Posts Tagged ‘Manufacturing jobs’

« Older Entries

What Can Individuals Do to Rebuild American Manufacturing?

Tuesday, September 24th, 2024

You may feel that there is not much you can do as an individual to rebuild American manufacturing to create jobs and protect our national security.  This isn’t true?  Remember that our country was founded by a small group of people that did indeed change the world by forming the United States of America. American activist and author, Sonia Johnson said, “We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.” Eleanor Roosevelt echoed this sentiment saying, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Here are suggestions of what each one of us can do:

As a Consumer:  It matters if we buy American-made products.  Our addiction to imports has played a major role in creating our high trade deficit, especially with China, where most of the consumer goods we import are manufactured.

We lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 – 2010 because of importing so many goods from China and other Asian countries.  In contrast, American-made products create American jobs, reduce our trade deficit, and reduce our budget deficit from increased tax revenue. Each time you choose to buy an American-made product, you help save or create an American job.

When you shop in person, look for the country-of-origin labels of goods. Most imported goods are required to have these labels.  Don’t throw things into your shopping cart without checking labels. The most important step is to make a commitment to buy American made products. Commit to make a fair effort to find made in the USA products. Make a promise to yourself to buy the “Made in USA” product even if it costs more than the imported product. It is a small sacrifice to ensure the well-being of your fellow Americans. The price difference you pay for “Made in USA” products keeps other Americans working.

If the product you are looking for is no longer made in America, then buy the product from another country besides China, which has nuclear warheads aimed at American cities. By buying Chinese imports, American consumers have provided the funds for the bulk of China’s military buildup. American service men and women could one day face weapons mostly paid for by American consumers. Instead, you could patronize impoverished countries such as Bangladesh or Nicaragua, which have no military ambitions against the United States.

In addition, by buying a product “Made in USA, you would reduce the “carbon footprint” caused by shipping the product thousands of miles by container ship, using a greater amount of fossil fuel than shipping within the United States.

If you are willing to step out of your comfort zone, you could ask to speak to the department or store manager of your favorite store and tell them that they need to start carrying more “Made in USA” products if they want to keep you as a customer. If you buy products on line or from catalogs, you could contact these companies via email with a similar message. Your communicating with a company does have an effect because the rule of thumb in sales and marketing is that one reported customer complaint equals 100 unreported complaints.

If you think that Americans no longer care about where goods are made or have concerns about the safety of foreign products, you may be surprised to learn that poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans prefer to buy American.

A survey of 1,000 U.S. adults by Morning Consul  in  May 2023 with regard to their views of  products made by American companies vs. Chinese companies revealed the following:

  • 65% of U.S. adult consumers claimed to sometimes or always buy “Made in America” products intentionally
  • 43% prioritize purchasing American-made products rather than prioritizing other options like quality, sustainability, or affordability
  • 48% are willing to pay higher amounts for U.S.-based products. 39% responded they would pay between 6%-10% more for said products

If you are having trouble finding “Made in USA” products, you can search “buy American” on the internet.  A few of the sites you will find are:

www.madeinusa.com

www.ionlybuyamerican.com
https://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/made-in-usa-companies/
https://www.madeinamerica.co/pages/thelist
https://madeinamericastore.com/home/

www.buyamericanmart.com

www.americansworking.com

www.shopunionmade.org

www.MadeInUSAForever.com

www.stillmadeinUSA.com

There are also brick and mortar stores springing up around the country that are either stocking only “made in America” products, such as the Buy American Store  and the Urban Outfitters stores. Even stores like Wal-Mart and Target are carrying more “Made in USA brands due to customer demand.

As American consumers, you have many choices to live safely and enjoy more peace of mind with American products. It’s high time to stop sending our American dollars to China while they send us all of their tainted, hazardous, and disposable products. If 200 million Americans refuse to buy just $20 each of Chinese goods, that’s a four-billion-dollar trade imbalance resolved in our favor – fast!

As a Voter:  Voter apathy is partially responsible for the state of our affairs as a country. Too many people have decided that there is nothing they can do on an individual basis and have stopped voting.

Americans have been “sold down the river” by politicians on both sides of the aisle – Democrats and Republicans. Democrats profess to support “blue collar workers” and unions, yet NAFTA and the WTO treaties were approved and went into effect under the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. Republicans have professed to support business, yet they have voted to approve harmful trade agreements like NAFTA and have primarily supported policies that benefit large, multinational corporations rather than the small businesses that are the engine of economic growth in the U.S. and the foundation of the middle class.

Remember that the U.S. President isn’t a king or dictator; there are only a limited number of actions a president can do by Executive Order.  It’s the job of the President’s administration to set policies, but Congress turns the policies into laws. This makes it just as important to choose to vote for the right person for your Congressional Representative and Senator as it to vote for the President because very few of the policies proposed by the President will be turned into law if Congress is controlled by the opposition party.

In order to help manufacturers succeed and grow to rebuild our domestic manufacturing industry, manufacturers need affordable corporate tax and interest rates because manufacturing is a capital-intensive industry. They need affordable and reliable energy sources because it takes energy to manufacture every product.  They need protection from the unfair trade practices of China, such as:

  • Currency Manipulation – undervaluing the yuan against the U.S. dollar to capture market share with lower prices
  • Product Dumping – selling at or below cost to destroy their American competitors. 
  • Trans-shipping – shipping to an intermediary country before shipping to the U.S. from that country in order to hide that the product was made in China.

When you choose who to vote for President or Congress, examine both their campaign promises and their track record. It’s important to support candidates that would support and protect American manufacturers.  Here are a few questions you can ask:

  • Do they support more harmful trade agreements?
  • Will they increase enforcement of current Agreements to reduce trade cheating?
  • Will they enforce penalties on trans-shipping of steel and aluminum?
  • Will they continue the tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum, solar panels and add tariffs on other goods imported from China?
  • Will they support “Buy America” for all government agencies and not just the military?
  • Will they keep tax rates at an affordable level?
  • Will they institute policies to provide affordable and reliable energy produced in the U.S.?

We cannot afford to export our wealth and be able to remain a first-world country. We cannot lose our manufacturing base and be able to remain a “superpower.” In fact, we may not be able to maintain our freedom as a country because it takes considerable wealth to protect our freedom.

You can play a role as an individual in saving our country ? the company you save or the job you save by your actions may be your own in the future. It’s time to shed apathy, become involved, and vote for the candidate that will best protect American manufacturers and help rebuild American manufacturing.

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

Excitement Builds as Manufacturers Prepare to Open Doors to the Public

Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024

This year Manufacturing Day will be Friday, October 4th, 2024. This is the day when manufacturers nationwide open their doors to the public for plant tours or participate in manufacturing expos to display their innovations.

It’s interesting to look at how this special day started.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) blog describes how it happened.  In 2011, Dileep Thatte of NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) met with Ed Youdell, the new President & CEO of the Fabricators and Manufacturers’ Association at their office in Rockford, Illinois “to share how NIST MEP is focused on helping U.S. manufacturers incorporate innovation, new technologies, productivity and quality improvement techniques and develop their workforce.” 

In the course of the meeting, they developed the idea of having a special day to have FMA members get involved with NIST MEP. Then, they decided it should have a broader scale and created Manufacturing Day. They decided to conduct a pilot event in the Midwest and planned the first Manufacturing Day for the first Friday of October 2012 to allow enough time for outreach and planning.  The first year featured about 240 events and generated a great deal of enthusiasm among the people who participated. 

“The idea was to allow the manufacturers to open their doors in any way they see fit to invite the community, their schools, their educators, the legislators, and others, so that they see what is modern manufacturing and the value of manufacturing for the community.”

The goal was to dispel the myth that manufacturing is “dumb, dangerous, and dirty” so parents, educators, and students “could see that modern manufacturing is different than the traditional image of manufacturing.”  Modern manufacturing is “high tech,” involving computers, Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) machines, robotics, automation, 3D printing, and other “cool” tools. “It’s about creativity, innovation, teamwork and technical skills.”

This reason this is important is that there is a significant shortage of skilled workers in the U.S. and the gap is expected to widen even more unless more youth start entering the manufacturing workforce. According to a 2021 study “by Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, the manufacturing skills gap in the U.S. could result in 2.1 million unfilled jobs by 2030.” We must address this workforce gap by changing the perception of manufacturing jobs, and Manufacturing Day is one of the best ways to change this perception.

By 2014, other national organizations such as the Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME), the Association for Manufacturing Technology (AMT) and SME had jumped on the bandwagon to promote Manufacturing Day.  In San Diego where I lived, the four major chambers, the Greater San Diego Regional Chamber, the East County Chamber, North County Chamber, and South County Chamber, all had events that day ranging from a breakfast with speakers from the manufacturing industry to expos where manufacturers exhibited their products.  Manufacturers all over the county opened their doors to visitors and gave tours. Attended the breakfast put on by the Greater San Diego Regional Chamber and then went on three of the 25 tours scheduled in San Diego County. The producers of Manufacturing Day 2014 bragged that “This year’s Manufacturing Day set another record with almost twice as many events as last year. The final count was over 1,650 events in all 50 U.S. states, three Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.”

The NIST blog article, states “In 2016, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), an organization with membership in excess of 14,000 manufacturers, began leading the Manufacturing Day initiative. NAM, through their workforce development and education partner, The Manufacturing Institute, has done a magnificent job of supporting this initiative.

We moved to Riverside County in the fall of 2018, and on Manufacturing Day, I began my day by attending the special event in Menifee at Mt. San Jacinto College to introduce their new Makerspace to students.  The auditorium was nearly filled with students form Santa Rosa Academy where a panel of business professionals and professors shared the value of their education to their careers.  The event was sponsored by the City of Menifee, the Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce, and CMTC. The audience was welcomed by Major Bill Zimmerman and Tony LoPiccolo, Executive Director of the Chamber. Fortunately, I was able to get a private tour of the MakerSpace by Hal Edghill, the MakerSpace specialist, before the students had finished listening to the panelists. I only had time to visit two companies because they were located so far apart and held in the same time period between 10 AM and 2 PM.

In 2019, I attended the first Made in America trade show that was held October 3-6th in Indianapolis, IN. The event began during Manufacturing Week declared by President Trump and the show opened to the public on the national Manufacturing Day. The NIST blog states, “In 2019, more than 325,000 students, teachers, and parents participated in MFG Day which consisted of more than 3,000 events held across all 50 states and Puerto Rico.”

Unfortunately, the COVID Pandemic lockdowns of 2020 curtailed the in-person special events and plant visits, but MFG Day 2020 because a virtual day, celebrated online instead of in person. “Even amid the pandemic, there was a widespread outpouring of support for manufacturing, including from many policymakers.”

The NAM website states, “The White House issued a proclamation on Thursday night designating Oct. 2 as National Manufacturing Day, while at least 28 governors and leading members of Congress marked the occasion by proclamation or on social media.” 

MFG Day 2021 was October 1st, and “manufacturers throughout the nation hosted open houses, factory tours and job fairs—both on site and online—to introduce young people and others to the promise of modern manufacturing. And many companies and leaders took to social media to show their support and love for the industry.

Besides the proclamation of President Biden, at least 15 states issued their own Manufacturing Day proclamations, and more than 40 congressional representatives publicly marked the occasion.

MFG Day 2022 and 2023 resumed having more emphasis on in-person events, plant tours, and expos.  Over 14,000 manufacturers across America now participate in country-wide celebrations

In June 2023, the Manufacturing Institute of NAM hosted a webinar, “Making the Most of Your Event,” featuring “seasoned MFG Day hosts sharing about their own events, best planning tips, lessons learned, ideas for school and community events.  The purpose of the webinar was to “share tips, insights and resources for companies interested in putting on their own MFG Day events.”  The webinar is available to watch here on YouTube for companies and organizations interested in hosting an event or plant tour for 2024.

In the article about the webinar, MI Director of Student Engagement Jen White, said, “Being involved with MFG Day, hosting events, using the branding that’s available on the website, registering your events on MFGday.com and all of our resources and toolkits are 100% free to you,” said White. “You do not have to be an MFG Day sponsor. You do not have to be an NAM member. It is 100% free for you to use. We want as many companies and partners of manufacturers involved in MFG Day as possible.”

I highly encourage you to sign up to be involved in Manufacturing by sponsoring an event, opening up your company for a plant tour, or attending an event or plant tours in your area at this website.  I certainly plan to attend as many plant tours as are logistically possible in my region of Riverside County, California.

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

What is the Progress on Rebuilding American Manufacturing to Create Prosperity

Tuesday, August 6th, 2024

People have forgotten that there are only three ways to create tangible wealth — mine it, grow it, or make it. Manufacturing is the term now used to describe “making it.” The problem with the current economy of the United States is that we have been outsourcing all three ways to create wealth to other countries for the past 25-30 years, primarily to China after the country was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000.  

As a result, we are now dependent on other countries for the energy, food, and manufactured good we need to sustain the modern way of life, protect the health and welfare of American citizens, and provide the goods needed to protect the national security of our country.

This outsourcing caused a dramatic loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry, namely, 5.8 million high paying jobs from 2000 – 2010.

Let’s consider what progress has been made on a few of the simpler and faster to implement strategies and policies to accelerate the rebuilding process.  In my 2017 book Rebuild American Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, I quote recommendations made by the Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) and make many my own recommendations of what needs to be done to rebuild American manufacturing.

Two of the ITIF recommendations were: “Create a network of 25 Engineering and Manufacturing Institutes performing applied R&D across a range of advanced technologies and support the designation of at least 20 U.S. manufacturing universities.”

While the Manufacturing USA Network was formally established in 2014 when “Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act (RAMI Act) into law, it took three years of planning and competition to form the 16 institutes. Each of these institutes has a unique technological concentration, but is also designed to accelerate U.S. advanced manufacturing as a whole.  The April 2024 edition of Design2Part magazine provides good description of the technological advances facilitated by several of the institutes.

Another ITIF recommendation was:  Lower the effective U. S. corporate tax rate” because at that time, the United States had the highest statutory corporate tax rate at almost 39 percent (when state and federal rates are combined) of any OECD nation.”

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 “reduced the federal top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, bringing the combined US federal and state rates to about the average for most other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and eliminated the graduated corporate rate schedule (table 1). TCJA also repealed the corporate alternative minimum tax.”  However, the TCJA expires in 2026, so Congress will need to address this issue in 2025.

The ITIF also recommended” “Better promotion of reshoring.”

Thanks to changing economic factors and supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID pandemic, the work of Harry Moser of The Reshoring Initiative to help manufacturing companies do a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis to return manufacturing to America, reshoring has dramatically accelerated in the past three years.  As the chart below shows, we have been able to reshore nearly two million manufacturing jobs (1,898,404) as shown on the chart below:

However, at this rate, it would take another 20 years to recoup the 5.8 million we lost from 2000 – 2010.  To rebuild American manufacturing in a faster way, we must focus on other policies besides reshoring.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released a white paper, titled, “A Competitiveness Strategy for the United States – America at a Crossroads,” in November 2015 that included an even longer list of recommendations.  As a member of CPA since 2011, I quoted all of their recommendations in my 2017 book and have written blog articles in the past several years about many of the specific strategies and policies the report included.

  • Impose offsetting tariffs to neutralize foreign government subsidies to industries and supply chains that compete with ours.
  • Counter foreign government policies that force offshoring by conditioning access to their markets on transfers of technology, research facilities and/or production to their countries, as well as compliance with export performance and domestic content.
  • Develop a national trade strategy and increase funding for U.S. trade policymaking and enforcement agencies. (blog article)
  • Combat foreign currency manipulation through a Market Access Charge (blog article)
  • Congress should strengthen and tighten procurement regulations to enforce “Buy America” for all government agencies, not just the Department of Defense. (blog article)
  • Prevent sale of strategic U.S.-owned companies to foreign-owned companies (blog article)
  • Ensure that domestic manufacturing and agriculture benefit fully from an expanded supply of low-cost US produced energy” (blog article)

President Trump took action on the tariff recommendation in January 2018 by imposing tariffs on solar panels and washing machines of 30 to 50 percent. In March 2018, he imposed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) from most countries. In June 2018, this was extended to the European Union, Canada, and Mexico. However, with the ratification of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the North American trade deal set to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the tariffs on Canada and Mexico were rescinded on steel and aluminum.  Since then, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea have successfully negotiated a permanent exemption from the steel tariffs. In addition, the Trump Administration Enforced penalties on trans-shipping of steel & aluminum.  Thankfully, the Biden administration has kept these tariffs in effect, essentially saving the U.S. steel and aluminum industries.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) asserts that further tariffs are needed to balance trade, and on July 24, 2024, CPA “released a new economic analysis showing that a global 10% tariff on all U.S. imports would generate U.S. economic growth, increase real wages, increase employment, and raise additional revenue to lower taxes for lower- and middle-class Americans. 

Our analysis finds that a 10% tariff would stimulate domestic production and raise economic growth to produce a 5.7% increase in real income for the average American household,” said CPA Chief Economist Jeff Ferry. “Further, the $263 billion raised in tariff revenue could be used to provide tax refunds to all households with income below $1 million a year, creating a progressive tax refund.”

We have a long way to go on implementing some of the other recommended policies to rebuild American manufacturing..  How these issues should be addressed should be one of the main criteria of who to vote for in November, both for President and Congressional candidates.

Since I started writing the first edition of my previous book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved?  Why we should and how we can in 2007, I have made it my mission for the rest of my life to do as much as possible as I can to rebuild American manufacturing to create jobs and prosperity. The future of the American middle class and, more importantly, our national security depends on the choices we make and the actions we take now.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Reshoring | 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 »

ToolingU-SME Works to Close the Skills Gap

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2022

The Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute 2022 Manufacturing Perception Study reports that “ significantly more respondents believe that manufacturing jobs are innovative and more respondents are likely to encourage their child to pursue a career in the industry” [compared to the 2017 study]…”Further, the pandemic has led to a new awareness of the critical nature of manufacturing in the United States and beyond.”

This corroborates the eBook released last year by American Machinist and IndustryWeek titled, “Closing the Skills Gap – How manufacturers are leveraging new technologies and energizing a new generation to finally close the labor gap,” that was sponsored by Epicor Software Corporation.

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

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

However, now is the time to be prepared to take advantage of the increased interest in returning manufacturing to America and strengthen our manufacturing base as a result of the weaknesses in the domestic supply chain revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since 1979, the SME Education Foundation has been inspiring, preparing and supporting the next generation of manufacturing and engineering talent through their Student Summit event series, the SME PRIME® (Partnership Response In Manufacturing Education) initiative, and Student Scholarship program. The Foundation “works directly with the manufacturing community to educate the next-generation workforce through SME PRIME. The partnership provides industry-driven and learner-centered curriculum to high school students at SME PRIME schools across the country. Online learning is a significant component to the tailored curriculum developed for each SME PRIME school.”

I had the pleasure of being connected to Chad Schron, who is the senior director for Tooling U-SME and the Co-founder of Tooling U. I learned that Chad grew up in manufacturing. He started his career working in his grandfather’s machine shop and attended his first IMTS show before he graduated from high school. Chad developed the idea for an online manufacturing training school while working at the shop to combat the manufacturing skills shortage.

I told Chad that I started working as an engineering secretary at age 18 for a small defense contractor that was essentially a machine shop making components such as accelerometers, rate gyros, potentiometers before going to college later.

Chad told me that ToolingU-SME has developed curricula that “one in five community colleges and over half of the Fortune 500 manufacturing companies use to train their workforce and their students.” He added, “During COVID we saw significant growth in our education business as schools needed online programs because students were participating online for virtual classes at home.”

From the SME website, I saw that some of the industry-leading companies that work with Tooling-U are: Aerojet General Corporation, B/E Aerospace, BMW Manufacturing Co, Caterpillar, Chrysler Group, Deere & Company, General Dynamics, General Electric Company, Harley-Davidson, Mazak Corporation, Medtronic, Meggitt Aircraft, Raytheon, Senior Aerospace, Siemens, and United Technologies Corporation.

The website states, “Tooling U-SME’s industry-leading online classes and assessments are developed with input from manufacturers and employ the latest methods in instructional design.  “Turnkey Training is a series of predefined online curriculum packages for core manufacturing job roles” that combines classes for targeted learning with on-the -job training (OJT).  “Turnkey Training quickly creates a learning road map and career path for everyone from new hires to tenured employees. Most job roles can be completed in one year with less than four hours a month spent online.”

In addition, “Turnkey Training is ready for immediate use and delivers instruction in the areas needed most by today’s manufacturers. Unlike many other training programs, Turnkey Training requires minimal preparation. It is efficient, effective training that will deliver ROI quickly.”

I asked Chad about the impact of the COVID pandemic, and he said, “COVID impacted a lot of our onsite Instructor led training programs as companies did not allow for in person/onsite training. Most customers have significantly reduced or removed all of their COVID restrictions, and we are back to pre-COVID training programs.”

Chad told me that the COVID pandemic had no real effect on their Apprenticeship and Certification programs. The SME website describes Tooling U-SME’s Apprenticeship Frameworks as “a series of predefined curriculum for common apprenticeship job functions, that provide related training instruction (RTI) using Tooling U-SME online classes…that support common apprenticeship job functions, and provide a flexible model allowing organizations and educators to offer easily accessible solutions in alignment with business needs.”

He explained, “By pairing Tooling U-SME online classes with on-the-job training, trainees can complete their apprenticeships at their own pace from anywhere. Our online classes also provide trainees with the education and theory to help them increase their success. Our Apprenticeship Frameworks are aligned with nationally recognized Department of Labor apprenticeship programs and easily incorporated into a company’s existing programs or used as a foundation for a new apprenticeship program.”

Chad sad that ToolingU-SME also offers Certification programs that “are built by professionals within the manufacturing industry who guide the development and continuous improvement of the bodies of knowledge and competency models upon which the certifications are based.” Current Certification programs listed on the website are:

  • Certified Manufacturing Associate
  • Certified Manufacturing Technologist
  • Certified Manufacturing Engineer
  • Lean Certification (Bronze, Silver and Gold)
  • Additive Manufacturing
  • Electrical Electronics Technology

Chad said, “We are seeing significant grown in our Industry 4.0 curricula as more companies are adopting SMART/Industry 4.0 technologies. This is particularly important as more companies are reshoring and changing their supply chains. They are leveraging these new technologies.”

Chad added, “We have a new Virtual Reality product that we just launched, and there is a video overview to view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-2MhC3beBY&t=10s and press release to read at https://www.toolingu.com/About/Press-News/Tooling-U-SME-Debuts-Immersive-Virtual-Labs.

He concluded saying, “ToolingU is constantly adding new and updated classes to our online catalog and our upcoming class release schedule can be viewed here.

I told Chad that the training ToolingU-SME 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 that the ToolingU-SME curricula will expand to being used by four out of five community colleges instead of one out of five to accelerate that rate of training for manufacturing jobs in the U.S. to fill the over 500,000 manufacturing jobs currently open and prevent us from having an unfilled gap of over two million by 2030.

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 »

Manufacturing Jobs Pay Higher Wages than Retail or Service Jobs

Tuesday, June 9th, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:
Posted in General | 4 Comments »

U.S. Private Sector Jobs Have Declined since 1990

Tuesday, December 10th, 2019

On November 14, 2019, Cornel Law School “announced the launch of a new tool for evaluating the U.S. employment situation and predicting related variables: the U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI).” The Index described in the White Paper represents 18 months of research by Daniel Alpert, adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and founding managing partner of the investment bank, Westwood Capital, LLC, Jeffrey Ferry, chief economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), Dr, Robert C. Hockett, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, and Amir Khaleghi, a Research Fellow at the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity (GISP) and a PhD student at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

At the many economic summits I’ve attended over the past 25 years, I’ve heard economists state that the U. S. is creating more low paying jobs than high paying jobs but there hasn’t been any data available to track this trend on a regular basis.  For the first time, the Job Quality Index provides a tool to measure “desirable higher-wage/higher-hour jobs versus lower-wage/lower-hour jobs.”

The authors define job quality as “the weekly dollar-income a job generates for an employee” They explain that “The JQI is an analysis of weekly incomes earned by the holders of each of the private sector P&NS jobs in U.S. It derives its data from the hourly wages paid, and hours worked by, holders of jobs in 180 separate sectors of the American economy.”

Since the end of WWII, the “percentage of private U.S. jobs in the service-providing sectors increased steadily from approximately 55%” to “around 83.5%” at the end of the Great Recession in 2009.  It has remained flat since that point. However, the paper states that “While service-sector growth as a percentage of all jobs has leveled off, job quality continues to worsen.”

The authors commented, “As weekly earnings of services sector jobs have, to an increasing degree, materially lagged those of jobs in the goods- producing sector (Figure 6), an increase of the percentage of service sector jobs would naturally result in an increase in the number of jobs below the mean, as reflected in the JQI.”

In addition, the authors note that the gap between higher-wage/higher-hour jobs versus lower-wage/lower-hour jobs” has widened almost four-fold to $402 in 2018 from $104 in 1990”  

The paper states, “jobs as tracked by the JQI are defined by reference to data on private sector (nongovernmental) employment provided by third party employers—it does not include self-employed workers. In the first iteration of the JQI being presented in this paper, the index covers only production and nonsupervisory (P&NS) positions, which account for approximately 82.3% of the total number of private sector job positions in the country.”

By the end of 2020, a second index (JQL-2) “will run and be maintained side-by-side with the original JQI-1 index. This will track all private sector jobs, with data commencing in 2000.”

Monthly revisions to the JQI-1 will be published “contemporaneously with the monthly release of U.S. employment data by the BLS (generally on the first Friday of each calendar month. In the future, the JQI will be “presented as a three-month rolling average of monthly readings. This is done to address month over month variability which is too volatile to be a reliable directional trend measure.”

The November JQI stated:  “the U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI)® has been revised to a level of 80.39, representing a minor decline of 0.04% from its level one month ago and reflecting a somewhat lower proportion of U.S. production and non-supervisory (P&NS) jobs paying less than the mean weekly income of all P&NS jobs, relative to those jobs paying more than such mean. The mean weekly income of all P&NS jobs as of the current reading (reflecting the level as of October 2019) was $794, a change of 0.9% from its level the month prior.”  The chart released is shown below:

The paper is divided into five parts:

Part I — Need for the JQI: The Unmeasured Problem with American Jobs

Part II — Construction of the JQI: Capturing and Tracking the Data (explains the development technical detail, setting forth the assumptions and algorithms inherent in its generation)

Part III — Applying the JQI: Illuminating Areas of Confusion in Economic Transmission (discusses the relationship and potential forecasting usefulness of the index in connection with other economic data)

Part IV — Further Developing the JQI: What the Future Holds for the Index (discusses future maintenance and expansion of the index)

Part V — Conclusion: An Index for our Time

Among other things, Part III discusses “The relevance of the resulting “Phillips Curve,” relating lower unemployment to higher levels of inflation…[which] remains—in various modified forms—part of central bank policy consideration to this day.”

It also discussed the impact of the JQI on household incomes and consumption with regard to the U.S. Balance of Trade in Goods. The authors comment, “…as American consumption has continued to rise, the goods consumed had to be produced by someone—even as U.S. goods production jobs plummeted. As evidenced by the U.S. balance of trade over the past several decades, goods consumed by Americans at the margin came increasingly to be manufactured abroad”

They later comment, “The decline in U.S. job quality over the past three decades is linked substantially to a decline in goods-producing jobs.”

 Some of the findings of the research that were of particular interest to me in Part III were:

  • “The JQI’s definition of high-quality jobs (those above mean weekly earnings) provided an average of 38.26 hours of weekly work at year-end 2018, compared with low quality (those below the mean) which provided 29.98 hours.”
  • The percentage of goods producing jobs as a percentage of total private sector jobs dropped from 25.6% in 1990 (down from a high of 43% in 1960) to 16.4% in 2018.

The researches commented, “Surprisingly, the data as analyzed with the JQI also tend to predict the performances of many other salient metrics of the national economy and—in the end—financial markets too…The JQI can significantly improve decision making of policymakers as well as better-inform participants in the financial markets.”

In their Conclusion, the authors remind us of the fact “that the US manufacturing workforce has declined dramatically in the past three decades.” Between 1970 and 1990, the decline was gradual, going down from “17.8 million manufacturing workers” to “17.7 million.” By the year 2000, “it was down 2.4 percent to 17.3 million manufacturing workers.” In the next decade, “manufacturing employment fell off a cliff. By 2010, manufacturing employment was down a shocking 33.2 percent at 11.5 million. Since 2010, the figure has crept up only somewhat, to reach 12.8 million in May 2019.”

 “Meanwhile, the total US working population has grown dramatically over those years. In 1970, manufacturing workers accounted for 22.6 percent of total US civilian employment. As of May 2019, they accounted for just 8.2 percent of the total.”

They comment, “An important question surrounding the decline of manufacturing is whether those leaving manufacturing are transitioning into better or worse jobs.  After building the new Job Quality Index, “the answer is that lost manufacturing jobs were chiefly replaced by lower-wage/lower hours service jobs.”

The White Paper confirms my research in writing three books and hundreds of articles in the past ten years — losing millions of manufacturing jobs between 2000 – 2010 resulted in a decline in the middle class because manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the middle class. Without a strong middle class, we risk becoming a nation of “haves” and “have nots.” I hope the Job quality Index will wake up more economists, Congressional representatives, and employees of government agencies to the dangers of this trend before it’s too late. 

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

The High Cost of Trade Deficits

Tuesday, April 9th, 2019 
 
 

Free trade has resulted in enormous trade deficits in goods for the United States for over 40 years. Our last year of a positive trade balance was 1975. At best, free trade has benefited large, multinational global corporations that have manufacturing facilities located in other countries. At its worst, it is the primary source of our trade deficit and loss of good paying manufacturing jobs.

Even with the tremendous resources we have, what was once the world’s largest manufacturer of products has accumulated $14.379 trillion worth of deficits in goods for all countries since 1991.

A fact sheet generated by the Coalition for a Prosperous America for 2018 show ten countries account for 97% of our trade deficit: China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Vietnam, Italy, India, South Korea, and Malaysia. Our trade deficit with China alone was $419 billion, representing 47.9% of our trade deficit.  Since 1991, we have accumulated over $9.144 trillion worth of trade deficits with just the top four countries. If we had fair trade, we would not have these constant trade deficits.  The drastic effect China has had on our trade deficit is demonstrated by the fact that in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, we had a total $412 billion deficit in goods, but in 2018, we had a $879 billion deficit in goods. 

 

For every $1 billion of trade deficits in goods, it’s been estimated that 6,000 – 7,000 jobs are lost, at about $80,000/job. This means that 8 – 10 million more Americans willing to work could have a comfortable middle-class job in America. Instead, we lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs from the year 2000 to 2010. 

 

In terms of purchasing power, workers’ wages in the U.S. have been stagnant since the 1970s. The significant collapse in the income of average Americans can be attributed to the vast decline of jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. This is the reason average U.S. wages have fallen over time, especially since 2001. From 2001 – 2013, the average U.S. wages fell by 3.5%. In contrast, as Chinese workers flocked to cities for manufacturing jobs, wages have grown substantially, averaging an 11 percent increase per year from 2001 to 2015. 

 

According to the Pew Research Center, 61% of American households were part of the middle class in 1971, but by 2015, only 50% of Americans were part of the middle class. “In 2002, China’s middle class was only four percent of its population. A decade later, this number had climbed to 31 percent, constituting over 420 million people. In contrast, in 1999, only 2% of the Chinese population was a part of the middle class, but by 2013, 39% of the Chinese population was in the middle class.

 

Since China joined the World Trade Organization, the bi-partisan, 12 member U. S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) has been required to submit annual reports to Congress. These reports document China’s non-compliance with the WTO and the effect it has on the U. S. economy.

For example, the 2007 report included a case study of the local impact of trade with China on North Carolina. The USCC report stated “the accelerating decline in North Carolina’s manufacturing employment is due in large measure to increasing competition from imports mostly from China . . . The combination of China’s 2001 admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which gave it quota-free access to U.S. markets for its textile and clothing exports, and the subsequent U.S. grant of Most-Favored (Trading) Nation status that lowered most tariffs on Chinese imports, battered North Carolina’s textile and apparel industries, and they never recovered.”

Because a greater proportion of North Carolina’s workforce had manufacturing jobs than any other state, North Carolina’s workforce was more vulnerable to competition from imports than the workforces of other states. North Carolina’s manufacturing economy was made even more vulnerable by its concentration in the import-sensitive sectors of textiles, apparel, and furniture. North Carolina is one of the southeast states that had a large number of textile companies, and as a result, North Carolina has been the most impacted state in the nation by layoffs due to trade. Between 2004 and 2006, almost 39,000 North Carolina workers were certified by the Trade Adjustment Assistance program as having lost jobs to trade, more than 10 percent of the U.S. total of 387,755. 

According to the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI) of Duke University in North Carolina, there were 2,153 textile and apparel plants in North Carolina employing 233,715 people in 1996. By 2006, the apparel industry had experienced a 70% decline in jobs and 55% loss of plants. The textile industry by comparison had only lost 63% of jobs and 32% of plants from 1996 to 2006. 

The loss of these well-paid manufacturing jobs in North Carolina’s textile industry may have resulted in families losing their homes and/or being forced to relocate to other areas of the country to find jobs. Taking lower paying jobs in their own communities may have resulted in families no longer being in the middle-class income range. And, those who have not been able to find any work or only part-time work may have even dropped down to the poverty level.  It is not just people losing jobs and not being able to find other employment that pays as well as their former jobs, “hundreds of small towns throughout North Carolina impacted by plant closures are dying.”

Remember that it takes taxes paid by three to four working Americans to pay for the unemployment benefits of a non-working American. The cheaper China price of goods that we import instead of producing here in the U. S. results in a cost to society as a whole. We need to ask ourselves:  Is the China price worth the cost to society?  I say a resounding NO! We need to stop shooting ourselves in the feet. We need to stop benefitting the one percent of large multinational corporations to the detriment of the 99% percent of smaller American companies.

China, Germany, Japan, and many other countries have built their currency value around making certain all of their countrymen have a good job, even if that destroys America’s work force. As a result, these countries have maintained constant trade surpluses with the U. S. for many years, which would not have happened if we had fair trade.

 

It is impossible for the U.S.to remain competitive if our currency is not fairly valued. In order to move manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., we need to move our currency value down by at least 27% because the currency of Germany and Japan are undervalued by about that same amount.  China has rigged its currency between 15%-40% below its fair value since joining the WTO, and this gives a subsidy to their imports to the U.S. and imposes a direct cost on U.S. exports to China.

Devaluing our currency would allow many more products that we import from overseas to be made here. Unfair trade practices of currency manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping, and state-owned enterprises have allowed China to buy our raw materials and our low-cost energy to become the largest producer in the world of paper, aluminum, and steel even though labor costs are small compared to the cost of raw materials, energy, and transportation.

We need to focus on eliminating our trade deficits and achieving balanced, reciprocal trade in all future trade agreements. The last thing we need is to increase our trade deficit more than it already is.

 

In addition, we need to continue on the path of returning more manufacturing to America by reforming our tax policies and making regulations less onerous to manufacturers, without compromising our commitment to protect our environment. This is the only way that we will be able to simultaneously reduce our trade deficit and the national debt.

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

Tariffs Benefit the American Manufacturing Industry

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

Most people are unaware that for over 150 years, the American government protected the development and growth of its manufacturing industry with high tariffs, ranging from a low of 5% to as high as 50% in some cases. The first tariffs were imposed by the Tariff Act of 1789, whose purpose was to raise money for the new federal government, slash Revolutionary War debt and protect early-stage American industries from foreign imports.

Prior to achieving its independence, Americans were dependent on goods imported from England, France, and Holland, so it was critical to develop their own manufacturing base to maintain independence as a country in the event of future wars.

These protectionist policies enabled its fledgling manufacturing industries to grow until the United States became the preeminent industrial nation in the 20th century.  American manufacturing dominated the globe for over 70 years.

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, reflecting the failure of negotiating governments to create a proposed International Trade Organization. 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.

By the 1970s, Japan’s economy was flourishing to the point that Japan became a major exporter to the U. S. for consumer electronic goods such as cameras, stereos, radios, and TVs. During the 1980s, Japan further expanded its U. S. market share with automobiles and machine tools for the manufacturing industry, such as mills, lathes, and turret presses.

Germany focused on high-end products in all of the same markets as the Japanese, so that American products faced stiff competition at the low end and high end.

Manufacturing employment in the U. S. reached a peak of 19.5 million in 1979, and slid down to 17.3 million by 1993 from the effects of job losses from increased imports from Japan, Germany, and other countries because of free trade policies and lower tariffs.

By 1995, when the World Trade Organization replaced GATT, 125 nations had signed its agreements, governing 90 percent of world trade.

Another major blow to the American manufacturing industry took place when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated under President Bill Clinton and went into effect in January 1994. The agreement was supposed to reduce market barriers to trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to reduce the cost of goods, increase our surplus trade balance with Mexico, reduce our trade deficit with Canada, and create 170,000 jobs a year. Twenty years later, the fallacy of these supposed benefits is well documented.

According to the report “NAFTA at 20” released in 2014 by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, “More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries.”

In 1994, GATT was updated to include new obligations upon its signatories. One of the most significant changes was the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO.) The 75 existing GATT members and the European Community became the founding members of the WTO on January 1, 1995. The other 52 GATT members rejoined the WTO in the following two years, the last being Congo in 1997. Since the founding of the WTO, a number of non-GATT members have joined, and there are now 157 members.

The loss of jobs accelerated after President Clinton granted Most Favored Nation status to China in the year 2000, and China was able to join the WTO. As a result, the U. S. lost 5.9 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010, and manufacturing employment dropped from 17.3 million down to 11.4 million in depth of recession in February 2010. In addition, an estimated 57,000 manufacturing firms closed.

On January 31, 2017, the Economic Policy Institute released a report, “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs,” written by Robert Scott.

Scott stated, “Due to the trade deficit with China, 3.4 million jobs were lost between 2001 and 2015, including 1.3 million jobs lost since the first year of the Great Recession in 2008. Nearly three-fourths (74.3 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2015 were in manufacturing (2.6 million manufacturing jobs displaced).”

Why were so many jobs lost? A large percentage of the people who lost jobs were in industries decimated by Chinese product dumping and below market pricing; i.e., textiles, furniture, tires, sporting goods, and garments. In addition, American manufacturers chose to outsource manufacturing offshore as the U.S. Department of Commerce data shows that “U.S. multinational corporations… cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.”

Thankfully, manufacturing employment increased to 12.8 million by December 2018 as shown by the chart below. This was the result of a very slowly improving economy, reshoring (returning manufacturing to America), and increased Foreign Direct Investment (foreign manufacturers setting up plants in the U.S.) Notice that it took six years to increase by 904,000 under the Obama Administration, and it’s only taken two years to increase by another 441,000 jobs under the Trump Administration. While an increase of 1.4 million jobs is good news, at this rate, it would take about 30 years to recoup the 5.8 million jobs we lost from 2000 to 2010.

 

We need to accelerate the growth of manufacturing jobs, and that is what the tariffs imposed by President Trump are designed to do.  In the only few short months since the tariffs went into effect, I’ve seen the following headlines about job growth in the past week:

“U.S. Steel Corp. Restarts Texas Plant That Closed in 2016,”  IndustryWeek, February 5, 2019

“Tariffs Helping US Manufacturers Add Jobs, Says Group,” IndustryWeek, February 7, 2019

“US Steel Resumes Construction on Idled Facility,” IEN, February 11, 2019

On December 04, 2018, the article “Contrary to popular belief, Trump’s tariffs are working” by Jeff Ferry, Research Director for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), stated,  “The tariffs have contributed to this growth directly and indirectly. Directly, we’ve catalogued some 11,000 US jobs that are being created by companies in the four tariffed industries, and that’s not including any of the Section 301 industries. Since that 11,000 tally in August, more investments and jobs have been announced, like the massive $1.5 billion steel plant to be built by Steel Dynamics, which will create some 600 new jobs in the southwest. Solar Power World lists a dozen solar companies now investing in US production of solar modules.”

“At CPA, we built an economic model looking at the effects of the tariffs on the US economy from 2018 through 2021. We found that the tariffs boosted US economic growth, adding $9 billion to GDP this year. Further, our growing economy leads to growing US imports each year. In other words, by boosting our own economic growth, we buy more goods from our trading partners, not less.”

If we want to protect our national security and maintain our national leadership in the 21st Century, we cannot continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing countries with predatory trade policies to destroy the American manufacturing industry.  I support the new path the Trump Administration is forging by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and strong domestic supply chains.

 

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

« Older Entries