Posts Tagged ‘American manufacturing’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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 »

How to Have a Secure Supply Chain

Tuesday, May 10th, 2022

For more than the first 150 years of its history, the United States was a protectionist country in order to protect its fledgling manufacturing industries and then gain preeminence as an industrial nation in the 20th century.  We had secure supply chain until after WWII because we imported very little and were pretty much self-sufficient for consumer goods as well as good for our national defense.

After World War II, the U.S. switched from protectionism to free trade in order to rebuild the economies of Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan and bind the economies of the non-Communist world to the United States for geopolitical reasons.

To accomplish these objectives, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated during the UN Conference on Trade and Employment. Originally signed by 23 countries at Geneva in 1947, GATT became the most effective instrument in the massive expansion of world trade in the second half of the 20th century.

GATT’s most important principle was trade without discrimination, in which member nations opened their markets equally to one another. Once a country and one of its trading partners agreed to reduce a tariff, that tariff cut was automatically extended to all GATT members. GATT also established uniform customs regulations and sought to eliminate import quotas.

Unfortunately, our government leaders didn’t pay attention to the effect this was having on American businesses, and we started having a trade deficit in 1980 because of greater imports from Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. 

When NAFTA went into effect in 1994, it started the trend of moving manufacturing outside the U.S.  When the World Trade Organization was formed in 1995, tariffs were reduced between all member countries.  However, after President Clinton granted China Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000 and China was allowed to become a member of the WTO, the great exodus to setting up manufacturing in China began, and the trade deficit sky rocketed. According to Alan Uke’s book, Buying Back America, the United States has a trade deficit with 88 countries—some deficits are small, but some are enormous, such as China. 

As a result, over 70,000 manufacturing sites closed in the past 25 years, and at the low point in 2010, we had lost 5.8 million lost middle-income manufacturing jobs.

Globalization of U.S. Supply Chains Failed

When the COVID pandemic hit, it sent shock waves throughout the world of manufacturing. Too late, we realized that we had become 70 to 95% import dependent, primarily on China.  It was impossible to scale up our domestic supply chain fast enough for PPE goods and pharmaceuticals.  

In an article, “It’s About Time to Build Regional Supply Chains,” on March 30, 2022 on Industry Week, Christopher S. Tang wrote, “I do believe most global supply chains are going to end. They had a good run over the last few decades, enabling Western companies to grow profitably and helping developing countries alleviate poverty. But concurrent and unprecedented events have blown apart their cost efficiency…Decades of outsourcing and offshoring have hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing sector. Building domestic supply chains in the U.S. can be time-consuming and cost-ineffective…Small and medium-sized manufacturers are facing the reality that there will inevitably be more disruptions in the future and they must prepare themselves now by strategically evaluating and mitigating their supply chain risks.”

This crisis could have been prevented if more American Manufacturers had utilized Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ that Harry Moser made available for free in 2010 when he founded the Reshoring Initiative. Mr. Moser’s TCO Estimator has been the right tool to facilitate returning manufacturing to America. It actually includes calculations for the “hidden costs of doing business offshore,” such as Intellectual Property risk, political instability risk, effect on innovation, product liability risk, annual wage inflation, and currency appreciation.

In my experience as a sales rep, most companies only consider the quoted piece price or landed cost, at best. Because of inaccurate data, many companies make the decision to offshore on the basis of faulty assumptions. Some faulty assumptions are:  Overseas laws will protect IP, longer lead times won’t affect costs much, travel costs won’t be significant, communication won’t be a problem, and quality will be just as good as USA. The reality is that many companies are saving less than they expected, and in some cases, the hidden costs exceed the anticipated cost savings.

We need to change the main considerations for selecting suppliers from one based on the lowest price to other considerations, such as

  • Location
  • Transportation alternatives
  • Inventory costs and control
  • Quality controls
  • Reserve capacity of supplier
  • Responsiveness of supplier
  • Technological depth of supplier

Choosing the right location is the most critical choice. The choices are: Made in USA, “Offshoring” to China or another location in Asia, or nearsourcing to Mexico or Canada. The location of your customers influences the choice of manufacturing location.  Here are some variables to consider:

  • Where are your customers? USA, Asia, Europe, Latin America
  • How high is your labor content?
  • Is your annual production volume forecast low, medium, or high?
  • Do you have low vs. high product mix?
  • What certifications are required?  Example:  FDA, U/L, Mil Spec, ISO 9100, AS9100, etc.  

There are current manufacturing trends that are also influencing supplier choice.  Some of these are:

  • Wages rising in China
  • Increased “Made in USA” demand by government agencies and American consumers
  • Additive Manufacturing
  • Use of Industry 4.0 by suppliers (Automation, Robotics, Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT)

Some of the advantages of sourcing in the USA are:

  • No Intellectual Property infringement
  • Ease of communication
  • Flexible delivery by means of reliable transportation
  • Smoother design changes
  • Lower cost of inventory
  • Higher quality parts
  • Lower travel expenses
  • Favorable Purchase Order and Credit Terms

In today’s manufacturing supply chain, Reshoring helps companies have:

  • Faster lead times: 49-50% reduction
  • Delivery accuracy: 30-40% improved
  • Ability to respond swiftly to unforeseen disruptions
  • Handle volatile demand as closer proximity to customers drives agility 
  • Increased competitiveness
  • Better serving local markets while maintaining low costs

I strongly believe that if more companies would learn to understand and utilize the Reshoring Initiative’s TCO estimator (free at www.reshorenow.org), they would realize that the best value for their company is to source their parts, assemblies, and products in America.

America is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path of increasing trade deficits, increasing national debt, and loss of manufacturing jobs by allowing anything mined, manufactured, grown, or serviced to be outsourced to countries with predatory trade policies.  Or, we can forge a new path by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and create a strong, secure domestic supply chain.

Doing this will help us achieve the vision of Industry Reimagined 2030 to change the national narrative of American manufacturing from a prevailing worldview of “inevitable decline” to one of “vibrant opportunity.”

If enough manufacturing is “reshored” from China, we would drastically reduce our national average annual trade deficit of more than $700 billion.  By 2030, we could also add five million middle-income manufacturing workers to the American workforce. 

Tags:,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Imperial Capital Conference Highlights Vibrant Opportunity for Advanced Manufacturing Sector

Tuesday, April 26th, 2022

The non-profit Industry Reimagined 2030 was pleased to speak at the second annual Imperial Capital Advanced Manufacturing & Supply Chain Conference, held on April 13-14 in Santa Monica, CA and sponsored by Moss Adams, The Association for Manufacturing Technology, Smart Room, and Marsh.

On April 14th, presentations during breakfast were given by Kevin Frisch, Managing Director and Head of Industrial Investment Banking, Imperial Capital, Brian Ruttenbur, Institutional Research Managing Director, Imperial Capital, and Guy Knuf, Partner, Moss Adams.

Mr. Frisch explained that Imperial Capital, LLC is a full-service investment bank offering a uniquely integrated platform of comprehensive services to middle market companies and institutional investor. He said,” We have approximately 150 employees worldwide, across 10 offices throughout the United States and Europe. Our comprehensive and integrated service platform, expertise across the global capital structure, and deep industry sector knowledge enable us to provide clients with research driven ideas, superior advisory services, and trade execution. We have a dedicated focus in Advanced Manufacturing, including additive manufacturing, robotics, automation, laser components, specialty metals, specialty chemicals, semi-conductor equipment, optics/photonics, industrial software, and subtractive manufacturing.”

He provided a brief overview of the $26.3 trillion global Advanced Manufacturing market.

The trending Industry Segments

  • Specialty Materials – new light-weight materials, nanotechnology and carbon fibers and new applications are reducing waste and increasing efficiency
  • Aerospace & Defense – Light-weighting demand for planes, rockets, spacecraft will continue to drive demand for superior materials, AM production and other break-throughs
  • Medical – This industry drives demand for superior material advances and new technologies like AM, advanced laser manufacturing as well as design software etc.
  • Optics & Photonics – This industry cuts across the Advanced Manufacturing landscape
  • MR&O demand
  • Increased Reshoring/near shoring in all sectors

Trending Manufacturing Processes

  • Faster product development and shorter product life
  • Internet of Things – data acquisition and AI-enabled features
  • Digital Factory – data integration and overall productivity increasing
  • Reshoring/next shoring
  • Mass customization in production
  • Faster product development and shorter product life
  • New technologies – 3D printing, software, robotics
  • Light-weighting material demand
  • Internet of Things
  • Reshoring/next shoring
  • New Materials – nanotechnology, carbon fibers, powders
  • Mass customization in production
  • MR&O demand

Sector Valuation and Vibrancy

Deal volume for capital markets and M&A activity hit a record high at the end of 2021, the dramatic increase in deal flow was driven by optimistic executives, cheap financing and a stock market rebound from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. “U.S. Private Equity deal making is expected to continue at high levels. Mega-funds are predicted to raise $250 billion in 2022, including some of the largest ever buyout funds.”

Brian Ruttenbur, Managing Director of the Institutional Research Group of Imperial Capital covered macro trends in Advanced Manufacturing that influence their security and industrial research coverage.

Demand for manufactured products is up across most end-markets and private and public valuations have remained solid. The challenge to meet demand is inflation and material price increases, a tight and expensive labor market, and overall supply chain disruption. Industry is adapting through:

  • Automation to alleviate labor shortage issues
  • Niche players filling gaps
  • Rethinking Onshoring or Nearshoring driven by advanced manufacturing technologies, logistics complexity and national health and security sourcing.
  • On-time delivery and just-in-case supply chain resilience are commanding a premium

Guy Knuf, Partner, Transaction Services, Moss Adams was the third speaker covering “The Modern Quality of Earnings (QoE).  He said the “drivers of change are:

  • More intense buy-side process
  • Increased multiples
  • Drive for efficiency
  • RWI [Reps and Warrants Insurance]
  • Credibility”

The benefits of working with a QoE provider are: “maximize value, mitigate surprises, speed (more efficient & effective), prepare management team for buy-side diligence, and credibility.”

After breakfast, the period from 9:00 – 11:50 was divided into Sector Focused Panel Discussions. The presenters in advanced manufacturing technology were:

3DEO Inc. – one of the highest volume metal 3D printing companies in the world

ADDMAN Engineering LLC – metal and polymer 3D printed parts, precision machining to make parts for aerospace and defense, space, medical, and automotive, including niobium parts for hypersonics

Humtown Products – manufacturer of conventional and 3D printed sand cores and molds for the foundry industry

Optomec, Inc. – offers a full range of Additive Manufacturing systems, including their patented Aerosol Jet Systems for printed electronics

Clinkenbeard – specialized expertise in engineering, advanced machining, fabrication and foundry tooling capabilities come together to form a unique mix of services to serve Aerospace, Defense, Heavy Truck, Power Gen and Automotive applications

HB Aerospace Holdings, LLC – provides high quality, specialized aerospace products and value-added services that includes hardware, shims, spacers, handles, brackets, and rubber products such as grommets, seals and gaskets

Tribus Aerospace Corporation – provides precision machining of complex components and assemblies primarily, but not exclusively, for “Power, Propel, Control” applications for turbine engines, auxiliary power units, motion control and flow control

Valence Surface Technologies – provides a comprehensive set of metal processing capabilities and approvals for high-value, mission-critical parts, including NDT, sot peen and blast, chemical processing, plating, painting, and spray coatings

FormAlloy Technologies, Inc. – provides 3D metal additive manufacturing using the Directed Energy Deposition process for making parts, repairing parts, and cladding existing parts

Optomec, Inc. – provides a full range of Additive Manufacturing systems, including their patented Aerosol Jet Systems for printed electronics

pureLiFi – LiFi is high speed bi-directional and fully networked light communications and pureLiFi is the world leader in Light Fidelity (LiFi) innovation

Syntec Optics – offers injection molding, diamond turning, precision machining, optical assembly and coating services for optics and photonics

I was especially delighted to be reunited with Melanie Lang, CEO of FormAlloy as I had the pleasure of being one of her company’s mentors in the CONNECT Springboard program for startup companies in 2017.  I was very proud to hear of the progress the company had made, going from a startup with only two customers in 2017 to doing over $4 million in sales last year.

Tim Shinbara Jr, Vice President & Chief Technology Officer, The Association for Manufacturing Technology, delivered the lunch keynote on “The State of U.S Manufacturing –A Macro Analysis.” He reported that manufacturing technology orders were the highest in two decades for first two months of 2022. The key market trends are higher automation, increased reshoring, and Made in America supply chain focus. The industry segments for 2022 growth are: motor vehicles, agriculture implements, metal valves, and medical equipment and supplies. AMT is predicting increasing demand for commercial aerospace and decreasing demand for defense aerospace. Deliveries are improving with suppliers at 70% capacity.

The afternoon sessions were devoted to single company presentations in two tracks. Each presentation was 25 minutes long, starting at 1:15 PM and ending at 4:15 PM

I gave my own presentation on Industry Reimagined 2030: transforming the prevailing worldview of American manufacturing from ‘inevitable decline’ to one of ‘vibrant opportunity’ brought the theme of the conference home.  The U.S. has a window of opportunity to recognize the importance of manufacturing and to revitalize our investment in plant, equipment and workforce. The common thread of all companies participating in the panels and individual company presentations was one of vibrant opportunity. We can feasibly imagine having 50,000 world class manufacturers by 2030 if the adoption of these trends and technologies crosses the chasm from early adopters to the mainstream of manufacturers.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Manufacturing Renaissance: Recommendations to Bolster National Security & Economic Prosperity 

Tuesday, April 5th, 2022

In November 2021, the Ronald Reagan Institute released a Report of the Task Force on National Security and U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness titled “A Manufacturing Renaissance: Bolstering U.S. Production for National Security and Economic Prosperity.”

I came across this article last week, having missed it when it was released because many reports similar to this are ignored by the mainstream news outlets focused on the daily news and don’t reach the large national audience they deserve.

The Task Force was co-chaired by Ms. Marillyn Hewson, Former Chairman, President, & CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation and Dr. David McCormick, CEO, Bridgewater Associates, and former Undersecretary for International Affairs, U.S. Department of Treasury. The Task Force members represented a cross section of business, government, and elected representatives.

I recently joined the board of the non-profit Industry Reimagined 2030, which is transforming the myriad of well-intentioned efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing into coherent, aligned action. Our strategic aim is to shift the implicit national narrative from manufacturing in ‘inevitable decline’ to one of ‘vibrant opportunity.’

What the Manufacturing Renaissance report has to say about ‘inevitable decline.’

In the Introduction, the Task Force “considered the causes and implications of the continued erosion of American industrial and manufacturing capabilities in sectors critical to national security, such as defense equipment, semiconductors, telecom supplies, and pharmaceuticals.”  They acknowledge that the U. S. is at a “dangerous status quo” and as a result, “at the highest ranks of the U.S. federal government, consensus is emerging that the continued degradation of America’s industrial base is creating domestic vulnerabilities and weakening our ability to compete.” 

As I have pointed out in previous articles, the Task Force admitted that “As America moves slowly, China is accelerating ahead. In 2019, China led the world in global manufacturing output at a level 12 percent higher than the United States.” In addition, “China’s push for self-reliance starkly contrasts with America’s increasing dependence on imports…”

To usher in a new era, it is essential that we wake up to the consequences of this prevailing worldview. I participate on the Buy American committee for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, and the members of Congress who have spoken at our virtual committee meetings recently have emphasized the realization that we have become too dependent on imports from China and other nations and urgently need to rebuild the supply chain of American manufacturing to produce critical products in the U.S.

The Executive Summary emphasized the following key points:

  • “The COVID-19 pandemic underscored manufacturing’s essential role in ensuring our national health, safety, security, and economic vitality. It also revealed how vulnerable the global supply chains are to shocks and disruptions.”
  • “Chinese leadership is leveraging state industrial and technological planning to achieve global economic and military power. In doing so, it has made substantial progress in achieving its stated goals of supplanting America as the world’s foremost economy and recasting the rules-based international system.”

What the Manufacturing Renaissance report has to say about ‘vibrant opportunity.’

The Task Force commented that “The daunting challenge before America also brings with it an opportunity to usher in a new era of productivity and economic growth through new technologies, human capital, managerial innovation, and updated business models.” 

  1. Build unprecedented collaboration at the local level to scale the skilling and placement of workers in high demand, high skill jobs. Let’s encourage U.S.-headquartered manufacturers to fund 500,000 apprenticeships over the next decade.  Let’s write policy allowing employers and high school graduates to use federal education grants for credential programs, apprenticeships, and internships.
  • Modernize the Defense Production Act (DPA) for the 21st Century. There are specific “industries that require the establishment of new, enhanced policy measures to support supplier ecosystems and strengthen government coordination.” They recommend updating the DPA to “enable holistic solutions for critical manufacturing facilities.”
  • Stand up a public-private capability to finance investments in domestic manufacturing sectors critical to national security. It could be done by “a new government-sponsored investment entity like the proposed Industrial Finance Corporation, changes to existing institutions such as the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, direct bond buying programs, a sovereign fund, or private capital funds focused on the on-shore manufacturing ecosystem.”

The Task Force recommends setting the following goals to use as metrics to measure progress over the coming decade:

  • “Bring 2 million new or retrained workers into strategic manufacturing sectors by 2030”
  • “Improve American productivity growth in critical industries to 3.9 percent, which would represent a return to the historic average for manufacturing growth.”
  • Widely deploy and couple modern technology and management practices
  • “Add 35,000 new small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) manufacturers in critical subsectors by 2030 to strengthen the core of the American supplier base and replace half of the small business capacity lost since the late 1990s.”

It’s amazing how close three of the above five goals are to the goals our board has established for the new non-profit, Industry Reimagined 2030, that I wrote about in my last blog article. It’s also coincidental that the Task Force also chose 2030 as the date for achieving their goals.

We have two distinct futures … It is up to each of us to make a choice and take a stand

The report states that “America stands at a fork in the road, facing a choice between two distinct futures” — “Mounting National Security Risk and Economic Vulnerability” or a “A Better Way Forward: Strength, Renewal, and Prosperity.” The Task Force “is confident that a renaissance of American manufacturing is possible if policy makers and business leaders make the necessary choices for our economy and our long-term security.”

As I wrote last time, we have a choice of continuing “inevitable decline” or choosing “vibrant opportunity” for American manufacturing. As a country, we have the choice of becoming subservient to China or remaining a free, independent nation. The future of our country rests on which choice we make.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »