Posts Tagged ‘American manufacturing’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Are Southern California Trade Shows Recovering from Pandemic Shutdowns?

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023

There have been four trade shows in Southern California that I have either attended or participated as exhibitor this year. The first show I attended was the five in-one show, MD&M West, WestPack, ATX West, D&M West, and Plastec West held February 7-9, 2023 at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, CA. 

These shows take up all of the halls in the largest building of the Anaheim Convention Center complex.  Besides the several hundred companies exhibiting in the show, it also offers educational conferences held by the various trade shows concurrently with the show.

There were five free education stages on the show floor that provided in-depth discussions and instructions from industry experts on the latest need-to-know information for their industry. In addition, there were paid conference sessions in meeting rooms on the second floor.  I attended the IME West conference on February 8th and gave a presentation titled, “The Future of Manufacturing.” I discussed how manufacturing revitalization has been hindered by misperceptions, what is happening in our current period of creative disruption, and what vibrant opportunities exist now and in the future.  I also attended all of the other conference sessions held that day, and they were all well attended.   

When I walked the show on the 7th, it seemed to be as well attended as a pre-pandemic show.  The plastic molding company we represent, Hi-Rel Plastics, exhibited in the MD&M show and was happy with the quantity of their show leads, but the quality of the leads wasn’t as good as pre-COVID shows.

The second show was the Del Mar Electronics & Manufacturing Show held April 26th & 27th at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County.  My company, ElectroFab Sales, has exhibited in the show since 1997, and this year, we had two exhibit booths featuring the fabrication services of four of the ten companies we represent.  I also gave a presentation on the first morning of the show on “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for your Products.”

This show has an extensive free conference schedule both days of the show and also features a free reception at the end of the first day of the show which encourages late afternoon attendees to stay for the reception and skip the worst of rush hour traffic to go home. Another added benefit for attendees is free parking for the show.

We had very good traffic the first day of the show, and more traffic than some previous years on the second day of the show. The second day of the show ends at 3:00 PM so there is less time to collect show leads. We got about 50 leads from our exhibit which was about 30% higher than 2022.  However, there were very few leads from well-established or larger companies.  Most of the leads were entrepreneurs with new products or from small companies designing a new product. 

Show manager, Connor Good, told that the number of booths was up by 25% and attendance was up by 30% over 2022.  He said, “What felt like a long time coming the first year back after the pandemic, attendee numbers were promising. It showed us the industry is ready to get back to business and people are eager to network face to face.”

The third show of the year was the Design-2-Part Show, held September 13th & 14th at the Ontario Convention Center.  This show alternates between held in Long Beach, Pasadena, and Ontario in Southern California. The Design-2-Part shows have been held for 42 years and feature only American manufacturers; no reps or distributors are allowed to exhibit.  An average of 10-11 shows have historically been held around the country each year.

President, Rober Eichner, “We were even able to conduct a show in Texas in 2020 and conducted nine shows around the country in 2021 and 10 shows in 2022.  We have held 11 shows this year and 12 shows are scheduled for 2024.  Show attendance at many of the shows this year approached attendance levels of 2018 and 2019. We purchased the AMCON shows last year, so we plan on holding shows in Denver, CO and Novi, MI in 2024.  We also skipped doing the Santa Clara show last spring, but plan on being back there in 2024.”

This makes these shows the most efficient place to meet hundreds of high-quality American suppliers of custom parts, stock parts, and manufacturing services.

I attended the show on Thursday, September 14th to do booth duty for the rubber molding company we have represented for 29 years, Century Rubber Company.  My husband and partner had done booth duty at the show on the 13th.  He said the show was very busy the first day.  The second day is never as busy because it ends at 3:00 PM, but I thought it was busier than the second day of the Long Beach show in October 2022. 

The last show I attended was the Anaheim Electronics & Manufacturing Show held September 27th & 28th at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, CA.  

This show featured hundreds of companies exhibiting in the following categories:

  • Telecom Manufactures
  • Defense Contractors
  • Plastic and Rubber Molders
  • Medical Device Companies
  • Electronics OEM’s
  • Bio-Pharma Device Manufactures
  • Sports Products Developers
  • Coil Winding
  • Machine Shops
  • Castings
  • Sheet metal fabrication
  • 3D printing…. and More

This show is owned by the same owner as the Del Mar Electronics & Manufacturing Show and allows reps and distributors to exhibit. The same benefits of free parking and a free reception at the end of the first day of the show encourages show attendance.

I attended the show on Thursday, September 28th to walk the show and give a presentation at 1:00 PM on “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for Your Products”

Assistant Show Manager, Connor Good, told me that the number of booths this year was up 30% from the fall 2022 show, and attendance the first day was 20% higher than the both days last year.  He said, “The show was held in the convention center’s newest hall, the ACC North. We tried to combine the easy going and stress-free environment of the Del Mar show with the professionalism and company dense area of Anaheim. We encouraged business development of all sizes and opportunities through free attendance and parking even if signing up on show day.”

There is one more trade show coming up in Southern California this fall

WESTEC/AeroDef

Tuesday, November 7 through Thursday, November 9

Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802

I have been to WESTEC many, many times starting in 1990 when I attended comprehensive technical sessions on manufacturing processes such as investment casting. The amount of time you spend there is well worth the effort. You can literally spend hours and not take in all that there is to offer.

WESTEC has been providing solutions to manufacturing challenges for 58 years. You can see more than 400 exhibitors, face-to-face, at WESTEC — all in one place, over a three-day period. WESTEC gives you face-to-face access to hundreds of experts in critical industries such as aerospace, medical, industrial machinery and consumer goods. You can find new manufacturing technology to make your vision a reality. The variation at WESTEC is vast. Here’s just a small sampling of what you’ll discover at WESTEC:  aerospace manufacturing, castings, forgings, CNC Machining, Waterjet, Advanced Materials, 3D printing, and much more.

WESTEC has manufacturing education sessions that focus on teaching you about new technologies, new processes, and trends that can transform your business. All show floor education is included with the show floor pass. Attendees come from a variety of industries including aerospace, medical, industrial machinery, automotive, and more.

You can sign up to attend at no charge at the official website  www.westeconline.com 

Trade shows are even more important than they once were because most large companies eliminated “vendor days” decades ago where sales reps could schedule appointments with buyers in their purchasing departments.  In addition, many buyers and even engineers are not back to working full-time at their offices and may still be working remotely from home two-three days a week, making it very difficult to connect with them.  Meeting a potential customer at a trade show is the first step in developing a relationship to become a regular vendor for a manufacturer.  Trade shows also provide the opportunity for inventors and entrepreneurs to explore the possible sources for parts, assemblies, and fabrication services for their new products.  Be sure to make it a priority in your schedule to attend a trade show next year.

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

How Could we Reduce Inflation and Balance Foreign Trade & the Federal Budget?

Tuesday, August 1st, 2023

We are now nearing the end of the second year of high inflation, and many are wondering why has it been so hard for the Fed to kill inflation.  Could the Fed improve the efficiency of its inflation fighting and avoid causing a recession? Could it do so in a way that balances both foreign trade and the federal budget?

“Yes” is the answer given by one of my fellow members of the Coalition for a Prosperous American, John R. Hansen, PhD, Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.) and Founding Director of Americans Backing a Competitive Dollar (ABCD), He wrote me that he believes the Fed could do all of this plus fulfill its mandate of economic growth with stable prices more successfully – and brighten the future for all Americans, both now and for generations to come with only a small policy tweak.”

He explained that “each of America’s ten recessions since the late 1950s has been preceded by inflation and significant increases in the Fed Funds Rate (FFR). Higher interest rates and tighter credit obviously increase costs and reduce demand for American goods resulting in inflation. Reduced demand reduces both output from U.S. producers and growth. By increasing the cost of doing business, higher Fed interest rates force businesses to reduce output and fire workers, leading to recessions.”

In his opinion, “today’s Fed faces a key challenge because when the Fed raises the Fed Funds Rate, inflows of foreign-source money dilute the Fed’s efforts to reduce the availability and increase the cost of capital. This makes it harder for the Fed to control inflation. Also, excessive stocks of domestic credit tend to reduce the Fed’s ability to raise banks’ lending rates by normal margins.

He added, “When foreign speculators buy up dollars, they raise the dollar’s exchange rate. This makes foreign goods cheaper than those produced in America, destroying demand for American products both here and abroad. U.S. producers find it increasingly difficult to compete with foreign-made goods and many may go out of business.”

Dr. Hansen has developed a solution to moderate inflows of foreign money to make the Fed’s traditional inflation-fighting tools more effective. — a Market Access Charge (MAC) “on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual. As a one-time charge, the MAC would discourage short-term investors, overseas private investors, and return-sensitive official investors such as sovereign wealth fund managers from excessive speculation and trading in U.S. dollar assets.”

He believes that the Fed “can efficiently and effectively use the MAC as a tool to fix the undervaluation of foreign currencies against the dollar. Implementing the MAC could eliminate the U.S. budget deficit, sharply reduce the threat of future debt-ceiling crises, and increase resources available for important industrial policy initiatives, especially those related to national security such as chip manufacturing.”

Furthermore, he wrote that “implementing the MAC would markedly increase the Fed’s ability to control inflation with higher interest rates and tighter monetary policies. With the MAC in place, the Fed’s efforts would no longer generate the massive inflows of foreign-source money inflows that today are triggered by high U.S./foreign interest rate spreads.”

The MAC would be a small fee that would be collected by U.S. banks on all foreign-source money seeking entry to America’s financial markets. The fee, which would be adjusted periodically to eliminate the spread between higher average U.S. interest rates and lower average foreign interest rates, would sharply reduce the speculative gains of foreign-source money. Last year, $90 trillion worth came into America’s capital markets, which was about four times GDP!

Dr. Hansen’s latest calculations indicate that “a 2% MAC charge – about half the spread between U.S. and foreign interest rates that is drawing in foreign cash and making U.S. goods and workers too pricy to compete internationally – would generate about $1.8 trillion of new net revenues per year out of the pockets of foreign speculators – enough to eliminate the U.S. budget deficit and to allow America to start paying down its largest-in-the-world national debt.”

Such revenues would have fully covered the $1.4 trillion deficit for FY2022 with $400 billion left over to support important services, cut taxes, and/or pay down the national debt. Fewer Fed interest rate increases would lower the cost of borrowing for the government. Implementing the MAC tomorrow might not save America from defaulting on its debt this year, but doing so would greatly improve America’s fiscal position, sharply reduce the risk of a recession, stimulate economies of scale, reduce inflation, and reduce America’s growing debt.

Here are a few of the many benefits that America would enjoy if Congress were to approve this trade policy initiative – a policy based on 21st century realities, not 18th century theories.

  1. Reduce the incentives of foreign countries like China and Japan to manipulate the value of their currencies against the dollar.
  2. Increase domestic and foreign demand for Made-in-America goods, thereby creating at least 3-5 million well-paying middle-class jobs, mainly in manufacturing and associated sectors.
  3. Trigger domestic and foreign investments in American manufacturing that would increase output and productive efficiency.
  4. Generate about ten times as much Government revenue per year as import duties on merchandise trade currently generate. And unlike import duties, the MAC would be paid by foreigners, not by people living in America.
  5. Be far more effective than tariffs in reducing overall U.S. trade deficits with countries like China. Tariffs can be evaded rather easily with a large number of widely known tricks like shipping through third countries, rebranding, and under-invoicing.
  6. Make it possible for the U.S. Government to implement important national security, infrastructure, environmental protection, and social investments without raising taxes or increasing the public debt.
  7. Reducing America’s debt service burden would further increase the Government’s ability to invest in high priority programs such as skills training, childcare, and other initiatives that would help the average American and increase America’s productivity without increasing the public debt.
  8. By implementing the MAC, America could roughly double its current rate of economic growth. The MAC would stimulate domestic production and exports while reducing our excessive dependence on imports.

Dr. Hansen and the Coalition for a Prosperous America believe that the MAC would be sufficient to discourage foreign inflows of investment with no material impact on foreign direct investment in factories and other directly productive activities. The MAC or something like it is urgently needed. Implementing the MAC would greatly improve America’s fiscal position, sharply reduce the risk of a recession, stimulate economies of scale, reduce inflation, and reduce America’s growing debt.  Our top priority today should be to protect our national security to remain a free country to ensure the well-being and safety of our children and grandchildren in the future.  

Tags:,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Economy, Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

What Would be The Benefits of the ONSHORE Act of 2023?

Wednesday, July 12th, 2023

The COVID pandemic proved that we cannot rely on imports of products needed to protect the health and welfare of Americans. Offshoring of manufacturing left the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. We cannot defend our country if the products needed by the military and defense industry become unavailable because of being sourced offshore, especially in China. It’s time for all Americans to wake up to the dangers of being dependent on other countries for manufacturers goods, especially one that has become a threat to our country.

Strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities, especially for industries of the future, is critical for economic and national security. We must forge a new path by rebuilding American manufacturing to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and rebuild a strong, secure domestic supply chain if we want to remain a free country.

I am glad to see that Congress is finally paying some attention to this need:  On June 8, 2023, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator JD Vance (R-OH), and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced S.1915 – ONSHORE Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill to boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen supply chains that will help bring critical supply chains back to America by assisting communities of all sizes with the site development needed to attract manufacturing facilities. 

The joint press release states: “The U.S. faces a shortage of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and workforce for companies to quickly begin construction on new manufacturing facilities. The ONSHORE Act creates a Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program within the Economic Development Administration, which would assist communities, including small towns and tribal communities, with site development to attract manufactures from critical industries to build new facilities in their area.” 

Senator Vance stated, “As our nation takes the necessary steps to reshore critical supply chains and spur innovation, everyone in America should reap the rewards This bill would deploy capital broadly to ensure the foundations of tomorrow’s industry and growth are laid in underdeveloped regions. If enacted, it will deliver good-paying jobs, build vibrant communities, and strengthen supply chains—in Ohio and around the country.” 
 
Senator Kelly stated, “As we work to bring manufacturing supply chains for critical industries from microchips to critical minerals back to America, we have to maximize this opportunity by making sure there are enough sites with the infrastructure and workforce needed for new facilities. For a lot of small towns and tribal communities, the biggest barrier to attracting investment is the cost of getting sites ready for development. We’re working to fix that, which will boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs in every corner of our states and the country.” 
 
Senator Cotton stated, “We cannot rely on other countries like China for our essential technologies. The technologies of tomorrow should be tested, researched, and made in America. This legislation will help make the necessary investments in our communities to make that possible.”

So far, the OSHORE ACT has received enthusiastic support from the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), the Global Business Alliance, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, the Arizona Commerce Authority, and JobsOhio..

Nathan Ohle, President & CEO of IEDC said, “The ONSHORE Act will provide communities with essential resources to aid in attracting supply chain manufacturers. Economic developers across the U.S. will welcome this new initiative and IEDC urges the swift passage and implementation of the ONSHORE Act.”

Nancy McLernon, president & CEO of the Global business Alliance, said, “Site readiness is a critical consideration for international companies planning major investments in the United States… and urges all Senators to support this measure and other policies that make it easier to invest in America.”  

Chris Camacho, President & CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said, “The availability of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and skilled workforce is a crucial factor in attracting companies to invest in Greater Phoenix and bolster U.S. supply chains. This program ensures that strategic mega sites and regionally impactful locations are properly prepared for new industrial investment. With enhanced site-readiness, the United States will be better equipped to compete globally, foster the growth of critical industries, and ensure the production of essential products domestically.”

Sandra Watson President & CEO, Arizona Commerce Authority, said, “We applaud Senator Kelly for leading on this important legislation. This ONSHORE Act will significantly strengthen U.S. competitiveness for new manufacturing opportunities, bringing more jobs and investments to Arizona.”

J.P. Nauseef, JobsOhio president and CEO, said, “I applaud the introduction of the ONSHORE Act, which will help Ohio and the rest of the United States more fully capitalize on this generational opportunity by expanding the number of sites that are ready to support major development projects.”

I can see that basic infrastructure, such as road access or water and power utility hookups, is an important factor affecting where a new manufacturing facility is built, but there are so many abandoned manufacturing sites throughout the country that I question the need for the Economic Development Agency’s Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program. There are also large retail stores, such as former K-Mart stores, that could be converted to manufacturing sites by remodeling and changing zoning. The redevelopment of these sites would provide good opportunities to revive the industrial base of states hard hit by offshoring, such as Michigan, Ohio, and North and South Carolina.

In my opinion, there is a greater need for a new type of Small Business Innovation grant program to fund establishing manufacturing plants to manufacture components and systems that are no longer made in the U.S. because of being offshored to China and other Asian countries.  This type of grant would also provide new industrial investment, including in rural and tribal communities, and regions with high unemployment.  These companies would help position the U.S. to compete against adversaries like China, boost domestic manufacturing, and build resilient supply chains. 

Priority for receiving such a grant should be given to proposals that would manufacture critical components and systems needed by our military and defense industrial base.  Semiconductors and batteries are not the only critical products that need to be onshored/reshored.  Components such as capacitors, resistors, inductors, transformers, connectors, and flex circuits also need to be returned to being made in the USA.

This kind of investment will better position the U.S. to compete against international competitors like China and the European Union and ensure more critical products are made in America.  

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

Economic Indicators Report Reveals a Shrinking Middle Class

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2023

A long-time acquaintance of mine, Charles Shor, contacted me recently to inform me that he had founded a new non-profit organization, Blue Collar Dollar Institute.  Charlie has been a long-time reader of my blog articles, and we share a common concern — the shrinking middle class.  We also shared the same opinion of the main reason for the cause of the shrinking middle class:  the loss of higher-paying manufacturing jobs by American manufacturers outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries, particularly China. 

We agreed that the problem is, “By offshoring much of our manufacturing base, the United States has developed a dependency on importing consumer goods, amassing debt in the private and public sectors, and relying on critical goods from abroad in times of crisis such as pandemics and wars.”

We both feel that the middle class is in trouble.  “The Blue Collar Dollar Institute aims to understand how the United States’ decision to subsidize foreign manufacturing is decreasing the size of our middle class, increasing the amount of Americans in poverty and catapulting forward the wealth in both the top 5% and foreign competitors.”

The Institute’s Mission Statement is: “The Blue Collar Dollar Institute believes that the United States cannot offer a middle-class lifestyle to a large majority of Americans without possessing a strong and vibrant manufacturing sector.  Our non-partisan mission is to research data, inform the public, and advocate for policy in order to help strengthen US manufacturing and goods-producing sectors. 

Prior to founding Blue Collar Dollar Institute, Charlie’s original foundation, The Charles Shor Foundation, collaborated with  Dr. David Perkis, Purdue Center for Economic Education, Krannert School of Management, to prepare a 200-page Economic Indicators Report.

Charlie encouraged me to contact Dr. Perkis, and we had a long conversation when I connected with him last week.  He explained that the report’s purpose “is to provide a picture of the economic and social wellbeing of the United States in comparison to five other industrialized nations:  China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Singapore… Special attention is given to the manufacturing sector due to its perceived ability to offer high paying jobs and to create additional jobs in communities.”

One of the most serious facts the report reveals is: “Since 1945, the percentage of jobs in manufacturing, construction, and mining has dropped from 40% to 14%, eliminating some of the highest paying jobs for high school graduates.”

The result is: “The dreams of Americans obtaining the basics of a middle-class lifestyle, such as owning a home, sending their kids to college, and obtaining affordable housing, have become more and more out of reach for the average household.”  I’ve seen this in my own family as my two adult children have not been able to buy homes in San Diego, CA.

The results of the research revealed that “Although the United States is still the world leader in total output, it has some dubious distinctions in comparison to the other countries of this study.” The other countries are China, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.  In comparison to these countries, the United States has:

  • The least amount of trade as a share of GDP
  • The largest trade deficits
  • The highest level of adult wealth
  • The most significant wealth inequality
  • The highest level of health care spending (without the best outcomes).
  • The largest level of military spending
  • The lowest GDP share of manufacturing

Needless to say, I only had time to read through the first 40 pages of the lengthy report, so I will only point out some key findings related to manufacturing and trade issues.

As I have written previously in my books and blog articles, the U.S. has trade deficits since 1976, so it was no surprise to me that the report states: “From 1992 – 2019, deficits in manufactured goods have totaled $16.3 trillion (2010 USD), with the bulk of the deficit occurring since 1992 ($15.5 trillion). Since 1992, our largest deficits in manufactured goods have been with China ($4.6 trillion) and Japan ($2.5 trillion).”

Another noteworthy point is “The United States is still the world leader in output as measured by Gross

Domestic Product (Figure 1). In 2019, GDP measured $21.4 trillion USD, compared to $14.4 trillion from its next closest rival, China.”


I’ve long said and wrote that manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the middle class, and if we lose sufficient manufacturing jobs, we will lose the middle class. The loss of middle-class jobs in the U.S. is demonstrated by the fact that “the United States is no longer the leader in average income ($62 thousand USD). That distinction belongs to Singapore ($101 thousand USD).” The result has been “Income inequality in the US has increased significantly over the past 50 years (Figure 10). Income growth for the lowest 60% of income earners fell from the late 1990s through 2015.”

This may be due to the fact that the percentage of jobs in producing goods went down from 39% in 1964 to 15% in 2019, while the percentage of jobs in services increased from 62% in 1964 to 85% in 2019.  The average non-supervisory wage of goods jobs was $944/week I 2019, while the services wage was $699. However, service jobs in retail paid even lower in 2019 —$594/week.

With regard to budgets and deficits, “Except for a four-year period at the end of the Clinton administration, the United States has run a national budget deficit every year since 1970…The governments of Japan and the US carry the most debt…Japan has managed to accumulate the largest government debt as a percentage of GDP, totaling 232% (Figure 22). The United States is a distant

second carrying debt just over 100% of GDP…However, total government debt does not tell the whole story as some may be owed to a country’s own citizens while some will be due to foreign entities. For

instance, of Japan’s 232% debt, 208% is owed to domestic entities with a small portion due overseas (Figure 23). Within our comparison group, the United States government maintains the greatest holdings of debt to foreigners (37%).” 

As I have written in previous articles, there is a relationship between budget deficits and trade deficits.  When a country is buying more imports than selling exports, this produces less revenue for the government, so the country goes into debt to pay its expenses.  We lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010, and have only added back 1.2 million manufacturing jobs from reshoring and Foreign Direct Investment.  If these manufacturing workers had to get service jobs, they would be receiving lower wages and thus paying lower taxes.  In addition, the higher percentage of workers being paid lower wages for a service job results in their paying less taxes, again reducing the government’s revenue.

The report also mentions the benefits of manufacturing for a town, region, state, and the country as a whole.  This is because

1) “Most goods can be traded anywhere in the world, creating more exports and

generating income from overseas, whereas services are typically limited to

local markets.

2) Manufacturing positions create more additional jobs in the local community

than do service oriented positions. This is the multiplier effect of manufacturing.”

The report explains, “Job multipliers indicate how many total jobs will be created within a region due

to a new position in a particular industry.”  The job multiplier effect for manufacturing jobs ranges from 2.2 to 4.0, whereas the multiplier effect for service jobs ranges from 1.3 to 1.9.

The goals of the Blue Collar Dollar Institute to have strong manufacturing, construction, and mining sectors would help middle-class households have a prosperous life in the following ways: 

  • “By creating high-paying jobs for individuals without a college education. 
  • By selling more products overseas than we buy overseas, bringing net funds into the country. 
  • By making our nation less dependent on foreign countries for critical goods in times of crisis such as pandemics and wars, thus reducing risk for the average American.”

I look forward to continuing my discussions with Dr. Perkis to explore ways in which Industry Reimagined 2030 can collaborate to achieve the goals we have in common, such as adding 5 million middle-income manufacturing jobs and $1 trillion to the economy by 2030.

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

It’s the supply chain … stupid!

Tuesday, April 4th, 2023

Ever since the COVID pandemic started three years ago, we have suffered from disruptions in supply chains for many products used in our daily lives as well as products and components needed for our consumer products, industrial, and defense industries.  Why?  Because we stopped making things in the USA. We outsourced everything from household goods to high tech products, as well as pharmaceuticals and medical devices. First, it was to friendly countries like the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Taiwan, and then it became predominantly China after they entered the World Trade Organization in 2001.

The shortages of semiconductors, has made news headlines for the past two years. Semiconductors are used in everything from consumer products such as cell phones, computers, and TVs as well autos, trucks, airplanes, boats, ships, drones, and space vehicles.  There is hardly any product that doesn’t have a semiconductor in it these days, even refrigerators and washing machines. Many other electronic and electro-mechanical components are also no longer made in the USA.

Our domestic innovation capacity is contingent on a robust and diversified industrial base. Our loss of manufacturing capabilities has led to a loss in innovation capacity. When manufacturing heads offshore, innovation follows. We currently lack the ecosystem of innovation, skills, and production facilities to have the secure and resilient supply chains required for economic security. As a result, we are no longer self-sufficient in producing the products we depend on for our modern way of life.    

Even worse, we are no longer self-sufficient in producing the goods and systems needed to defend our country.  Our national security and freedom as an independent country is at risk. This fact was confirmed in the article “From rockets to shells, Pentagon struggles to feed war machine,” from the March 25th issue of the New York Times which stated, “The United States lacks the capacity to produce the arms that the nation and its allies need at a time of heightened superpower tensions…Industry consolidation, depleted manufacturing lines and supply chain issues have combined to constrain the production of basic ammunition like artillery shells while also prompting concern about building adequate reserves of more sophisticated weapons including missiles, air defense systems and counter-artillery radar…illustrated by the shortage of solid rocket motors needed to power a broad range of precision missile systems, such as the ship-launched SM-6 missiles made by Raytheon…Other shortages slowing production include simple items such as ball bearings, a key component of certain missile guidance systems, and steel castings, used in making engines.”

There are two main ways that government can help rebuild the domestic manufacturing base:  penalize offshoring to other countries and incentivize American manufacturers to make is here or reshore their manufacturing to the USA.  The Biden Administration and Congress have reacted to this supply chain crisis within the last year by passing the following legislation:

CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 to “boost American semiconductor research, development, and production, ensuring U.S. leadership in the technology that forms the foundation of everything from automobiles to household appliances to defense systems.”

Amendment to The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Buy American Act – “This rule increases the domestic content threshold initially from 55 percent to 60 percent, then to 65 percent in calendar year 2024 and to 75 percent in calendar year 2029.”

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act – This Act changes U.S. policy to establish “a rebuttable presumption that the importation of any goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.” Previous law required companies to take reasonable care to avoid products produced with forced labor. This Act requires companies to prove that products from Xinjiang province were not produced with forced labor.

While these new laws and amendments to previous laws will help ease future supply chain disruptions, the real solution to the supply chain crisis is to change the financial calculations to enable making as much as possible in the United States. The Reshoring Initiative has been working towards this goal since its founding in 2010 by promoting the use of the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator® developed by Harry Moser

According to the Reshoring Initiative 2022 Data Report, “Reshoring plus FDI have followed a strong upward trend for 13 years. The underlying trend is driven by the recognition that, in many cases, the total cost of offshoring exceeds that of sourcing domestically. There have been peaks and valleys in the trend. 2017 was driven by the 2017 tax and regulatory cuts. 2018 and 2019 declined due to the trade war. The trend resurged from 2020 to 2022 driven by companies recognizing their vulnerability to supply chain disruptions and, most recently, to geopolitical events.”

The report states, “Jobs announced in 2022 were a record breaking 364 ,000 up from 238 ,000 in 2021. The total number of jobs announced since 2010 is now nearly 1.6 million…we expect 2023 and 2024 to remain strong, continuing at approximately 350,000 job announcements per year. If the current trajectory continues, the U.S. will reduce the trade deficit, add jobs, and become safer, more self-reliant and resilient.”

We need continue to rebuild our domestic manufacturing industrial base if we are going to achieve the goals of Industry Reimagined 2030 to have 50,000 more world-class domestic American manufacturers and a $1 trillion GDP by 2030

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

How to Buy More Made in USA Products

Tuesday, March 21st, 2023

More than 70% (72%) of American consumers prefer American-made products and nearly half (48%) say they’d be willing to pay around 10–20% more. An exclusive poll about buy-American shopping preferences from Retail Brew and The Harris Poll was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,986 US adults from July 22–24, 2022.

Overwhelmingly, Americans want to know where their products are made, and they can do so at retail stores by looking for a “Made in USA” label when they shop in person.  However, when they shop online, there is no country of original information provided in the description of a product by the top online e-commerce companies, Amazon, eBay, and Etsy.

In 2020, The COOL Online Act  (S. 3707) was introduced by Senator Tammy Baldwin to require a prominent country-of-origin description for all products sold online as well as clear disclosure of the country in which the seller of the product is located. However, big retailers including Amazon want to hide where their products are coming from and lobbied to prevent this bill from being voted on by the Senate.  The text of this bill was added as an amendment to the Endless Frontier Act (S. 1260), which passed the Senate, but was not voted on by the House.  A similar bill is planned to be introduced this year.

In addition, all of the e-commerce companies take advantage of the “De Minimis” rule, created by Congress as  Section 321 to the Tariff Act of 1930. “De Minimis” is Latin for “too trivial or minor to merit consideration.” Its purpose was “to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected.”

A White Paper by the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) states, “The 1938 Congress set low-dollar thresholds for three different importation scenarios, assigning a $5 threshold for bona fide gifts and personal effects travelers brought with them, and a $1 de minimis for  any other situation…Congress raised our de minimis threshold to a whopping $800 in 2015. China’s is 50 yuan, which is less than $8.  Goods eligible for de minimis treatment enter the U.S. free of duties and taxes…Express consignment companies like FedEx and UPS and e-commerce sites like Amazon and eBay are the primary actors lobbying to keep de minimis as a giant open-border backdoor.

“U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) itself acknowledges that raising the de minimis threshold

changed the very nature of international trade.” Under the traditional paradigm, businesses would contract foreign manufacturers, entering into supply contracts, importing particular products by the container-load, and then distribute products to domestic retailers. “Large shipments would be consigned to a single purchaser, and typically consist of the same or similar goods. Under the new paradigm, that same shipping container has individual packages destined for hundreds of individual customers who are fulfilling the legal role of “importer…”

“For regular imports, the law requires importers to provide Customs & Border Protection (CBP) an advance manifest of the incoming cargo describing it. But de minimis shipments, including millions of e-commerce packages, typically arrive with no advance information.”

CPA recommends that Congress “fix this by lowering the threshold back to $9 ($5, but adjusted for inflation).”

One company is leading the effort to adopt a private sector solution.  Don Buckner Sr., recently contacted me about the new online marketplace he is developing to provide consumers with easy access to domestic manufactured products. MadeInUSA.com.  Customers will be able to identify and search by three sourcing categories: Made in USA, Made in USA with US & Global Materials, and Assembled in the USA. They may also search by a Business Certification such as Veteran, Women, Minority, GSA Holder, or Small Business. This will increase a company’s visibility, allowing access to opportunities they might not otherwise have.  Vendors must certify that products displayed on the site are produced in compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Made in USA claim. Strict adherence is required for all vendors.  MadeInUSA is now registering vendors and products at https://madeinusa.com/vendor.  The website is scheduled to go live in late 2023.

I asked what will make his website different from other websites offering Made in USA products, and

Don said, “MadeInUSA.com is an Enterprise level eCommerce marketplace specifically designed to highlight and promote vendors to domestically produced products. MadeInUSA.com is built using the latest technology and is the most comprehensive, secure, online resource for consumers and corporate buyers  As the premier and trusted online marketplace for products made in the USA, the site offers a doorway between U.S. manufacturers and the world.”

Customers will be able to identify and search vendors by one of three categories: Made in USA, Made in USA with US & Global Materials, and Assembled in the USA. They may also search for vendors by a Business Certification such as Veteran, Women, Minority, GSA Holder, or Small Business. This will increase a company’s visibility, allowing access to opportunities they might not otherwise have.

Don explained, “The MadeInUSA.com eCommerce platform is based on a drop ship model and will collect and pay all sales tax and shipping costs. All the manufacturers must do is build it and box it”

The website is now open for vendor applications to offer products directly to consumers. Vendors may list products for free but must certify that products displayed on the site are produced in compliance with the FTC Made in USA claim. Strict adherence is required for all vendors. Manufacturers and vendors can register by visiting https://madeinusa.com/vendor to submit an application.   

U.S. consumers prefer to buy domestic products.  Today, it is hard for consumers to do that and easy for imports to by-pass customs duties.  Congress has legislators working to fix labeling and import duties. I applaud the focus of Don Buckner to reconnect U.S. manufacturers to the U.S. consumers and to create American jobs through increased demand for USA branded products. 

Industry Reimagined 2030 is working with national associations and the private sector to increase consumer purchases of U.S. goods. We share the same commitment that buying USA-made products isn’t just patriotic, it’s an investment into our communities, our labor force, and our economy.  We aim to increase U.S. purchases by $500 billion that will result in 2 million jobs by 2030.  

Tags:,
Posted in Country of Origin, Made in America, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Inventors’ Rights under Threat Again

Monday, December 12th, 2022

Inventor Rights are being threatened by the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, S.2774, sponsored by Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT).  Sen. Leahy was the co-sponsor of the America Invents Act of 2011 that adversely changed the patent system from the best in the world to one that has eroded inventors’ rights.

The bill is looking good for either being passed by the Senate separately before Congress recesses for the holidays or passed by being attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is “must pass” legislation funding the military at a time when there are credible threats of wars around the world. Attaching the Pride in Patent Ownership Act to the NDAA means it would certainly become law.

“This bill requires disclosure of certain patent-related information, including information about ownership and funding. Under the bill, if a foreign or domestic governmental entity provides funding for fees related to a patent application or for paying an attorney (or patent agent) to prosecute the patent application, the application must disclose the amount and source of such funding.

Similarly, if any governmental entity provides funding for paying a patent’s maintenance fees or for paying an attorney (or patent agent) to submit such maintenance fees, the patent owner must submit a statement disclosing the amount and source of such funding.

The bill also requires patent owners to record information about the ownership of a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent owners must also update this information when certain rights or interests in the patent have been conveyed to another individual or entity. A patent owner may not receive increased monetary damages for infringement of that patent that occurred while the owner was out of compliance with this ownership information recording requirement.”

This bill doesn’t sound as harmful at first glance, but a closer examination shows just how harmful it is.  As a board member for the San Diego Inventors Forum, I am the liaison between our group and the national organization US Inventor, Inc., an inventor organization in Washington D.C. that advocates strong patent protection for inventors and startups.

Last week’s newsletter stated: “This bill would make gargantuan penalties for not registering a change in patent ownership in a timely enough manner. The patent owner would lose the ability to collect increased damages for willful infringement. Increased damages are about all that remain to discourage the theft of patented technologies.

The bill would also let the infringer off if the mistake in registering is considered to have been done with the intent to deceive, which every opposing attorney will argue and make you spend more time and money that you don’t have. There are other angles on this bill, like giving Big Tech an early heads up on what patents to attack using the PTAB.”

Paul Morinville, former president and founder of US Inventor wrote an article published on October 12, 2022 by IP Watchdog , titled, “The Pride in Patent Ownership Act is Big Tech Boondoggling”

“The Pride in Patent Ownership Act requires those who acquire patents to publicly register their ownership assignments with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) within 120 days. Thus, it serves to identify potential patent infringement plaintiffs.

If the patent holder misses the 120-day deadline, this bill would make gargantuan penalties for not registering a change in patent ownership in a timely enough manner. The patent owner would lose the ability to collect increased damages for willful infringement. Increased damages are about all that remain to discourage the theft of patented technologies.

The bill would also let the infringer off if the mistake in registering is considered to have been done with the intent to deceive, which every opposing attorney will argue and make you spend more time and money that you don’t have. There are other angles on this bill, like giving Big Tech an early heads up on what patents to attack using the PTAB.”

He explains, “Patent infringement is about stealing technology protected by a patent – it is not about who owns the patent. Because patent applications are made public by the USPTO, fair notice is given to would-be-thieves that an invention is protected by a patent.

The patent holder is irrelevant to an infringer’s decision to steal an invention, so identifying the owner can only lead to gamesmanship, especially if the patent holder is too small to defend themselves”

He asks, “Why is Congress pushing the Pride in Patent Ownership Act through by attaching it to the NDAA? His answer: “Identifying future plaintiffs and gaming the system so Big Tech can steal patented inventions unfettered is the real reason behind the Pride in Patent Ownership Act.”

He adds, “What really matters to Big Tech incumbents is that a well-placed invention can disrupt their multibillion dollar markets and that disruption is a threat to their relevance in that market. A little guy with a big idea can truly threaten the very existence of their monopolies. Think back to Google and how their patented search algorithm sent the search icons of the day, Yahoo and Alta Vista, into the dustbin of history.”

He explained that the Supreme Court decision on” eBay v. MercExchange opened the floodgates to willful infringement by effectively eliminating injunctive relief – the ability to take the invention away from an infringer. In eBay’s public interest test, a patent holder must prove that they have a product on the market and the ability to distribute the product at the level of the infringer.

But if Big Tech steals the invention and, by leveraging their huge customer base, existing infrastructure, and endlessly deep pockets, massively commercializes the invention, no small entity will be able to pass the eBay test.

Treble damages stand as the only remaining deterrent to willful infringement. But the Pride in Patent Ownership Act will eliminate treble damages if you make an administrative error.”

Remember that besides changing our patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file,” the America Invents Act also created the Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB) that has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights.  According to the U S Inventors end of the year report, “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims in 84% of the 2,500+ patents reviewed since 2011 and most inventors do not have a half a million dollars necessary to fund a legal defense.”

We don’t need another bill taking away the last right that inventors have to protect their patents.

I urge you to take the time to call the Washington office of your Senators and tell them that the Pride in Patent Ownership Act is bad for American innovation, startups, and inventors.

When you call, you could say, “My name is _____ and I am a concerned constituent. The Pride in Patent Ownership Act is bad for American Innovation. It creates an unthinkably huge penalty for a clerical error in registering patent ownership. It provides the attorneys of huge corporations with more arguments to use against American inventors and startups. It creates another barrier for inventors and startups. It will help Big Tech gain more power and will make it harder to compete with China. 

Senator _____ needs to oppose The Pride in Patent Ownership Act including any effort to amend it into the National Defense Authorization Act. This is important for the future of America. Tell your Senators to oppose this bill.”

If they want to know more, tell them to contact the current president of US Inventor, Randy Landreneau at Randy@USInventor.org.”

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

Reinventing Education – Students Learning “how to think – not what to think” for New Collar Workforce

Tuesday, August 16th, 2022

Our non-profit Industry Reimagined 2030 has identified some prevailing misperceptions about manufacturing that must be dispelled if we want to be successful in growing the supply of available recruits for manufacturing jobs.  These are that “manufacturing is in inevitable decline” and “manufacturing jobs are dumb, dirty and not well paying.”

Fortunately, the importance of manufacturing during the pandemic and advanced manufacturing technologies are changing some of the longstanding misperceptions. The Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute 2022 Manufacturing Perception Study reports “Sixty-four percent of consumers surveyed view manufacturing as innovative, up from 39% of respondents five years ago” and 77% now view manufacturing as more important than they did pre-pandemic.

I recently interviewed Glenn Marshall who is one of our advisors for Industry Reimagined 2030. Glenn Marshall is also serving on the Association for Manufacturing Excellence Management team to help lead a Manufacturing Renaissance. He told me that this “initiative is designed to reduce the critical shortage of skilled workers for advanced technology and manufacturing. He reaches out to business leaders, academia, students, veterans, and policymakers to promote innovative ideas to create ladders of opportunity to make ‘Made in America’ a reality by leading initiatives to design and build things at home, again.”

Prior to retiring, he said that he was the benchmarking/process excellence advocate for Northrop Grumman and Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS). He engaged with all levels of the corporation, supply chain, and the Navy and led the proposal team from NNS to support the Navy’s Task Force Lean initiative. He continues to work with NNS in its outreach to the public schools and colleges Career Pathways program.

He said, “We struggled along with other employers in Virginia and across the nation to find the kind of skilled workers they needed so realized that they had to get involved with the local schools. I met with the superintendent of the Williamsburg James City County (WJCC) School District and arranged to have students tour local manufacturing facilities   part of national Manufacturing Day. These employers showed the students, teachers, and parents the kind of good paying jobs are available and what they could earn doing these jobs which got the students interested. 

Then we worked with the New Horizons Regional Education Center (NHREC) in Virginia and other employers to create an expanded   pubic private partnership to provide career and technical educational options for students within the school districts. NHREC is the largest of nine regional centers in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  NHREC has become a benchmark for community partnerships

The New Horizons Regional Education Center (NHREC) in Virginia has engaged in a public private partnership with Newport News Shipbuilding Apprentice School, employers, public school leaders, legislators and families. They are working to provide career and technical educational options for students within the school districts. NHREC has become a benchmark for community partnerships. Educators and families are discovering that career technical initiatives valued by employers can provide an equitable gateway for each student to learn how to be capable of achieving their career goals and dreams.

Glenn commented, “Upcoming graduates will step into a rapidly changing workforce, with a growing number of “new-collar jobs” requiring specialized, technical skill sets. The future of learning is changing — Beyond creating a world online, advances in artificial intelligence, cognitive technologies, and robotics are upending traditional assumptions about jobs and technology’s role in the workplace. For kids wanting to seize these opportunities, having transferable skills will be more important than a degree. For many, a strong foundation in science, technology, engineering, and math skills will be invaluable. And for some, apprenticeship and certification programs will be essential.”

Glenn also sent me information about Virginia’s lab schools. He said, “These schools are partnerships between public and private universities and colleges, as well as private companies and local K-12 schools. Lab schools that have a specific focus, such as STEM or literacy, or a particular skill or industry, will create learning environments that engage students in hands-on learning.”  My research discovered:  “Legislation approved by the 2010 General Assembly (HB 1389 and SB 736) and the 2012 General Assembly (HB 577) allows any public or private institution of higher education in the commonwealth with an approved teacher-preparation program to establish a college partnership laboratory school…College partnership laboratory schools are public schools established by contract between the governing board of a college partnership laboratory school and the Board of Education.”

I told him that California had passed legislation to re-establish career technical education for grades 7-12 in 2002 (Senate Bill 1934 (McPherson), a companion bill to the earlier Assembly Bill 1412 (Wright), passed in the same year) but it didn’t get fully implemented until 2005. Now, I know of three high schools that teach manufacturing skills such as machining and welding in the San Diego region. The training is a two-year program for juniors and seniors and students receive certifications upon graduation.

Glenn said, “Companies want graduates with an eye for detail, creative critical thinking skills, a collaborative mindset and an ability to deal with ambiguity and complexity. New graduates will need foundational skills in reading, writing math and science, but also know how to think – not just want to think.”

He concluded by saying, “To achieve this goal, educators and business leaders must form public-private partnerships and join with organizations like the Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME), the Reshoring Initiative and others to engage in reinventing the educational experience. The goal is to graduate all students with the critical thinking skills to adapt to the evolving challenges of new-collar careers and the ever-changing demands for the future of work.

The Association for Manufacturing Excellence will host an international conference in Dallas Texas October 17 – 20, 2022.  Register at  https://www.ame.org/ame-dallas-2022  One of the featured sessions will be an international panel discussing how companies are addressing the need to replenish the talent pipeline with skilled career ready new collar workers: 

In order to achieve the goal of creating five million more manufacturing jobs by 2030, we encourage manufacturers to use the increased public awareness to promote manufacturing’s benefits, opportunities, and technological advances to increase the number of youths interested in manufacturing careers. Manufacturers should emphasize that advanced manufacturing technologies now provide, safe, clean working environments that pay well and offer highly transferable skills that enable career advancement.  As incentives, companies can offer internships, work programs, certification or degree programs, and apprenticeships to increase the talent pool and develop the skilled workforce they need to grow their businesses. 

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

ITIF Report Assesses Competitiveness of North American States

Tuesday, July 5th, 2022

On June 21, 2022, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation conducted a webinar entitled, “Assessing the Competitiveness of North America: The North American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index,” based on a report by Luke Dascoli and Stephen Ezel of ITIF, and prepared in collaboration with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Fundación IDEA, and the Bay Area Economic Council Institute.

I was unable to attend the webinar, but later read the 49-page report with the goal of identifying examples of the vision of Industry Reimagined 2030 to convert the narrative of American manufacturing from one of “inevitable decline” to “vibrant opportunities.”

The purpose of the report was “to identify economic differences among states and provinces and highlight regions needing more federal attention, identify cross-national innovation performance, and track the continent’s overall competitiveness in the innovation-driven global economy.”

A vibrant opportunity was identified in the first paragraph of the Overview: “North America—Canada, Mexico, and the United States—represents one of the world’s most economically vibrant regions, accounting for 28 percent of global economic output. The region also forms one of the world’s largest free trade zones, with deeply integrated supply chains…the three nations form a high-wage/low-wage partnership, bringing complementary labor forces, infrastructure, innovation capacities, and industry strengths together to create a highly competitive economic region. This relationship is poised to make North American manufacturing value chains globally cost competitive with Asian ones and thus make North America a leading global innovation and manufacturing powerhouse.”

“This report assesses how prepared North American states are to compete in today’s increasingly innovation-driven economy. The North American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index (NASICI) uses 13 measures across 3 categories to quantify the extent to which each state’s economy is knowledge based, globalized, and innovation ready and form composite scores (between 0 to 100) that identify each state’s level of performance in the innovation economy.”

Knowledge Economy

•Immigration of knowledge workers – number of highly educated foreign-born residents as a share of total state population
•Workforce Education – total workforce finishing postsecondary education (including universities, trade schools, and colleges)
•Professional, scientific, tech – total employment enrolled in professional, scientific,
and technical activities

•Manufacturing Gross Value Added per worker – measures the average GVA per manufacturing worker

Globalization

•Inward foreign direct investment – flow of funds into a state from foreign-based enterprises to purchase that state’s existing facilities or to develop new ones
•High tech exports – (NAICS 333, 334, & 335) as a Share of GDP

Innovation Capacity

•R & D Intensity – Total R&D Investment Relative to GDP
•R & D Personnel – as a Share of Total State Employment
•Patents (per capita) – PCT Patents Issued per Million Persons
•Venture Capital Investment – shows a state’s total VC investment (based on VC-receiving firms located therein) relative to the size of its GDP.
•Broadband telecommunications – Share of all Households Subscribing to Broadband Internet

•Decarbonization (CO2 emissions) – Tons of CO 2 Emissions per Capita

The Composite NASICI scores for the top ten states/provinces are:

RankingState/ProvinceCountryNASICI SCORE
1MassachusettsUnited States91.5
2CaliforniaUnited States83.9
3OntarioCanada75.2
4MarylandUnited States75.0
5WashingtonUnited States74.2
6British ColumbiaCanada70.4
7New JerseyUnited States70.2
8New MexicoUnited States68.3
9QuebecCanada68.1
10OregonUnited States66.0


Notice that Canada has three provinces in the top ten, but Alberta was the only other Canadian province to rank in the top 30. Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota came in last for U. S. states, with South Dakota at number 60.  The ranking of Mexico’s states was “concentrated at the low-scoring end of the subnational index (61–92).”

The report commented that “Massachusetts ranks first due to the state’s massive network of software, hardware, and biotech firms in the Greater Boston area. Boston also holds one of the country’s most densely populated clusters of top-performing research universities, many of which focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. California places second due to its bustling tech economy of Silicon Valley and other southern Californian innovation hubs with access to leading research universities such as Stanford, Caltech, and the University of California, San Diego. Maryland earns its spot due to the state’s abundance of D.C.-commuting knowledge workers employed in scientific, technical, and professional activities, alongside its R&D and innovation activities attributable to a plethora of federal contracts. Washington state ranks fifth because of its high-tech exports, cutting-edge tech businesses bringing in foreign investment, patent generation in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing, and digitalization of the service sector.”

The report goes into some detail regarding the rankings in the 13 subcategories which are too complex for this article to cover. With regard to high tech exports, it discusses the successful cross-border region of the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington with the Canadian province of British Columbia, as well as the cross-border regions of California, Arizona, and Texas with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Baja California, and Tamaulipas…These Mexican “states include the major manufacturing cities of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and Matamoros, which together comprise most of Mexico’s
“maquiladora” manufacturing plants.”

The report makes the following policy recommendations for the United States:

Expand the R&D Tax Credit to Be Competitive with Canada – Canada’s “overall federal subsidy rate of 19.1 percent on business R&D investment” is “above the 16.6 percent median among 34 developed countries observed” and considerably higher than the U.S. “sub-median federal-state subsidy rate of 9.5 percent.”

Build Globally Competitive North American Supply Chains – This recommendation advocates the partnering of companies in the U.S. and Canada with the low-wage states of Mexico to “nearshore their production of innovative goods and the low-tech complementary manufacturing of products in high-tech industries into Mexico….This collaboration of complementary labor forces would help North American supply chains perform as a region that’s globally competitive with the supply chains of Asian low-cost competitors.”

Promote Industry-University Partnerships – “Firms on the cutting edge of new research can benefit from tapping the skills of the next generation of scientists and engineers early on by collaborating with neighboring universities via internships, fellowships, and other resource sharing with academic institutions. As federal funding for intramural research in states/provinces lags behind, industry investment in university research is increasingly important.”

Expand Collaborative Research Between U.S. and Canadian Leaders – “Firms engaging in international research collaboration tend to generate more valuable research than firms not collaborating in research or only collaborating among domestic firms do… Firms of U.S. and Canadian states/provinces should thus pursue greater research collaboration and co-patenting, given the proven benefits in international research collaboration and diversifying with new research partners. Doing so would help expand the network of shared research knowledge to drive more frequent and impactful innovations for both U.S. and Canadian states.”

Fully Embrace USMCA’s Commitments to Create a Free-Flowing North American   Digital Economy – The USMCA provided stronger rules for digital services across industries such as finance, e-
commerce, and software, for cross-border data transfers. The United States, Canada, and Mexico must “utilize the full economic value of data and remain competitive in the global digital economy.”

Expand National Place-Based Development Projects – The report recommends thatnational and regional policymakers should use the NASICI rankings to identify regions or states that are lagging behind in economic development.  The authors note that the efforts of the U. S. Economic Development Agency and regional commissions have “fallen off” and that the EDA’s budget had been reduced over time.  “Federal investment to build up economic attractiveness for underperforming states can improve their competitive edge and reduce economic hardships for the populations of those states.”

Improve Economic Indicator Data Availability Among North American States – “…the NASICI, ITIF and its Canadian and Mexican partners were only able to identify 13 indicators for which data was uniformly and readily available across North America’s 92 subnational regions. Statisticians from Canada, Mexico, and the United States should collaborate to make more such indicators available.”

In conclusion, the report states: “Today’s 21st-century economy has different success markers than the post-war economy experienced in the latter half of the 20th century. There are many more global competitors in the space of advanced technology production, R&D, and digital services.”  For the United States, “NASICI scores are helpful to bring to light regions needing more federal attention to support innovation competitiveness.”

Th9is report confirms that the narrative of the “inevitable decline” of American manufacturing of American manufacturing is no longer true and “vibrant opportunities” already exist.  These “vibrant opportunities” need to be expanded to be achieve the goal of fostering 50,000 more world-class companies and creating five million more manufacturing jobs by 2030.

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

The Manufacturing Institute Grows FAME’s Technical Training Program

Tuesday, June 21st, 2022

In late 2019, I interviewed Dennis Dio Parker for an article published in early 2020. At that time, Dennis headed up the Federation for Advanced Manufacturing Education (FAME), founded by Toyota as an outgrowth of training that provided for employees when they built their new manufacturing plant for vehicles in Georgetown, KY in 1987. 

I recently reconnected with Dennis and found out the transfer of the program to The Manufacturing Institute had been completed after our interview. He said, “FAME was moved under the leadership of The Manufacturing Institute to gain the infrastructure and network needed to support and grow the program, but Toyota still participates in FAME and uses the Advanced Manufacturing Technician program (AMT) program in its eight manufacturing locations.”

Dennis connected me with Tony Davis, who is now the National Director for FAME USA for The Manufacturing Institute. When I spoke with Tony, he said, “The Manufacturing Institute is the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. The MI grows and supports the manufacturing industry’s skilled workers for the advancement of modern manufacturing. The MI does this through diverse initiatives including FAME. The MI is a separate legal entity from the NAM and is a 501(c)(3) public charity.”

The new website states, “FAME provides global-best workforce development through strong technical training, integration of manufacturing core competencies, intensive professional practices and hands-on experience to build the future of the modern manufacturing industry.”

Tony said, “FAME currently has 37 chapters in the following 13 states:

Tony explained that the chapters denote a collaboration of employers with an Economic Development Corporation or a Chamber of Commerce with a community college or university.  He said, “the Advanced Manufacturing Technician (AMT) program administered under the FAME model leverages a work/learn framework to weave technical knowledge, professional behaviors, and distinct manufacturing core exercises into a focused co-op experience to build global-best, entry-level, multiskilled technicians.”

He said, “FAME is the premier advanced manufacturing workforce education and development program, helping students become highly skilled, globally competitive, well-rounded and sought-after talent that can meet the unique needs and challenges of today’s modern manufacturing workforce.”

I asked what are the requirements for students, and he said “Candidates for FAME should be career-oriented, academically prepared students seeking rewarding work.  All participants must be high school graduates who are ready to participate in a highly regimented, hands-on programs and are aiming to advance quickly in their career. The program consists of five semesters after which the graduates have a debt-free degree as an Advanced Manufacturing technician.  Every year, FAME graduates transition into well-paying, diverse career pathways in critical disciplines across the manufacturing industry and across the country.”

I told Tony that I have written about how important I believe Lean training is critical to rebuilding American manufacturing and is important to enable American companies to become more competitive in the global marketplace.  I asked Tony if the AMT curriculum incorporates Lean training, and if so, how  does it do it?

Tony answered, “There are five core topics in the five-semester curriculum and each core topic incorporates core aspects of Lean:

  1. Safety culture
  2. Visual Management and 5S (housekeeping)
  3. Lean principles and practices
  4. 8-step problem solving
  5. machine reliability

He added, “In the first semester, students make a personal safety commitment that they must always include when giving their personal introduction.  This is part of the learn and live it model of the program. The program uses a mix of lectures, college-level activities, employer activities, and real, added value solutions in project-based exercises. The program also ties in professional behaviors, such as timeliness, dress code, grooming, posture, and working as a team.”

I mentioned that I had noticed the FAME Live event that was held May 24-25 in Louisville, KY. He said, “This was the first live event since 2018.  It is a day-long learning event in which attendees meet and hear from students, instructors, and graduates, as well as employers and community partners to understand how each stakeholder plays a part in making these programs successful. The day allows interested stakeholders to leave with a strong understanding of the model and with solid action items to help them implement this solution to meet the growing demand for skilled workers.”

I asked Tony if FAME is still partnering with Project Lead the Way (PLTW) that I had mentioned in my previous article.  He replied, “We know the vital importance of a pipeline of preparation into programs like FAME AMT, and continue to encourage local partnerships between chapters and programs in their respective schools systems, programs like Project Lead the Way and FIRST Robotics. Industry tours through broad support of initiatives like MFG Day make a huge difference, too, in the awareness of local students relative to opportunities in manufacturing near them.

And of course, we are always exploring new ways to better attract and engage more diverse audiences into manufacturing, whether into programs like FAME AMT or into other manufacturing roles such engineering, technology, management, etc. The MI continues to be a thought leader around DEI in manufacturing and we carry this effort into our chapter training and communications.”

At the end of my interview, Tony said, “We are always looking for industry partners to help expand manufacturing education opportunities to talent across the country. If you are an employer, business leader, city official or industry association interested in learning about the FAME model, joining a FAME chapter, or starting a new FAME chapter, contact our team at FAME@nam.org or schedule an informational session.

I thanked Tony for the information he shared with me and told him that the kind of training FAME provides is crucial to achieving one of the goals of Industry Reimagined 2030; that is, adding 5 million to the manufacturing-related, middle-income workforce by 2030 (a 40% increase.) I told him that I hoped FAME will expand to more states in the West in the near future.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »