What is the Vision for the Factory of the Future?

August 18th, 2020

In April 2017, the Manufacturing Leadership Council published its “Vision 2030:  The Factory of the Future, which was a Frost & Sullivan White Paper sponsored by General Electric and Intel. In their vision, the factory of the future “will look like an integrated hardware and software system and “is highly automated and information-intensive… fueled by vast quantities of information from every corner of the enterprise and beyond, moderated by analytical systems that can identify and extract insights and opportunities from that information, and comprised of intelligent machines that learn, act, and work alongside highly skilled human beings in safe and collaborative environments.”

The key trends and developments of the factory of the future were identified as:

  • “Digitization  – transforming how manufacturers think about human capital management”
  • “Modularization, with micro factories capable of mass customization using such technologies as 3D printing as well as digital manufacturing technologies”
  • “Manufacturing innovation process will evolve to be more open and extended, with collaborative models that span internal as well as external constituencies”
  • “Supply chains will become highly integrated, increasingly intelligent, and even self-managing”
  • “New business models incorporating outcome-based services will emerge, enabling manufacturers to diversify their revenue streams and provide greater value to customers”
  • “Cognitive computing and analytic techniques will enable production environments to self-configure, self- adjust, and self-optimize, leading to greater agility, flexibility, and cost effectiveness”

The paper also identified four categories of “Mega Trends” that will have implications for manufacturers over the next 15 years:

  • Globalization/Urbanization/Regionalization/Uncertainty:  Global economic forces are “creating shifts in how manufacturers must think about how they design their production and supply networks. As globalization provokes responses such as the erection of trade barriers and as urbanization and the growth of regional economies lead to a demand for localized products and rising labor costs even in previously low-cost areas, manufacturers must continuously recalibrate where and how they produce, whether they outsource, and how they serve emerging markets”
  • Smart/Material/Open/Green: New, smart approaches to innovation…focus on waste reduction fueled by innovations in material science, open systems, and new forms of social collaboration.”
  • Business Model Innovations: Technology forces are transforming the industrial world. “Smart, connected products and real-time analytics will allow manufacturers to sell outcomes-such as jet engine uptime-not just products. This means manufacturers will need to fundamentally rethink their relationships with customers. It also means they will face an entirely new competitive landscape.”
  • Ambient Intelligence: “Advances in technologies such as cloud-based solutions, digital platforms and applications, machine learning, and the Internet of Things are combining to provide all institutions with the unprecedented ability to gain and act on insights.”

Within the Mega Trends, there are “four major themes and eight sub-themes that, taken together, will transform the manufacturing landscape over the next 10-15 years.”  The four major themes are:

Intelligent Design – “personalization and mass customization of products and the location of production closer to the point of consumption”

  • Federated Manufacturing – “Networks of smaller, more nimble factories”
  • Smart Innovations – integrated product design, production, and support processes”  

Services Revolution – “from product-as-a-service to anything-as-a-service model”

  • New Value Networks – “Suppliers will transform from providers of parts to partners in “as-a-service” business models”
  • Outcome-based – “services sold on the basis of usage and guaranteed outcomes”

Platform Revolution – “connected platforms will allow machine learning of a different order…will unleash an era of cognitive learning and improvements.”

  • Connected Platforms – “Enabled by IoT and cloud technologies as well as advanced, real-time analytics, products will become connected platforms, featuring a range of services that will deliver new revenue sources.”
  • Cognitive Platforms – “Connected products-or platforms-will collect vast quantities of usage, performance, and diagnostic data that can be used to improve next-generation designs.”

Human-to-Machine Convergence (Artificial intelligence advancements and robotic process automation)

  • Machine Dominance – “evolving as robots transition from being programmed only to execute repetitive tasks to being collaborative and even sentient”
  • Human Capital Transformation – …manufacturers must clearly define the skills that will be required, take an inventory of current capabilities, and provide tools that enable self-training and skills certification.”

Each of these themes and sub-themes are expanded upon in detail in the body of the paper leading to the authors conclusion that “The general outlines of what future factories and plants will look like are now discernable. They will be organized for greater speed, flexibility, productivity, and efficiency. The people who work in them will be highly skilled about advanced digital technologies and able to work cross-functionally across the connected enterprise…rapidly changing and increasingly sophisticated information and operational technologies are facilitating a shift to mass customization, from mass production, making it possible to satisfy individual needs from transportation to medicine.”

When this paper was published, I was finishing the last chapters of my book Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, published in September 2017.  While I agree with many of the trends, themes, and subthemes of the paper, I completely disagree with their conclusion that “the globalization of manufacturing, powered by the relentless march of technology, will continue…” 

In my chapter, “Advanced Technology is critical to Rebuilding American Manufacturing,” I discuss how “advanced industries” are utilizing new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, 3-D printing/ additive manufacturing, the “digitization of everything, machine learning, and Internet of things (IoT).  As a result, American companies are able to be more competitive in the global market place with domestic production and are returning manufacturing to America through reshoring.  The trend of mass production converting to mass customization and the regionalization of manufacturing and creation of manufacturing networks will also increase the ability of American manufacturers to be able to reshore manufacturing to the USA.

In a Forbes article of Apr 7,2020, “New Data Shows U.S. Companies Are Definitely Leaving China”  Kenneth Rapoza wrote, “U.S. companies are leaving China thanks to the trade war. They’ll leave even more thanks to the pandemic…Last year saw companies actively rethinking their supply chain, either convincing their Chinese partners to relocate to southeast Asia to avoid tariffs, or by opting out of sourcing from China altogether.”

As a director on the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum and as a mentor for CONNECT’s Springboard Program, I have seen how 3D printing/additive manufacturing can accelerate the development of a new product and  enable inventors to have a sample product to show/demonstrate in person or by means of a video to secure potential investors. A 3D printed prototype can be the essential ingredient of a video to do a crowdfunding campaign via Kickstarter or Indiegogo or seek investors. 

I conclude my chapter by saying, “The increased efficiency of additive manufacturing/3-D printing, IoT, and automation/robotics could spell a bright future for American manufacturing. The shift to smart manufacturing using these new technologies will save our corporations money and translate into greater profits, more jobs, and more prosperous economies, locally and nationally. As our manufacturing industry moves into a more complex age, so will our workers and products, ushering in a new era of production.

Tags: , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

U.S. Must Stop Trafficking of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods

August 4th, 2020

One of the dangers of reliance on foreign manufacturers is the increase of U.S. vulnerability to receiving counterfeit goods.  Over the last ten years, there have been several reports prepared to determine the extent of the infiltration of counterfeits into U.S. defense and industrial supply chains, to provide an understanding of industry and government practices that contribute to the problem, and to identify best practices and recommendations for handling and preventing counterfeit electronics.

The first was the Defense Industrial Base Assessment: Counterfeit Electronics prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce on January 2010as a result of a three-year study. “This assessment focused on discrete electronic components, microcircuits, and circuit board products – key elements of electronic systems that support national security, industrial, and commercial missions and operations. A few of the findings of the study were:

  • all elements of the supply chain have been directly impacted by counterfeit electronics
  • companies and organizations assume that others in the supply chain are testing parts;
  • lack of traceability in the supply chain is commonplace
  • there is an insufficient chain of accountability within organizations
  • recordkeeping on counterfeit incidents by organizations is very limited
  • most DOD organizations do not have policies in place to prevent counterfeit parts from infiltrating their supply chain

The Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) made the following key recommendations:

  • Consider establishing a centralized federal reporting mechanism for collecting information on suspected/confirmed counterfeit parts for use by industry and all federal agencies
  • Modify Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), including Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR), to allow for “best value” procurement
  • Require U.S. Government suppliers and federal agencies to systematically report counterfeit electronic parts to the national federal reporting mechanism;
  • Issue clear, unambiguous legal guidance to industry and U.S. federal agencies with respect to civil and criminal liabilities, reporting and handling requirements
  • Establish federal guidance for the destruction, recycling, and/or disposal of electronic systems and parts sold and consumed in the United States
  • Consider establishing a government data repository of electronic parts information and for disseminating best practices to limit the infiltration of counterfeits into supply chains
  • Develop international agreements covering information sharing, supply chain integrity, border inspection of electronic parts shipped to and from their countries, related law enforcement cooperation, and standards for inspecting suspected/confirmed counterfeits

However, implementing these recommendations didn’t solve the problem.  On May 21, 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee released a report as a result of a congressional investigation into counterfeit goods.  “The year-long investigation launched by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee’s chairman, and Ranking Member Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., found a total number of suspect counterfeit parts involved in those 1,800 cases exceeding 1 million.” Counterfeit electronic parts “were uncovered in items ranging from night vision equipment to Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation modules.”

The Committee “discovered counterfeit electronic parts from China in the Air Force’s largest cargo plane, in assemblies intended for Special Operations helicopters, and in a Navy surveillance plane among 1,800 cases of bogus parts.

“Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs,” Levin said. “

As a result, “the Committee adopted an amendment to the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to “address weaknesses in the defense supply chain and to promote the adoption of aggressive counterfeit avoidance practices by DoD and the defense industry.”

In the next four years, progress was made as shown by the follow-up report to Congress of February 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO), which  “found that while the number of counterfeit parts in the DoD supply chain decreased significantly between 2011 and 2015, there were still nearly 50 parts per year that were identified as being counterfeit.  As a percentage of total parts, this was a mere .006% of the DoD supply chain.”

However, a single counterfeit part can have a disastrous impact and identifying counterfeit parts is extremely difficult when they are deliberately manufactured to pass as the “real deal.” Moreover, the threat of counterfeit parts being introduced by U.S. adversaries, such as China, has increased, and these foreign companies are good at figuring out ways to make their counterfeits blend in with other components.

Counterfeit goods are not limited to the defense and industrial supply chain.  The January 24, 2020 report to the President of the United States, “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods,” states, “Counterfeiting is no longer confined to street-corners and flea markets. The problem has intensified to staggering levels…information collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) between 2000 and 2018 shows that seizures of infringing goods at U.S. borders have increased 10-fold, from 3,244 seizures per year to 33,810.”

This report recommended the following immediate actions for the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies:

1.” Ensure Entities with Financial Interests in Imports Bear Responsibility

2. Increase Scrutiny of Section 321 Environment

3. Suspend and Debar Repeat Offenders; Act Against Non-Compliant International Posts

4. Apply Civil Fines, Penalties and Injunctive Actions for Violative Imported Products

5. Leverage Advance Electronic Data for Mail Mode

6. Anti-Counterfeiting Consortium to Identify Online Nefarious Actors (ACTION) Plan

7. Analyze Enforcement Resources

8. Create Modernized E-Commerce Enforcement Framework

9. Assess Contributory Trademark Infringement Liability for Platforms

10. Re-Examine the Legal Framework Surrounding Non-Resident Importers

11. Establish a National Consumer Awareness Campaign”

These recommendations were very timely since there has been a big problem with counterfeit pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment (PPE), and medical devices during the COVID-19 pandemic this year. Counterfeit goods in the healthcare industry can cause immediate loss of lives just like counterfeit parts in the defense industry can cause loss of life for our military personnel in defending our country.

Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has issued three Executive Orders strengthening different aspects of the Buy American Act of 1933: 

EO 13788: “Buy American and Hire American,” April 18, 2017

EO 13858: Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects,” January 31 2019

EO 13881:– “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials,” July 15, 2019

I laud the President’s focus on strengthening the Buy American Act, but the best way to eliminate the problem of counterfeit goods is to return manufacturing to America of all critical goods for our defense and military, as well as our pharmaceutical, PPE, and medical device industries.  This is referred to as “reshoring” by Harry Moser, who founded the Reshoring Initiative in 2010. In an article for Assembly magazine of February 12, 2019, Harry Moser wrote: “The Reshoring Initiative has aggregated consumer surveys from 10 sources, gleaning insight into the preferences of more than 14,000 U.S. consumers. Findings show that there is a decisive preference for U.S.-made goods: 97 percent have a positive view of goods manufactured in the U.S. Americans also have a positive opinion of companies that manufacture in the U.S.: 91 percent believe it is important to manufacture in the U.S. and think the government should take steps to support American manufacturing.”

Only Made in USA products will be able to provide confidence in the quality of the products, but government agencies, the health care industry, and consumers need to know where products are being made to make the choice of buying Made in USA products. Currently, there are limitations of county of origin labeling on products, and no information is provided for products sold on the internet and through catalogs.  We must address this situation if we are truly going to be able to stop trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods. 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Manufacturing is Critical to Our National Defense

July 21st, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Manufacturing is the Engine of American Technology Development and Innovation

July 7th, 2020

The fourth reason why manufacturing is important is that American manufacturers are responsible for more than two-thirds of all private sector R&D, which ultimately benefits other manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. Nearly 60 percent of new patents derive from the manufacturing sector and the closely integrated engineering and technology-intensive services.

Manufacturing R&D is conducted in a wide array of industries and businesses of all sizes. The heaviest R&D expenditures take place in computers and electronics, transportation equipment, and chemicals (primarily pharmaceuticals).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manufacturing is an incubator for technology and science, which require proximity to facilities where innovative ideas can be tested and worker feedback can fuel product innovation. Without this proximity, the science and technology jobs, like customer service jobs, follow the manufacturing jobs overseas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: , ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Manufacturing, Technology | 1 Comment »

Manufacturing Generates Exports

June 23rd, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The top five U. S. export markets:

  • Canada
  • Mexico
  • China
  • Japan
  • United Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in General, Manufacturing, Trade | No Comments »

Manufacturing Jobs Pay Higher Wages than Retail or Service Jobs

June 9th, 2020

Continuing my series on why manufacturing is important to America, the second reason is that wages and benefits for manufacturing jobs are approximately 21 percent higher than for non-manufacturing jobs.

As manufacturing jobs have declined over the past 40 years, the difference between the lowest personal income and highest personal income has steadily grown wider.

This difference was projected to get even worse according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Outlook for 2018-2028. Employment growth was projected to continue to be concentrated in the service-providing sector of the economy.

  • “The service-providing sector as a whole will grow at a projected rate of 0.6 percent annually, slightly faster than the annual rate of 0.5 percent for industry employment overall. This growth is projected to add more than 7.6 million jobs, resulting in 136.8 million jobs in the service-providing sector by 2028. After declining slightly from 2008 to 2018 (-0.3 percent annually), the goods-producing sector is expected to change little from 2018–28, with an annual growth rate of 0.1 percent.
  • The sectors projected to experience the fastest annual employment growth are health care and social assistance (1.6 percent), private educational services (1.2 percent), and construction (1.1 percent). These three sectors alone are projected to add more than 4.6 million jobs by 2028—including 3.4 million new jobs projected in healthcare and social assistance.”

In an opinion article in IndustryWeek magazine, John Madigan, a consultant with Madigan Associate, wrote:

“Jobs paying $20 per hour that historically enabled wage earners to support a middle-class standard of living are leaving the U.S. Public sector aside, only 16% of today’s workers earn the $20-per-hour baseline wage, down 60% since 1979.  Service and transportation jobs, per se, cease to exist in the absence of wealth. Rather, they exist and thrive as by-products of middle-class incomes buying products and services.” (source)

According to Facts about Manufacturing by The Center for Manufacturing Research of The Manufacturing Institute, “In 2018, the average manufacturing worker in the United States earned $87,185 annually, including pay and benefits. The average worker in all nonfarm

industries earned $68,782.  Looking specifically at wages, the average manufacturing worker earned more than $27 per hour, according to the latest figures, not including benefits.”

According to the IndustryWeek 2018 Salary Survey, the average salary for manufacturing management is $110,200. By industry sector, the salary ranged from a low of $88,500 in the textiles/apparel sector to a high of $142,500 in the medical device/lab equipment sector.

The 2018 Manufacturing Compensation Report, sponsored by the SME Education Foundation and the Arconic Foundation, “found an average compensation of $64,014 for hourly workers and $111,731 for salary workers, including base pay, bonus/commission and dividends/stock options/profit sharing, and such perks as a company car and mobile phone. Following the trend in the rest of the country, 68 percent of hourly workers and 73 percent of salary workers reported a wage increase in the last year.”

In this report, Christopher Barger, senior director of communications at SME, said, “There are multiple paths to success and good-paying careers at all levels of manufacturing, and the good news is these jobs are in high demand. Individuals who pursue a career in manufacturing have several options to gain solid training education, be it entering the workforce from high school through apprenticeships or internships, attending a vocational school and getting certifications, or attending community colleges, and obtaining associates or four-year degrees.”

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

If you have the opportunity to visit the modern manufacturing facilities in the U. S., you would see the most productive, highly skilled labor force in the world applying the latest in information, innovation, and technology. Contrary to popular opinion, the industrial age is not over. We are in the midst of incredible advances in manufacturing – from nanotechnology, Industrial Internet of Things, robotics, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology.

The innovation found in the manufacturing industry has helped to increase economic productivity too. Since the Industrial Revolution, the way we produce and consume goods has drastically changed, and it is continual innovation that allowed and continues to allow our country to become increasingly more productive in the services offered.

Automation and robotics have helped keep American manufacturers not only competitive but the most productive in the world. Manufacturing has long led U.S. industries in productivity growth. Gains in productivity raise a country’s standard of living. In the past 20 years, productivity – output per hour – has more than doubled – actually 2.5 times – that of other economic sectors.

There is also a multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs that reflects linkages that run deep into the economy. For example, every 100 steel or automotive jobs create between 400 and 500 new jobs in the rest of the economy. This contrasts with the retail sector, where every 100 jobs generate 94 new jobs elsewhere, and the personal and service sectors, where 100 jobs create 147 new jobs. In addition, for every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, another $2.74 is added to the economy. Thus, this economic data indicates that each manufacturing job creates three to four other jobs, while service jobs only create one to two other jobs.  

Thus, manufacturing is an important vehicle to grow and sustain a higher standard of living for our nation, our states, cities, communities and individual families. The higher wages of manufacturing jobs contribute to a better quality of life while ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing sector to protect the health and welfare of all Americans as well as protect our national security. 

Tags:
Posted in General | 4 Comments »

Why Manufacturing is Important to America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in General | 1 Comment »

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

May 12th, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Are My Heroes? Part Two

April 28th, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Are My Heroes? Part One

April 21st, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »