members.

He states, “Because the TPP agreement places arbitral tribunals created under TPP to be above U.S. law, the Obama administration’s negotiation of the Trans-Pacific pact without specific consultation with Congress appears aimed at creating a judicial authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. The judicial entity could overrule decisions U.S. Federal District and Circuit courts make to apply U.S. laws and regulations to foreign corporations doing business within the United States. The result appears to allow foreign companies doing business within the United States to operate in a legal and regulatory environment that would give the foreign companies decided economic advantages over U.S. companies that remain subject to U.S. laws and regulations.”

Another group opposing the TPP is Americans for Limited Government , a lobbying group and advocacy organization which describes itself as a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties President Bill Wilson states, “This new trade agreement will place domestic U.S. firms that do not do business overseas at a competitive disadvantage. Foreign firms under this trade pact could conceivably appeal federal regulatory and court rulings against them to an international tribunal with the apparent authority to overrule our sovereignty. If foreign companies want to do business in America, they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Obama is negotiating a trade pact that would constitute a judicial authority higher than even the U.S. Supreme Court that could overrule federal court rulings applying U.S. law to foreign companies. That is unconstitutional. The U.S. cannot be allowed to enter a treaty that would abrogate our Constitution.”

As a director on the board of the American Jobs Alliance, an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization, I wish to point out some of the additional problems with the TPP that are cited on our website:

TPP Undermines Our Sovereignty and Democracy – it is misleadingly called a trade agreement when in fact it is an expansive system of enforceable global government.  Only two of its 26 chapters actually cover trade issues, like cutting border taxes (“tariffs”) or lifting quotas that limit consumer choice. In reality, most of the deal would impose one-size-fits all international rules to which U.S. federal, state and local law must conform. This includes limits on the U.S. government’s right to regulate foreign investors operating here and control our natural resources and land use. TPP also would provide preferential treatment to foreign banks and other firms operating here. The pact would subject the U.S. to the jurisdiction of two systems of foreign tribunals, including World Bank and United Nations tribunals. These foreign tribunals would be empowered to order payment of U.S. tax dollars to foreign firms if U.S. laws undermined the foreign firms’ new special TPP privileges.

TPP Threatens States Rights – the agreement undermines the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution, which reserves many rights to the people or state governments. TPP would obligate the federal government to force U.S. states to conform state laws to 1,000 pages of rules, regulations and constraints unrelated to trade? from land use to whether foreign firms operating in a state can be required to meet the same laws as domestic firms.

The U.S. federal government would be required to use all possible means – including law suits, and cutting off federal funds for states – to force states to comply with TPP rules. Already a foreign tribunal related to the World Trade Organization has issued a ruling explicitly stating that such tactics must be employed against U.S. states or the U.S. would face indefinite trade sanctions until state laws were brought into compliance.

TPP bans Buy American – it explicitly prohibits both Buy American and state-level Buy Local programs.

UN and World Bank Tribunals Would Replace U.S. Courts – the “Investment” chapter would submit the U.S. to the jurisdiction of international tribunals established under the auspices of the United Nations or World Bank. It would shift decisions over the payment of U.S. tax dollars away from Congress and outside of the federal court system established by Article III of the Constitution to the authority of international tribunals. These UN and World Bank tribunals do not apply U.S. law, but rather international law set in the agreement. These tribunals would judge whether foreign investors operating within the U.S. are being provided the proper property rights protections. The standard for property rights protection would not be those established by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather international property rights standards, as interpreted by an international tribunal.

TPP Cedes a Quarter of all U.S. Land to Foreign Control (544 million acres of public land)  – it would subject to the foreign tribunals’ judgment all contracts between the U.S. federal government and investors from TPP nations – including  subsidiaries of Chinese firms –  “with respect to natural resources that a national authority controls, such as for their exploration, extraction, refining, transportation, distribution, or sale; to supply services to the public on behalf of the Party, such as power generation or distribution, water treatment or distribution, or telecommunications; or to undertake infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, canals, dams, or pipelines, that are not for the exclusive or predominant use and benefit of the government.”

In conclusion, the TPP is a direct threat to American national sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution and American-owned businesses. TPP would destroy American jobs and our independence. It would have a negative impact on jobs, the safety of our food, Internet freedom, our right to ‘Buy American,’ and our laws. 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.

Please join me in opposing granting fast-track authority by signing the petition at the American Jobs Alliance website: www.americanjobsalliance.com. In addition, email, write, or call your Congressional representative to let them know that you oppose approving the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, National security, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Could California Manufacturing Thrive Again?

February 20th, 2013

On February 14, about 135 business, civic, academic, and labor leaders met at the conference facilities of AMN Healthcare for the “Manufacturing in California – Making California Thrive” economic summit. Comments to welcome attendees were made in turn by San Diego City Councilman Mark Kersey, Assembly member Marie Waldron, Dale Bankhead from Assembly member Toni Atkins office, and Senator Mark Wyland.

Then, Michael Stumo, president of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, provided an overview of the schedule for the day that included an overview of manufacturing in California, a panel of local manufacturers, a panel of national presenters, and breakout sessions after lunch.

I provided the overview of California manufacturing in which I briefly discussed the history of manufacturing in California that I wrote about in a previous blog and pointed out that even though California is perceived as bad for manufacturing, it is the 8th largest market in world and ranks first in manufacturing for both jobs and output. Manufacturing in California accounts for 11.7% of Gross State Product and 9% of workforce. California leads the nation in monies spent on R&D, and California companies received over 50% of all Venture Capital dollars invested in the U. S. in 2011. California high-tech exports also ranked first nationwide, totaling $48 billion in 2011.

The major manufacturing industries are shown by the following chart:

Besides the great weather, California also has world-famous research institutions and research universities, a skilled, educated workforce, a large pool of inventors/entrepreneurs, and strong networks of “angel” investors and venture capitalists. California inventors and entrepreneurs are supported by more than 20 business incubators throughout the state, including two incubator facilities in San Diego – EvoNexus and the San Diego Technology Incubator, as well as the incubator-without-walls, CONNECT’s Springboard program.

In addition, California has 40 Enterprise Zones throughout the state, two of which are in San Diego’s south county. Enterprise Zone companies are eligible for substantial tax credits:

  • Hiring Credits – Firms can earn $37,440 or more in state tax credits for each qualified employee hired
  • Up to 100% Net Operating Loss (NOL) carry-forward for up to 15 years under most circumstances.
  • Sales tax credits on purchases of up to $20 million per year of qualified machinery and machinery parts;
  • Up-front expensing of certain depreciable property
  • Unused tax credits can be applied to future tax years
  • Enterprise Zone companies can earn preference points on state contracts.

There are also 17 Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) in California that are sites in or near a U.S. Customs port of entry where foreign and domestic goods are considered to be in international trade. Goods can be brought into zone without formal Customs entry or without incurring Customs duties/excise taxes until they are imported into the U. S. FTZs are intended to promote U.S. participation in trade and commerce by eliminating or reducing the unintended costs associated with U.S. trade laws

Of course, no overview would be complete without mentioning the disadvantages of manufacturing in California. In the Small Business Entrepreneur Council Survival Index of 2011, California ranks 46th for its business climate because of the following:

  • Highest personal income & capital gains taxes
  • Highest corporate income & capital gains taxes
  • Highest gas and diesel taxes
  • High state minimum wage
  • High electric utility costs
  • High workers’ compensation costs
  • More stringent Cal OSHA & Cal EPA regulations
  • Stringent Air Quality Monitoring District rules
  • Large number of health insurance mandates

As a result, California has lost over 500,000 manufacturing jobs since the year 2001 as shown by the chart below.

No state, county, or city agency keeps track of the number of manufacturing companies leaving California, but there are frequent anecdotal stories in the news. Of course, everyone had seen or heard one of the ads by Texas Governor Rick Perry to woo California companies to relocate to Texas, as well as the fact that he was in California that very week to meet with some California companies.

I then moderated a panel of the following local manufacturers, who gave their viewpoints of the challenges of doing business in California:

  • Karl Friedrich Haarburger – VP, Solar Energy Industrial Operations, SOITEC
  • Neal Nordstrom – COO, PureForge
  • Rick Urban – COO, Quality Controlled Manufacturing, Inc.
  • Paul Brown – CFO, The Wheat Group
  • Craig Anderson – EHS Director, Solar Turbines, Inc.

Their comments provided examples of most of the above-cited disadvantages of doing business in California with particular emphasis on the problems of raising taxes retroactively in the last election by the passage of Proposition 30. Neal Nordstrom said, “It isn’t just the increase in income taxes and sales taxes, it’s the cumulative effect of all of the taxes and the uncertainty of what is happening next.” Businesses need to be able to have some certainty in their planning, so passing retroactive taxes makes planning for the future difficult and hurts their profitability greatly.

Mr. Anderson commented that there biggest problem was caused by the passage of AB 32. He stated, “The technology to comply with AB 32 does not currently exist, so there is great uncertainty as to whether Solar Turbines will be able to comply with the law by the deadline for compliance.”

Greg Autry, School of Business and Economics, Chapman University, led off the national panel with the topic of Trade Policy. The U. S. had a trade deficit $559.8 billion in 2011, of which over half ($295.4 billion) was with China. Every trade agreement signed in the past 20 years has resulted in an increase trade deficit with our trading partners. The U. S. already has an increased trade deficit with Korea and Columbia from the recently signed trade agreements. He said, “States need to stop trying to “poach” companies from other states and work together against our common adversary, China. States cannot compete against another country where the government is subsidizing manufacturing companies to take control of markets.” Mr. Autry showed a video he had taped during a visit to China in which an employee of Foxconn stated that the Chinese government had provided the land and built the facility where the iPads and iPhone are being manufactured without cost to Foxconn, as well as covering all of the expenses for running the facility for three years. He also showed a video interview with an executive of CODA Automotive Inc. that has opened its HQ in Los Angeles and claims to be making their electric car in the U. S. when, in fact, they are importing the “glider” (a car without the drive train) from China. Miles Automotive partnered with China-based Hafei Saibao Electric Motor Car and Qingyuan Electric Vehicle Co. to establish Coda Automotive as an affiliate company. Mr. Autry opined that federal tax rebates should not be going to purchase an electric car for essentially a Chinese import to the detriment of American car manufacturers like General Motors.

Pat Choate – Economist; Author, Saving Capitalism: Keeping America Strong, covered the importance of the protection of Intellectual Property to the future of American manufacturing. He said that the U. S. is the most innovative country in the world and issues more patents than any other country. However, the recent passage of the America Invents Act converting the U. S. from a “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” is hurting our innovation. Most growth comes from “disruptive” technology developed by inventors/entrepreneurs of small companies, and the “first-to-file favors large companies that can file a challenge against these small companies in the hopes of bankrupting them to avoid disruptive technology from harming their business. The length of time for the Patent Office to issue a patent has increased from an average of 18 months to 36 months, which is hurting startup companies. The share of patents granted to U. S. residents and small entities has dropped several percentage points since 2007.1988.  He concluded by saying that the constitutionality of the America Invents Act is being challenged, and he hopes that it will be deemed unconstitutional.

Michael Stumo – CEO, Coalition for a Prosperous America, described the math about how a consumption tax could reduce the domestic tax burden, include imports in our tax base, and narrow the trade deficit, increase U.S. production, and fund reductions in the income tax while maintaining progressivity. He explained that our national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) equals of Consumption plus Investment plus Government Procurement plus Net Exports (Total exports minus Total Imports). Every one of our trading partners (150 countries) has a form of consumption tax, including value added taxes (VATs), with an average 17% level. These countries rebate these taxes on their exports, while the U. S. does not add a tax on its imports. The taxes are “border adjustable” because they act as a tariff on our goods sent to them and charged the VAT. This has created our more than $500 billion trade deficit with our trading partners, $298 billion with China alone. CPA advocates changes in U. S. trade policy to address this unfairness which tremendously distorts trade flows.

Thea Lee – Deputy Chief of Staff, President’s Office at AFL-CIO spoke passionately on the need to have a national manufacturing strategy that will create good paying jobs for American workers. Key points that she made were: We need to have a longer-term goal of what kind of country we want to be and how to achieve it. It will require some strategic investment in infrastructure. We need to figure out what kind of trade we want and what other countries are doing. Having an ideological position that free trade is good when other countries are pursuing mercantilism is harmful. We need to be responsive to what other countries are doing. We need to have a competitive trade policy. The ultimate goal is not to have more free trade but more prosperity at home. We need to get back into a job creation policy. We haven’t done trade policy very well, and we need to rethink our trade policies. We don’t need more dopey free trade agreements (taken from notes but not verbatim quotes.)

After lunch, the attendees were split into three groups for the breakout session, in which five issues were discussed and voted against each other, one pair at a time, to determine the top two issues. The five issues were:

  • Trade Reform
  • Tax Reform
  • Intellectual Property
  • Regulatory Reform
  • Manufacturing Strategy

After voting, the groups reconvened to share the outcome of their voting. The top two issues voted as most critical to be addressed were:  Regulatory Reform and Manufacturing Strategy. Regulatory Reform was chosen as the top issue by all three groups because they felt manufacturers needed to have their immediate “pain” alleviated before other issues could be considered. A manufacturing strategy was deemed the second most important issue because if you have a strategy that supports manufacturing, it will encompass intellectual property protection and trade reform. Attendees were invited to sign up to participate in a Task Force to be formed. I will be chairing the Task Force, so please contact me at michele@savingusmanufacturing.com if you would like to participate.

If our elected representatives will work with business, civic, academic, and labor leaders, I believe we can make manufacturing in California thrive again and once more be the “Golden State” of opportunity.

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

What is the State of the American Metal Forming and Fabricating Industry

February 12th, 2013

The Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) held an executive conference in Irvine on February 6-7, 2013 for their forming and fabricating members. Attendees came from as far away as Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio. The companies represented ranged in size from a low of 50 employees to a high of 350 employees.

On the first day, the schedule of events included presentations on business conditions and benchmarking by PMA President, Bill Gaskin. Mr. Gaskin reported that the metal forming and fabricating industry had sustained 40 months of a general upturn in business since the Great Recession officially ended in the summer of 2009.

In 2011, orders were up 8% over 2010, and shipments were up 11% over 2010. The Year to Date figures through November for 2012 showed an upturn of 6% for orders and 5% for shipments based on the control group of 100 member companies. Employment was up 4.3% on the average, and 34% of companies had openings for skilled workers.

Other good news was that metal prices in general had gone down by about 50% since 2011, except for copper and high nickel stainless steel alloys. In turn, prices that the companies get for scrap material have dropped.

Then, Kathie Poindexter, Manager of Production Marketing of Epicor Manufacturing gave a presentation on “Maximize Lean Strategies with Mobile Technologies on the Plant Floor. One of the top business drivers is utilizing an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) strategy to reduce cost of operations (44%) and because workers are increasingly mobile (39%).

About 35% of manufacturers provide front-line workers with mobile devices to increase worker productivity and improve collaboration. Some of the benefits of utilizing hand-held mobile devices on the shop floor in conjunction with Epicor’s ERP software solutions are:

  • Asset tracking
  • Real-time equipment usage
  • Electronic Kan Ban
  • Instant inventory counts
  • Electronic work orders
  • Maintenance scheduling
  • Quality and error proofing
  • Labor tracking per job or piece of equipment
  • Real-time production management
  • Support for lean initiatives
  • Improved decision making
  • Increased management effectiveness

Laptops, tablets, and “smart” phones utilized by field sales and service personnel provide “business anywhere, anytime” benefits:

  • Instant quotes
  • Real-time inventory
  • Immediate order processing
  • Real-time delivery status

After this presentation, the group was bused to the nearby facility of MK Products/MK Manufacturing to see how the Epicor ERP solutions have been utilized by the company. MK Products is a privately owned company, founded in 1966, to manufacture a full line of Push-Pull welding products and Orbital welding systems, welding “guns” and fusion tube welding products. The sister company, MK Manufacturing, performs contract design, engineering, and manufacturing services, including machining, fabrication, processing, and assembly.

Chris Westlake, President, conducted the tour of the over 100,000 sq. ft. facility and gave an enthusiastic description of how they have utilized the Epicor ERP solutions and hand-held mobile devices from the initial concept design to manufacturing, processing, assembly, and shipping. Real-time tracking and retrieval of inventory for use on the shop floor reduced their labor needs and improved efficiency substantially.

After dinner, I gave a presentation on “Returning Manufacturing to America,” focusing on how American metal forming and fabrication manufacturers can use the principles of Total Cost of Ownership  and the Total Cost EstimatorTM developed by Harry Moser of the Reshoring Initiative to help their customers and prospects understand the benefits of returning manufacturing to America.

I presented case studies showing that many manufacturers often make the decision to offshore based on faulty assumptions that prove to be far off from reality in execution. Many times the anticipated cost savings in offshoring have been offset by the hidden costs and risk factors in doing business offshore. This has resulted in an increasing number of companies, even multinational corporations such as General Electric and NCR, to return product line manufacturing to the United States. The Reshoring Initiative estimates that about 10% of manufacturers have “reshored” resulting in 50,000 jobs.

The next day featured breakfast and a tour of the re-opened Amada America, Inc. Solution Center in Buena Park California. The Solution Center is Amada’s equipment showcase and technical center for the western United States. Amada America, Inc. was established in Seattle, Washington in 1971 and has been located in California since 1973. Its company headquarters are located in a nearby building in Buena Park.

Amada America COO and President, Mike Guerin, began the tour with overview of Amada’s history as a company in Japan and America. What was exciting to me was the fact that in 2011 Amada made a decision to manufacture laser-cutting machines in America, opening a new plant recently in Brea, California to do so, with plans to also manufacture turret presses and brakes at the facility in the future.  The main reasons are:  lower labor rates in the U. S. than Japan, reduced transportation costs, and proximity to their major market.

The facility tour was conducted by Joe Greeninger, Division Manager, and featured several new models of fiber laser machines with 3-axis linear drive systems, traditional servo-driven lasers, turret presses, automation equipment, and press brakes.

The technical capabilities of the new fiber laser machines were quite impressive compared to CO2 laser cutting systems. Some of the advantages are:

  • No harmful emissions because they don’t require gas to generate the laser beam
  • Expanded capabilities – can cut copper, brass and titanium in addition to aluminum and steels and can cut thinner gauge material
  • Lower maintenance because there are no mirrors in the laser source

After returning from the tour, the attendees participated in a business roundtable discussion of “hot button” business issues. The top issues were:

Skilled workers  – A few of the companies attending were providing training in-house using ToolingU curriculum and others were using paying for employees to take classes at local community colleges. One of the Illinois companies had an apprenticeship program through the Technology Manufacturing Association in Illinois. California attendees from Walker Corporation mentioned getting training through a private company in San Bernardino, Technical Employment Training, Inc. Training is also available through California’s Manufacturing Extension Program (MEPs), CMTC in southern California and Manex in northern California. I shared information about the new Workshop for Warriors in San Diego providing training for veterans in machining, sheet metal fabrication, welding, and manufacturing software.

Economy – Manufacturers need certainty to be able to plan, and there is no certainty with the fear of sequestration, high federal budget deficits, and national debt. Companies are remaining lean and not adding people unless need to replace someone or need special skills.

One company shared how they reduced utility costs by paining walls white and converting from pneumatic to electric compressors. Another company shared that their utility company did and energy assessment and provided them with free lighting to reduce energy usage.

Health Care – Most of the companies pay for all or most of their employees’ health insurance now, but it will be cheaper to pay penalty when Obamacare goes into full effect. Question is whether they can get and retain skilled employees if do not provide some health care benefit. One company pays for cost of “Medigap” insurance to retain older skilled workers when they qualify for Medicare.

Doing business in California – California attendees reported that their supply chain is going away, their Workers’ Compensation insurance costs are higher, and regulations by Cal OSHA, Cal EPA, and the Air Quality Monitoring District are more stringent than federal regulations. In addition, the cost of living, housing prices, and taxes are higher than other states. The only advantages most could see were the great weather and that California seems to be a hotbed of invention/innovation by startups coupled with a strong angel and Venture Capital investor network.

Sustaining Lean – Attendees agree that you need a lean “champion” and cultural change to succeed. Engaging customers to help and networking with others is important. Setting an annual goal of regularly scheduled Kaizen events is beneficial. The ERP system you use can help of hurt lean sustainability.

Taxes – It is important to get elected representatives at the state and federal level to realize that 60-70% of manufacturers are sub-chapter “S” corporations so they are taxed at the individual rate. Reducing taxes for “C” corporations as is being discussed will not help these companies. The R&D tax credit needs to be made permanent instead of renewed every year. The Value Added Taxes (VATs) charged by most other countries were discussed, but no one thought they would be seriously considered in the near future.

Suggestions for the next executive conference included having a sub-group for technical personnel to share knowledge and case studies on how to make particular parts and having a tour of a metal forming and fabricating member company near the conference location.

It is great that the U. S. metal forming and fabricating industry has remained strong, but it would be even better if more manufacturing sectors were doing as well so they could be providing more jobs. One of the reasons that metal forming and fabricating industry is so doing so well is that new, state-of-the-art equipment is very automated and highly efficient so it is less labor intensive than many other manufacturing industries. Transportation costs for metal parts, especially larger parts, cost more than plastic or rubber parts so there is more incentive for original equipment manufacturers to use vendors that are closer to them. This means that there has been less outsourcing offshore for metal formed and fabricated parts than plastic and rubber parts. As transportation costs and labor rates increase even more than they already have, there will be even less incentive to offshore metal formed and fabricated parts in the future.

 

Posted in Manufacturing, Outsourcing | 1 Comment »

What Do American Manufacturers Owe Their Country?

February 5th, 2013

Last week The Economist conducted an on-line debate on the question:  Do multinational corporations have a duty to maintain a strong presence in their home countries? After a very intense written debate between Harry Moser, former president of GF AgieCharmilles  and founder of the Reshoring Initiative, and Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor of Economics and Law, Columbia University, the vote was 54% “yes,” and 46% “no.”

The moderator of the debate was Tamzin Booth, European business correspondent for The Economist, who introduced the topic by stating, “after the Great Recession, with high levels of unemployment persisting in rich countries, politicians are putting enormous pressure on firms to either keep operations at home or bring them back. The offshoring and outsourcing of work overseas have never been more unpopular. So strong is the backlash against firms which shift jobs abroad that many companies are choosing not to do it for fear of igniting a public outcry. And a “reshoring” trend, bringing factories home to America from China and elsewhere, is gathering pace and support from several American multinationals, including General Electric and Ford Motor Company.”

While Mr. Moser acknowledges that multinational corporations (MNCs) “have a responsibility to enhance shareholder return and obey relevant laws and regulations,” he believes that “MNCs also have a duty to maintain a strong presence in their country of origin,” which he defines “as investing, employing, manufacturing and sourcing at least in proportion to their sales in the origin country.”

He states, “This duty has two sources. The first is a quid pro quo for the special benefits that their charter provides. The second is based on understanding that a strong presence is almost always in the interest of their shareholders.”

In his pro argument for the first duty, Mr. Moser quotes Clyde Prestowitz: “Corporations are not created by the shareholders or the management. Rather they are created by the state. They are granted important privileges by the state (limited liability, eternal life, etc). They are granted these privileges because the state expects them to do something beneficial for the society that makes the grant. They may well provide benefits to other societies, but their main purpose is to provide benefits to the societies (not to the shareholders, not to management, but to the societies) that create them.”

This view is corroborated by a recent essay, “The American Corporation,” by Ralph Gomory and Richard Sylla, in which they provide a brief history of corporation formation in America. From 1790 to 1860, over 22,000 corporations were chartered under special legislative acts by states, and

several thousand more were chartered under general incorporation laws introduced in the 1840s and 1850s. These state granted charters were not perpetual and had to be renewed periodically, “with its “powers, responsibilities?including to the community?and basic governance provisions carefully specified.”

The essayists comment that general incorporation laws were the answer to the problem of corruption in legislative chartering, but created their own problems in the late 19th Century with the rise of “Robber Barons, both the business leaders who amassed great power and wealth in the rise of mass-production and mass-distribution industries, and the great financiers of Wall Street who collaborated with them.” The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of so few led to the passage of antitrust laws and corporate regulations at both the federal and state levels regulations in the 20th Century to prevent or rein in monopolies.

The stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression resulted in a multitude of “New Deal” reforms and regulations on the corporate and financial sectors to protect and inform stockholders and the general public.

Gomory and Sylla write that for decades after WWII, “the problem of corporate goals seemed under control,” and “the interests of managers, stockholders workers, consumers and society seemed well aligned” while the U. S. and the Soviet Union were fighting a Cold War.

As late as 1981, the U. S. Business Roundtable issued a statement recognizing the stewardship obligations of corporations to society:  “Corporations have a responsibility, first of all, to make available to the public quality goods and services at fair prices, thereby earning a profit that attracts investment to continue and enhance the enterprise, provide jobs, and build the economy.” In addition, “The long-term viability of the corporation depends upon its responsibility to the society of which it is a part. And the well being of society depends upon profitable and responsible business enterprises.”

Establishing plants in another country in order to do business in that country and be closer to your customers is a reasonable business decision for many companies whose products are sold globally, such as Coca Cola and other food and beverage manufacturers. I concur with Mr. Moser’s statement. “We do not question multinational companies’ right to invest offshore.” However, it is another thing to transfer all or most of the manufacturing of your products to be sold mainly in the U. S. market to another country, at the cost of hundreds, if not thousands, of American jobs.

This brings us to Mr. Moser’s second pro argument to the question; namely, “a strong presence is almost always in the interest of their shareholders.” He states that his experience with the Reshoring Initiative’s free Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ has shown that “in their excessive focus on offshoring of manufacturing, many MNCs make suboptimal decisions, actually reducing the long-term return to their shareholders. Thus many MNCs will more fully maximise returns for shareholders if they maintain a stronger presence.”

This is because most MNCs do not accurately measure the “Total Cost of Ownership” or “landed costs” in making decisions regarding where to manufacture their products. They ignore the “hidden costs” of doing business offshore about which I have written extensively in my book , such as:  quality problems, legal liabilities, currency fluctuations, travel expenses, difficulty in making design changes, time and effort to manage offshore contract, and cost of inventory.

In addition, Mr. Moser states that the behaviors of MNCs include:

  • “Ignoring a whole range of medium-term risks: IP loss; impact on innovation; and loss of competence and control due to increasing reliance on offshore outsourcing firms. The further a firm is removed from the manufacturing of its products, the harder it is to evolve and make future related products.
  • Ignoring longer-term catastrophic risks associated with shifting their presence offshore, including the decline in American economic, technological and military strength: risk of losing sales and assets in developing countries, especially when competing with local state-owned enterprises (SOEs); loss of the government-funded R&D that gives them a head start in many technologies; loss of strong origin-country defence and legal systems that protect the corporate charter; loss of “Pax Americana” that protects their trade around the world; and populist calls for anti-MNC political actions resulting from income inequality driven by a shriveling middle class.”

One important risk that Mr. Moser did not mention is the risk of theft of Intellectual Property by offshore manufacturers, especially in China. For many years, China has been doing this by reverse engineering, counterfeiting, and cyber espionage, but it has been made easier in the past two years by the mandatory technology transfer required by the Chinese government for corporations who set up plants in China.

In his con argument, Professor Bhagwati asserts that global sourcing and locating plants around the world has happened already, and “there is little point in tilting at reality.” He states, “Multinationals’ products, after all, can now hardly even be defined as American, French or any other nationality when their parts come from every corner of the world. All that matters, he argues, is that worldwide operations bring profits to the multinational, thereby benefiting the country in which it is headquartered. , “MNC investment abroad is good, not bad, for America unless it is a result of distorting tax policies that lead to overinvestment abroad. Asking MNCs to have a presence at home, and subsidising or forcing them under threat of penalties to do so, makes little sense unless you claim that this presence produces some externalities…the benefits to the MNC, and hence to America most likely, will accrue regardless of where the MNC does R&D, in Bangalore or Boston.”

In is rebuttal, Professor Bhagwati states, “Compelling an American MNC to retain a strong presence in America would be the wrong prescription no matter which of the two rationales you accept…Forcing them to produce at home when that makes them uncompetitive in world markets is surely the wrong prescription: it makes them uncompetitive in markets which today are fiercely competitive.

While I realize and have written about the fact that American manufacturers are under a disadvantage in dealing with countries like China that practice “predatory mercantilism,” it is my opinion that American multinational and national manufacturing corporations have more than a “duty to maintain a strong presence in their home countries.” As American citizens, we “pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Thus, we owe “allegiance” to our country, which is defined as “the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government.” Other synonyms are:  fidelity, faithfulness, adherence, and devotion.

Obviously, if you are a loyal, faithful, devoted citizen of the United States this means that you take actions in your personal and business life to support your country and do not purposely take actions that may cause harm to your country. Moving a majority of manufacturing to other countries, especially China is doing harm to your country since China has a written plan to replace the United States as the world’s super power. Therefore, American multinational corporations and other American manufacturers owe allegiance to the United States of America by maintaining a strong presence in our country.

 

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

Congress Hasn’t Averted the Real Fiscal Cliff

January 15th, 2013

The “kick the can” legislation that passed in the wee hours of January 1st didn’t address the real economic issues threatening a fiscal cliff for the United States ? the massive trade deficit and the rapidly escalating national debt. This article will show how these two economic issues are interrelated.

The trade deficit grew from a low of $91 million in 1969 to a peak of $698.3 billion in 2008, dropping down to$379 billion in 2009 due to the worldwide recession before climbing back up to $559.8 billion in 2011. Final figures for 2012 are not available yet, but the trade deficit through the first 11 months of 2012 is running at an annual rate of $546.6 billion.

Our trade deficit with China grew from only $6 million in 1985 to a high of $295.4 billion in 2011, after it had dropped down to $226.8 billion in 2009 during the recession. China’s portion of America’s trade deficit has nearly tripled ? from 22 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2009 and 52.7 percent in 2011. In the 11 years since China joined the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China has grown by 330 percent.

The national debt has grown from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $16.4 trillion on January 12th. As of July 2012, $5.3 trillion or approximately 48% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.

“The estimated population of the United States is 314,243,893 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $52,304.77. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.84 billion per day since September 28, 2007!”

As you can see, the debt accelerated after the economic collapse in the fall of 2008 and has continued to accelerate since because of the recession, automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement, as well as stimulus spending. The all-time record of increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion was set by President Bush in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008 to avert the economic collapse of major banks and Wall Street companies. “Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically, which accounts for nearly half of the deficit.”

According to Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, “The single biggest threat to our economic future … is our exploding national debt, driven by runaway deficit spending, changing demographics and unsustainable entitlements,” he said in his annual “State of American Business” address.

The reason why our massive trade deficit and escalating national debt are interrelated is that they share a common factor:  the American manufacturing industry and the jobs it generates or the jobs it has lost.

According to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, the U. S lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs in the decade of 2000 to 2010, more than the total number of manufacturing jobs than the rate of loss in the Great Depression (33.1 % vs. 30.9%). Manufacturing jobs now only make up 9% of the American workforce, down from about 14% in 2000. Two million manufacturing jobs were lost in the Great Recession, adding to the 3.7 million we had already lost. Less than 10% have returned since the end of the recession. The report concludes:

  • A large share of manufacturing jobs was lost in the last decade because the United States lost its competitive edge for manufacturing. It was due to a failure of U.S. policy, not superior productivity.
  • The loss was cataclysmic and unprecedented, and it continues to severely impact the overall U.S. economy.
  • Regaining U.S. manufacturing competitiveness to the point where America has balanced its trade in manufacturing products is critical to restoring U.S. economic vibrancy.
  • Regaining manufacturing competitiveness will create millions of higher-than-average-wage manufacturing jobs, as well as an even greater number of jobs from the multiplier effect on other sectors of the economy.
  • The United States can restore manufacturing competitiveness and balance manufacturing goods trade within less than a decade if it adopts the right set of policies in what can be termed the “four T’s” (tax, trade, talent, and technology).

The Economic Policy Institute briefing paper, “The China Toll,” written by Robert Scott focuses on the effects of our trade deficit with China. He wrote, “Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost more than 2.7 million jobs between 2001 and 2011, with job losses in every state.”

“Between 2001 and 2011, the trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced more than 2.7 million U.S. jobs, over 2.1 million of which (76.9 percent) were in manufacturing. These lost manufacturing jobs account for more than half of all U.S. manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between 2001 and 2011.”

The growing trade deficit with China has been a prime contributor to the crisis in U.S. manufacturing employment. When you take into account the multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs creating three to four other jobs, the U. S. has lost six to eight million jobs as a result of the trade deficit with China alone. The Department of Commerce estimates that each $1 billion in trade deficit translates to about 13,000 lost jobs, so the $559.8 billion in the total trade deficit for 2011 represents a loss of 7,277,400 jobs. This explains why we have had a virtually jobless recovery since the end of the recession and why the unemployment rate has stayed high for so long.

The average manufacturing job nationwide pays about $40,000 per year ($20/hour). According to the 2012 federal tax table, a person making that amount of money would pay about $4,000 to $5,000 per year in taxes, depending on whether they are single or have one dependent. Without doing the complicated math to calculate the number of lost manufacturing jobs each year times the taxes those workers would have paid, you can see that the result could be trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue since the year 2000.

Adding this lost tax revenue to the cost of an unemployed worker in the form of unemployment benefits (about $15,000 year for a $40,000/year job) and possibly food stamps, you can understand the major cause of why our national debt has escalated so dramatically in the last ten years. We could raise income taxes to the highest rates of European countries such as Sweden (75%) and still not be able to pay down our national debt. The solution is not raising taxes, it is creating more tax payers, especially those employed in the higher paying jobs of the manufacturing industry. Our trade policies that result in such huge trade deficits and loss of manufacturing jobs have transformed taxpayers into tax consumers.

Because of our trade deficit with China and our national debt, we are essentially writing two checks to China every month:  one to pay for the cost of the imports we buy and the other to pay for the cost of borrowing money from China to pay for the cost of running our government.  By maintaining this trade deficit, we are sending our tax revenue to China; then, we borrow a portion of it back to pay our expenses. This is unsustainable!

We are at a cross roads in our country. We must change our tax, trade, and regulatory policies to rebuild our manufacturing industry to increase the number of taxpayers if we ever want to pay down our national debt, reduce our unemployment rates, and avoid economic collapse.

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, National security | No Comments »

Indiana Manufacturers Have Weathered the Storm of the Great Recession

December 18th, 2012

According to results of the 2012 Indiana Manufacturing Survey: “Halftime” for Indiana Manufacturing, Indiana manufacturers have weathered the storm of the Great Recession and are well positioned to compete in the future., The report, commissioned by Katz, Sapper & Miller certified public accounting firm, was conducted by Scott A. Brown, Partner, Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP in conjunction with Mark Frohlich, associate professor of operations management and Steven Jones, associate professor of finance  on the faculty of the Kelley School of Business Indianapolis, Indiana University.

This report has tracked Indiana manufacturing for six years, from the end of the economic boom through the Great Recession to the present. The authors “view the past year as a ‘halftime’ break for Indiana manufacturing after what proved to be an incredibly difficult first half.”

The vast majority of companies surveyed (82%) responded at the company level, while 10% are individual plants and 7% are divisions of larger organizations. Privately owned companies represent 87% of respondents and the other 13% are publicly traded companies. The average number of employees is 306, and the largest organization has 8,000 employees.

About 40% of companies rely on job shop-type production, and 41% use batch manufacturing. Very few companies operate assembly lines (8%) or continuous flow processes (11%), both of which are capital intensive and used to produce relatively standardized, high-volume items.

The three largest industry groups represented are industrial equipment (19%), automotive (19%), and aerospace and defense (10%). Another 18% of respondents are almost evenly distributed between high-tech (5%), healthcare (6%), and furniture/home goods (7%).

In the past four years since the financial crisis of late 2008, “manufacturers have faced challenges ranging from credit crunches and supplier bankruptcies to slumping consumer demand, soaring energy costs, and relentless foreign competition.” The report chronicles that “in 2008-09, Indiana manufacturers were mainly focused on cost-cutting and economic survival. By 2010-11, targeted investments aimed at growth began to reappear on the agendas of many manufacturers.” Now, four years later, “a significant majority now report that their business is either ‘healthy’ or ‘stable,’ with tougher times behind them” and “investment for growth is a priority for many companies around the state,” while “almost three out of every four manufacturers surveyed are investing for growth.”

“From a financial perspective, I think it small- to medium-sized manufacturers have made it through the Great Recession, and they’re starting to recover,” said Jones. “That is revealed in the survey responses indicating there’s less concern about working capital management and renewed focus on investment strategy, rather than cost cutting.”

“One in 10 companies surveyed plan to open new manufacturing facilities in Indiana over the next two years, and 44 percent rate their financial performance as “healthy,” a significant increase from last year’s response of 30 percent.”

The survey did find that net profit margins increased more for firms that introduced new products sometime in the two years prior. In the 2012 survey findings, the companies introducing new products increased to 44% (up from 38% in 2011), and they saw a 24% improvement in net profit margin (down from 26% in 2011.

According to survey 2012 survey results, business strategies have changed from 2011. In 2011, “the two most important underlying dimensions were superior product design and fast and reliable delivery along with superior customer service.” In 2012, “superior quality and lower selling prices have emerged as the two most important underlying dimensions on which manufacturers are differentiating their businesses.”

The authors “research reveals three key ways strategies are shifting as we move beyond the Great Recession toward a new era that is likely to be even more competitive:”

  1. Keep focused on the customer – strategies increasingly feature superior quality and lower prices, along with superior product design and customer service.
  2. Don’t underestimate the importance of technology – leading-edge technologies are playing a critical role in advancing these companies in conjunction with process improvement programs such as Lean and Six Sigma, advanced automation, and smart manufacturing technologies.
  3. Collaboration remains critical – partnerships and collaboration with up- and downstream customers and suppliers in the supply chain

Frohlich and Jones recommend, “Indiana manufacturing companies stay focused on the customer, avoid underestimating the importance of technology and know that collaboration remains critical.”

“These results indicate a reason to be optimistic about the manufacturing sector and jobs investment in the State of Indiana,” said Jones.

A slightly higher percentage of companies are “on-shoring” (aka “reshoring”) manufacturing back into the United States. When asked if they expect to relocate or onshore any manufacturing back to the United States during 2012-13, or alternatively, do they plan on relocating, or offshoring, any production outside the United States during 2012-2013, 9% indicated they intend to onshore and 8% intend to offshore. The top four reasons why companies are “reshoring” were:  better control over production (60%), proximity to customers and main markets (50%), closer to key suppliers (40%), and reduce total “landed” costs; i.e., customs/duties, transportation, warehousing, etch (40%). The main reasons for offshoring manufacturing out of the United States are:  lower offshore labor costs and proximity to customers in new markets.

“What now are recognized as systematic errors in offshoring over the past 10-15 years were a lot of mistakes based on myopic financial decision making,” said Jones. “Firms made offshoring decisions assuming exchange rates wouldn’t change, which is wholly unrealistic in currency markets. Many made these financial decisions using only the data in front of them. Additionally, the real cost of labor has gone up in China. All of this represents what, in retrospect, may be an excessive amount of offshoring in the previous decade.”

The survey revealed that the main reasons for Indiana’s competitive edge include:

  • Better access to new technologies
  • Better control over production
  • Locations closer to customers, markets and suppliers
  • Great accounting and auditing oversight

The report states, “The major remaining concern for the state is having a trained workforce that is qualified to pursue advanced manufacturing strategies.”

“These results clearly indicate a growing concern about access to an adequately trained Hoosier workforce, more so than in past years,” the report reads. “Consistent with the previous results indicating growing concerns about worker training, only 30 percent of respondents view Indiana’s workforce as a competitive advantage for the state.”

The authors conclude that “While Indiana’s manufacturers still face strong global competition, their practices and products are beginning to permeate all elements of operations; opening up new markets and sources of demand; driving innovation; and even changing industry cost structures.”

This report shows where Indiana’s manufacturers are right now, but the question is what to do next? The report indicates “a strong sense among Indiana’s manufacturers that execution is now the challenge to bringing about the new era of manufacturing. Confidence among business leaders about their progress toward this new era is strong, and their companies are taking concrete steps towards improving manufacturing…While today’s business environment provides a multitude of new challenges to manage, it also offers significant opportunities for those who can master its dynamics.”

The survey found that a new manufacturing era is on the horizon, and “there is widespread agreement about what the next era of manufacturing will look like. It is one where manufacturing is not only a separate strategic initiative, but also something fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company. For example, manufacturers will need to develop a broader sense of what value creation means to customers as a whole.”

The underlying tone in this year’s report is that “the next five years could well determine not only the fate of some firms, but also, in significant ways, the success of Indiana and that of our country in the global economy for years to come…Manufacturing can and should continue to thrive if the right policies and strategies are pursued. Real and fundamental changes are continuing to take place across manufacturing in all kinds of capabilities.”

The authors conclude that “the message is clear: Indiana (and American) manufacturing has survived a tough first half. Now it must move forward to remain competitive in the future.”

This report is another example of how American manufacturers can survive and even grow and prosper in the face of global competition. The companies doing the best have implemented many of the recommendations contained in the chapter ? “What can manufacturers do to save themselves? ? in my book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can. Innovative new products, fast, reliable delivery, superior customer service in conjunction with applying the principles and tools of Lean and Six Sigma are a few of the suggestions from this chapter. I encourage everyone to read the new 2012 edition of my book to find out what you can do as a manufacturer to grow and succeed, what national policies need to be changed and implemented to foster success of this critical sector of our economy, and what you can do as an individual to save American manufacturing.

 

 

Posted in Innovation, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Training | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »