Submitted by Edgar T. Wilson
Shh—listen: right now, somewhere, someone, probably someone you know, is making an impassioned argument that if the government would just stop letting these corporations ship our jobs overseas and start investing in American manufacturing, the U.S. would return to its global leadership position with a singing economy.
Can you hear it?
Despite the popularity of blaming outsourcing and the
decline of American manufacturing for all the country’s economic
stagnation, the truth is, typically, more complicated.
For one thing, those who cry that manufacturing must be
brought back to prominence in the U.S. have reason to take heart: there
are already signs on the horizon
that outsourcing is turning to insourcing, and that the money-saving
opportunities in China and beyond have more or less dried up. Without
the cost differential, the time lost on shipping and logistics
eliminates any appeal of outsourcing, after all. And this trend began
without any heavy-handed intervention from the federal government.
But the manufacturing on its way back to American shores is
not the same industry that was shipped out. While China and India put
their vast human capital to work in factories, engineers, inventors, and
tinkerers from every trade have brought a determinedly 21st century
methodology to the table that sharply reduces the need for vast human
capital.
It is inarguably true that American factories helped build
the country’s middle class; the same model is at work in BRIC nations
today. Uneducated, unskilled workers suddenly have opportunities to make
more than ever before, and a huge move from the countryside to the city
permanently reshapes the nation. It happened in the U.S. following
World War II, and it has happened in China since it opened up trade with
the world in the 80’s.
But the technology that helps supply the world with tradable goods has changed considerably; assembly lines no longer represent lifelong career
tracks, factories are not springing up left and right just to meet
skyrocketing demand, and most importantly, these facilities are no
longer destinations in unskilled workers.
The sorts of factories operating in the U.S.—and the only sort likely to be built anytime soon—require engineers and tech specialists,
and in much smaller numbers than the factories nostalgically recalled
by those demanding more “Made in America” products. The tools of the
trade have changed, and robots—not foreign workers—are the ones stealing American jobs.
Efficiency today no longer means higher employment; it
means better technology operated by a few highly educated workers.
Robots are increasingly adept at assembly, while 3D printers are quickly
advancing beyond prototype development and finding a new role as
mass-production devices.
This move toward efficiency without the human element
eliminates economies of scale, where lots of workers must make lots of
widgets and make up the expense in sales volume. 3D printing levels out
production costs so that one unit is as cheap to produce as one
thousand.
Outside the factory, catchphrases and speechmakers have
similarly missed the point with invectives to “Buy American” or boycott
products “Made in China,” or both. Realistically, the international
supply chain is too large and integrated
for a consumer to make anything like an informed decision to buy from
one country but not another. Raw materials from around the world are
used to make various components of various parts that go on to multiple
stages of assembly in factories all over—“Made in ___” labels are
nowhere close to a straight line to a country of origin.
A new trick some companies are using (apparently, with good
results) is labeling their products as “Made in PRC” to avoid the
watchful eyes of consumers on the lookout for “Made in China”. Of
course, China is shorthand for People’s Republic of China, so both
labels are accurate and both pass muster at the border.
Rather than focusing on where things are being made and who
gets the supposedly coveted opportunity to make them, policy-makers and
average citizens need to turn their collective focus where it matters:
on the what of manufacturing. What, ultimately, is in demand from the
factories?
Neither America’s nor China’s factories have a secure
position in the economy without unique, high-demand products to make;
this requires innovation. At present, the U.S. continues to lead the world in innovation,
but China is hardly unaware that, whether through global on-shoring of
assembly and production, or the development of smarter factories, they
can be replaced just as quickly as the traditional American factory
worker.
Although “get smart” may not have the same patriotic,
confrontational ring as “buy American!” or “bring our jobs back!” it is
closer to the mark. Looking backward at how the country built its wealth
and middle class is no longer helpful in drawing the roadmap toward
preserving it; but investing in the areas America is still the world’s
leader makes more sense than trying to regain an industry that is
already obsolete.
No comments:
Post a Comment