Somewhere, on a Forbes magazine list of most-hated professions, manufacturer must appear just above lawyer and journalist.
It’s one explanation for the manufacturing-related musings of columnist Tim Worstall who, in a snarky column last month entitled Manufacturing Isn’t Important But Factory Goods Orders Are Rising — That’s Nice, proclaimed of manufacturing:
“It just doesn’t have all that much relevance in a modern economy. I mean, sure, it’s nice, manly men have been doing more manly things with machines and all that, but in terms of how it affects the rest of the economy we’re down at a level of significance where, well, it doesn’t. Affect the rest of the economy in any manner we’ll notice that is.”
In working up a response, I instead fell upon Fast Company’s saving feature, 25 Brands that Matter. Of the 25 “companies whose products you love to love because they stand for something more than merely what they sell,” eight were manufacturers, and two of the top five. It’s a beautiful repudiation:
By Fast Company’s reckoning, technology and manufacturing companies are the pin-ups of the U.S. economy.
It’s unlikely that FC’s editors or readers will draw the same conclusion, let alone Worstall. Today, Apple is known as technology company, Patagonia an outdoor industry brand, and Nike a sporting goods giant.
We’ve been okay with these labels because manufacturing’s been something companies just do offshore, out of sight and out of our globalized view of what should constitute a “modern” economy. But until manufacturing is considered the full extension of a brand’s identity, America’s sector will continue to be marginalized.
It’s ironic that voices emerging to challenge conventional wisdom are often not mainstream business media but instead entertainment-and-culture rags like The New Yorker, who last week explored manufacturing’s conundrum in Joshua Rothman’s smart column, “Should We Subsidize Manufacturing?”
He does all of us a favor by collating the thoughts of economists, industrialists and sociologists like Louis Uchitelle, author of Making It: Why Manufacturing Still Matters. For this group, America’s relationship with manufacturing is cultural as well as economic. As a result, a retreating sector tears at the social fabric of the country.
Uchitelle’s ideas are especially thought provoking. For one, he argues that Americans “are in denial about the importance and prevalence of subsidies.”
From Rothman’s New Yorker piece: “Our factories have always been ‘semipublic institutions’ funded, to a surprising degree, by taxpayer dollars. ‘The false premise that manufacturing is a free-market activity — that subsidies don’t exist or are inconsequential — should finally be put to rest,’ Uchitelle writes. ‘No one anywhere in the world makes steel or autos or shoes or virtually anything else in a factory without subsidies.’ Uchitelle thinks we ought to subsidize manufacturing more, and more rationally. We should also recognize that, when we decide not to subsidize manufacturing, we are deciding to kill it.'”
Uchitelle’s prescriptions are bold: “Subsidies should be increased, and their role emphasized. The dollar should be devalued to encourage exports and slow the financialization of the economy. Import tariffs should be raised and trade agreements renegotiated. Taxpayers should have more say in where factories are located: similar factories should be built near one another, ideally in or near densely populated cities, to strengthen the industrial base and force companies to compete for workers. ‘Buy American’ clauses should be extended: Uchitelle notes that the glass in the new World Trade Center was made in China, as was the steel in the new Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.”
And the coup de grace: “A G.D.P. percentage target for manufacturing. In the nineteen-fifties, twenty-eight per cent of G.D.P. came from manufacturing; today, it’s twelve, and only Britain and Canada lag behind the United States in manufacturing output. Uchitelle argues that a figure of seventeen per cent would put us in line with other industrialized nations. In Germany, he points out, ‘manufacturing output has generated a steady 22 percent of the national income year after year for at least seventeen years, and the government is quite open about its participation.'”
With the the current dialogue stuck at ‘how important is manufacturing?’, bold steps like a G.D.P. target can seem a bridge too far. On the other hand, a new, disruptive agenda may be exactly what’s needed to reorient policy makers, and reticent business columnists, to a new manufacturing reality.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Year in Review: Manufacturing is again a center of U.S. innovation
/in General/by Bart TaylorIn 2013, we set out to report on growth companies across multiple manufacturing industries. Since then, we’ve written about nearly 850 businesses, a market sample that likely paints the most complete picture anywhere in media or trade of the transformation of this most iconic of American industrial sectors.
As we reflect back on 2017 through the lens, literally, of the CompanyWeek photojournalists and editors responsible for bringing to life the regional manufacturing economy, it’s also useful to take stock of this transforming sector based on the data we’ve compiled from our rich catalog of company profiles.
So as Jonathan Castner and Judson Pryanovich document their favorite photo shoots of 2017, and Eric Peterson and Alicia Cunningham muse on their favorite profiles from Colorado and Utah, here’s a brief overview of the data:
In every interview, we ask executives to identify their challenges, opportunities and needs:
It’s important to note our content bias: Where possible we interview companies with growth prospects, or in the case today of Colorado’s rich craft brewing ecosystem, operating in growth markets.
But manufacturing industries written off in prevous years, like consumer and lifestyle manufacturing, are in this region, growth industries. CompanyWeek‘s catalog of company profiles is today shaped by the proliferation of companies in manufacturing industries making a profound comeback. These companies emphatically cite new markets, new products, and market leadership as the top three opportunities available to their business. In our geographical footprint, manufacturing has rediscovered its historical role as an epicenter of innovation.
Our mission in 2018 is to help manufacturers connect with each other and the supply chain to expand domestic manufacturing — to Make More in America. If you’re a manufacturer or domestic supply-chain provider, we’ll get you connected with other companies profiled in CompanyWeek. Here’s how.
In the meantime, celebrate the perspective of the writers and photojournalists who’ve brought the sector to life the past year.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Why investment capital will remain elusive with corporate ‘tax reform’
/in General/by Bart TaylorThe premise of the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ is that lower taxes will lead to an increase in business investment and consumer spending, spurring on growth that will more than offset revenue cuts. We do it by entrusting the corporate class with a windfall we hope they spend wisely.
There’s reason to believe it won’t play out this way.
Jeremy Grantham, chief investment strategist at Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo & Co., has pointed out the price-earnings ratio of the stock market over the past 20 years has been 70 percent higher than the previous 100. The profit margins of U.S. corporations have been 30 percent higher. It’s a golden age for U.S. corporations.
At the same time, Grantham notes that companies aren’t using these dividends to build new plants in the U.S. They’re buying back stock, for one, to drive equity prices higher. Great for corporate executives and stockholders, not so good for U.S. economic growth. “There aren’t as many new firms that get started,” says Grantham, “the number of public companies has halved, the number of people working for firms that are one or two years old, are half what they used to be in 1970.”
Instead, the capital resulting from higher profits is camped out in paper, including billions in private equity. There are 10 times as many private equity firms in the U.S. today than there was in 1990, with over $500 billion to invest but a record capital overhang. Corporations and private investors have more capital to invest than ever. They’re conservative when it comes to investing it.
Why aren’t they spending?
Investors point to a lack of companies. “Equity firms tell us the toughest issue they face is simply finding enough good candidates to look at,” according to Generational Equity, a PE firm based in Dallas, in 2012. “They are hungry for deals, but they just don’t see enough.” Five years later, $100 billion more in equity capital is poised to be invested through dozens of new firms, family offices, and capital funds. It’s more likely that investors aren’t seeing enough deals they like, not that deals aren’t there to be had.
It’s not for want of opportunity. The economy is undergoing a shift to small and middle-market companies. Doug Tatum chronicles the importance of early-stage companies navigating the perilous stage from start-up mode to growth company in ‘No Man’s Land’. Today these emerging middle-market companies “account for less than 3 percent of all businesses, yet contribute 30 percent of all new jobs added by all businesses,” Tatum says. He also writes, “From 2010 to 2013, the number of companies in the U.S. with 20 to 99 employees increased 10 percent, while the number of U.S. corporations with 1,000-plus employees decreased by 16 percent.” Grantham’s point.
For Tatum, these companies are the new heroes of the U.S. economy. They’re also the most vulnerable, as capital and management expertise are most elusive for businesses of this size.
If tax cuts don’t motivate buyers, will lower rates improve the quality of acquisition targets for investors? It’s hard to say. In over 800 interviews with manufacturing executives that we’ve completed the last four years, only a handful of companies cited high taxes as a barrier to growth.
Today the corporate class seems comfortable investing in next quarter’s profits, not next year’s emerging growth company. Tax cuts help the balance sheet. Tax reform, done right, might pursuade them differently.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Let’s recalibrate “Made in America” to include global operators
/in General/by Bart Taylor“Made in America” has never been an ideal slogan to rally U.S. manufacturing from its post-globalization doldrums. Too many American companies have come to rely on offshore suppliers and contract manufacturers. Rather, “Made in America” has become a call to arms, a rediscovery of our manufacturing chops. It’s more symbol than substance.
This shouldn’t diminish the extraordinary efforts of U.S. companies that today fully embrace the business and brand benefits of actually making everything in America, or sourcing the components needed to manufacture and assemble goods from domestic suppliers.
But for hundreds of thousands of otherwise well intentioned U.S. brands and OEMs that manage global supply chains to manufacture products, “Made in America” sloganeering has run its course. For them, it’s time for a new and more inclusive rallying cry that’s unyieldingly pro-U.S. manufacturing yet cognizant of the shortcomings of the domestic manufacturing supply chain.
How else to reconcile manufacturing realities?
If your company makes backpacks or athletic shoes by the thousands or garments even by the dozens, in most cases — not all — success involves global operations. Vietnam is today an epicenter of backpack manufacturing, built by investments from U.S. companies (and, ironically, the U.S. government). Apparel entrepreneurs today seek out Asian factories that produce goods for world-class American brands. Consumer and industrial giants design and engineer products in the U.S. but rely on a network of contract manufacturers, foundries, and assemblers located around the globe.
The tie that binds these manufacturers from distinct and separate industries is labor. Machine operators, assemblers, sewers, and skilled makers by the thousands — the tradespeople of advanced manufacturing economies — are today found offshore. Corporate investments follow.
But today other trends point to a wholesale onshoring of manufacturing capabilities, trends that even the most accomplished global operators also embrace. Shortening a supply chain is good business.
American companies are tapping an immeasurable fount of domestic creativity and innovation to design and engineer new products and reimagine entire industry sectors. Robotics and automation and technologies like 3D printing are enabling companies to prototype and manufacture closer to home. Brands conceived in California or Utah are working harder than ever to keep production in those places to enrich communities and control IP and quality, core tenets of today’s entrepreneurial class.
It’s time to cast a wider net and celebrate not just those companies whose products are “Made in America,” but the wave of companies that today seek to “Make More in America.” Companies working to integrate engineering with manufacturing on domestic soil; to retrain a generation of equipment operators; to support local growers and new industries that bleed innovation as they contemplate local production.
In 1988, Harvard Business Journal opined that “Manufacturing Offshore Is Bad Business.” Corporate America ignored the advice.
Today let’s simply acknowledge that American brands and OEMs that “Make More in America” do so because it’s good business. Our collective challenge is to provide companies the means to do more. Connecting manufacturers with each other and a growing domestic supply chain is job one.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
America’s new industrial brand is on display here, in the Rocky Mountains
/in General/by Bart TaylorOf the 850 or so companies we’ve profiled the past four years, is there a single business we can point to that embodies all that’s compelling about the new manufacturing economy?
It’s a tall order. But among the criteria, we might agree that said company would be:
Moreover, if we can identify more than a handful of companies, across manufacturing industries, that meet these criteria, would this then formally equate to a new era — a new golden industrial age — of American manufacturing?
I’m inspired to ask these questions because this week we feature a company that meets our criteria of a bellwether modern manufacturer.
We first profiled Steamboat Springs-based Moots in CompanyWeek‘s inaugural month of September 2013. This week we revisit the company and new president Drew Medlock, seemingly a great addition to a company leading a vanguard of maker businesses reshaping the sector.
Consider:
Moots’ talented designers and fabricators, sellers, brand managers, and other employees may not fully grasp what they’re accomplishing — no more than those working at Colorado’s other cycle manufacturers like Guerilla Gravity or Alchemy — but the combination of entrepreneurialism and a renewed interest in the physical product add up to a powerful magnet for aspiring young professionals.
Moots is pioneering with advanced materials and processes — titanium and 3D printing, for starters. The Moots’ weld is also a thing of beauty.
As Medlock notes in the profile, “I think European customers have even more of an appreciation for metal bikes over carbon fiber.” Can Moots open international markets for other exporters, even if it can’t today handcraft enough bikes to become a significant player? It’s a good bet. Moots’ brand embodies quality and craftsmanship, ingenuity and industry.
Much as Utah’s ENVE Composites has done for wheels and components, Moots is leading a movement to bring cycling manufacturing back to the U.S., mainly from China and Taiwan. As Medlock points out, it’s no walk in the park. Domestic manufacturing “is always a major challenge for us in terms of cost. We always try to source . . . domestically. So that’s a challenge. It’s not easy.”
Yet for communities from Steamboat to Park City to Telluride, the primary jobs that Moots and its peers keep in the local economy can be a foothold to establish more non-service sector jobs, employment alternatives that help places escape the single-industry business cycles that bedevil local economies.
Finally, Medlock and the Moots team may not realize they’re game changers, given the day-to-day challenges of staying in business while bucking the move to offshore production, where cheap labor and materials add up to black on a spreadsheet. If they could, they might fully embrace the transformative effect many small- to medium-sized manufacturers are having on America’s manufacturing brand.
This week, we’ll do it for them, and remind the business community that if we don’t align resources to ensure that Moots and other companies like it succeed, we’ll have a missed an opportunity to change our industrial fortunes. It’s a sure bet that, in sounding a cautionary tale about supply-chain challenges, there are days when businesses like Moots and leaders like Medlock contemplate resource-rich ecosystems, wherever they may be.
Let’s not miss the opportunity to rally around change agents like Moots. Manufacturing will prosper as a result.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Contact him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Chipotle broke its brand promise; manufacturers should take note
/in General/by Bart TaylorFor manufacturers, Chipotle and other restaurant brands that manage complex supply chains and shape raw materials into refined products are kindred spirits. They’re makers all. We’ve also profiled regional growers and ranchers who shape the ‘locavore’ community and supply Chipotle and others, so the outcomes of local food artisans are always of interest.
Likewise, there are lessons to be learned when restaurant food brands flail, and for consumer manufacturers especially, Chipotle’s crash to earth the past couple years offers two important takeaways.
Lesson one, complex supply chains break. Be prepared.
Chipotle’s challenge in growing, packaging, transporting, preserving, and presenting food products have been well documented and from where I sit, there’s no need in piling on. What they accomplish day to day, week to week, is hard. Other brands that have transformed entire industry sectors with vision and innovation can relate. Failing at complex operations is inevitable. Chipotle’s supply chain was bound to crash at some point. Their recovery has been admirable.
But at the center of Chipotle’s current woes may be a more fundamental fail. As a long time customer and fan, I’ve lost the deep connection I once had with the Chipotle brand, and suspect others have as well. And until someone inside the company tells the truth, attempts to rescue the brand with Band-Aids like ‘queso’ will fail.
I was an early Chipotle customer and ate often at the chain’s first location on Evans Avenue near the campus of University of Denver. More accurately, I overate. The trademark burritos were stuffed to the point that their makers would often struggle to wrap the conglomeration into a single tortilla. (Watch Sebastian Maniscalco’s hilarious take on Chipotle’s burrito makers.)
I still eat at Chipotle, a couple times a month. I like the food, but today my visits often come with a side of irritation. The company’s burrito artisans spoon about four ounces of chicken or steak or whatever over rice or beans. I had to know so I asked. Gone is the visceral delight of being served a three-pound burrito that often doubled as lunch and dinner. Of standing in line for 15 or 20 minutes with like-minded schlumps, all giddy that the eight bucks about to be spent was true value.
Chipotle was not only a culinary delight, novel and innovative and massive, it was an over-the-top deal. And we came back, wide-eyed and ready for more. Today an algorithm dictates that a few ounces of organic pork, served in a jillion burritos, will sustain growth and the stock price.
All fine, except that the company has walked away from a its core brand appeal. When I visit the restaurant now, an accountant serves up my burrito bowl. The food’s still good. The experience, the satisfaction, gone. Is it a surprise the stock price has crashed — down 60 percent the past year? Not to me. It’s just a business now. I wonder if today it’s just a business to Steve Ells and his lieutenants.
Lesson two: Keep your promises. If divesting a share of your company or going public obscures or buries the values that attracted a legion of customers to your brand, you’re toast.
Served with a side of queso.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
San Francisco foodies look east to Boulder (naturally)
/in General/by Bart TaylorSpecial guests at last month’s Pitch Slam & Autumn Awards included stakeholders from San Francisco’s dynamic food scene, in Colorado to learn more about Naturally Boulder, the trade association that’s been so instrumental in vaulting the state’s natural and organic products sector to national renown.
And why not? Colorado’s ascendant, nationally recognized food and beverage sector is leading a regional charge in nondurable goods manufacturing. Nondurable goods employment increased in Colorado by 2.6 percent in 2016 and is expected to post a 2.1 percent gain in 2017, averaging about 53,300 workers for the year, led by food and beverage.
The sector pales in size to California’s global food juggernaut, but those in San Francisco and elsewhere see the obvious: tightening up food communities and providing early-stage companies better access to resources will only accelerate growth, keep promising food brands local, and enable the entire ecosystem to better respond to the demand from consumers wanting natural and organic products from local providers. Naturally Boulder has emerged as a national model.
Part of it is the power of networks. Events like Pitch Slam are must-go gatherings that today attract investors, economic developers, and other service professionals that promising early-stage companies inevitably need to thrive. As a result, the network becomes a magnet for entrepreneurs.
San Francisco’s no stranger to this dynamic in manufacturing. SF Made is a bright national beacon among regional associations advocating for companies that comprise the modern manufacturing economy — or legacy brands that have led the way. Today we profile McRoskey Mattress Company, an SF Made member and proud California manufacturer with roots in the 19th century.
But as we’re seeing today in Colorado, focus pays dividends. And even then, the speed with which industry sectors transform can leave behind even the most agile brands.
With the help of a tight, collaborative community, companies like EVOL, LARABAR, and Justin’s pushed through exits that enriched owners and within the span of a decade, changed the national conversation about food. Just as quickly, the market has changed again.
Today, even with food-focused investment funds camped out in Colorado alongside a cadre of Wall Street veterans and family offices, the game is suddenly harder. Harder for brands to get funded; harder for early-stage brands to get shelf space at Whole Foods; and harder for entrepreneurs to sell industrial brands, today much more knowledgeable and invested in innovation, on the benefits of acquisition.
Which means foodies in San Francisco and San Diego (like Opera Patisserie, profiled this week), must all be smarter, more ambitious, and more innovative than those who came before.
It’s why associations or groups that build community and educate, incubate and accelerate companies can make all the difference. It must be why industry mavens from San Francisco see value in a trade group in Colorado, despite California’s unmatched resume for food and agriculture.
Besides, even with brands conceived in 1899 in San Francisco still leading the way, much about today’s manufacturing is just being learned.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
How Amazon’s Whole Food plans may undermine innovation
/in General/by Bart TaylorAmazon’s disruptive model has always evoked strong feelings, good and bad. So who wins and loses as Amazon bursts into the grocery business with the acquisition of Whole Foods? Beginning this week, WF shoppers will enjoy lower prices on “high-volume staples.” It’s a short-term win for consumers.
But if Amazon’s discounting strategy extends into most WF SKUs, the small, innovative brands that have led a food manufacturing revival in California, Colorado, Oregon, and other progressive states may see margins erode, a potentially devastating development for companies that have benefitted from WF’s model.
Specialized retailers have been a catalyst of the artisanal, craft manufacturing boom. By providing early-stage brands encouragement and key shelf space, grocers like Whole Foods have fostered growth and innovation. The higher margins that shoppers pay have also worked to protect small producers: locally made, organically-sourced products are often more expensive to make, especially early on, when companies aren’t big enough to co-pack or able to invest in larger more efficient product facilities. Notes Steven Hoffman, managing director of Compass Natural Marketing, “An authentic brand will never win on price, but it can win customers who share its mission and values.”
And here’s the rub. Is Whole Foods’ values connection with customers and brands consistent with Amazon’s algorithms “that scrape competitors’ prices before automatically matching or narrowly undercutting them on its website?” What happens if Whole Foods evolves, if not to a discount brand, but a store that squeezes margins across the board? Margins that sustain early-stage companies and fuel the steady stream of new ideas pouring from food ecosystems in California, Colorado, and elsewhere.
Bill Capsalis, former president of Naturally Boulder, the go-to trade association for Colorado’s natural and organic product sector, isn’t concerned — yet.
“Let’s be clear, we’re talking about one retailer here,” Capsalis says. “Yes, they are important, but my own experiences show me that due to Whole Foods’ own policies and processes they have been getting a 10 percent to 30 percent premium on the same products you can buy at other retailers.”
Capsalis was bullish on Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods initially. “It’s good because brands can now preserve margin by selling direct. If you combined the expertise of Whole Foods and the way they curate brands and products — with the tech savvy and direct to consumer model of Amazon – the consumer really wins big time in this equation.”
Hoffman also takes a long view. “This is a continuum of what’s already been happening with brick and mortar retailers having to compete with e-commerce sellers,” he says. “Distributors that had been serving Whole Foods, too, are having to deal with this quantum shift, as Amazon comes with its own myriad warehouses, and margins are sure to be squeezed along all channels of distribution.”
Today, he adds, the impetus is on brands to evolve, and the game’s on. “Before, I would recommend companies explore online strategies in addition to trying to get into Whole Foods and other retail markets. Now, online strategies will become an essential part of every brand’s business model. My guess is that, if you do well on Amazon.com, you may very well end up on the shelves at Whole Foods Market.”
That said, Capsalis and others are wary. “The fears of what’s to come with this merger are real and palpable,” he says. The fears, no doubt, are related to Amazon’s track record of transforming America’s retail landscape — and the resulting unintended consequences.
Here’s what we know: Small food brands that are transforming the industry need sufficiently long runways to innovate and operate. Eroding margins can be a slippery slope in the wrong direction. In the outdoor industry, Patagonia founder Hap Klopp calls this eventuality “the race to the bottom” — a focus on cheaply-made products from discount brands that works to undermine product differentiation and, in the end, American manufacturing.
Industry advocates in California, Colorado, and across the West will do well to ensure that innovation and entrepreneurship remain the calling card of food manufacturing ecosystems, and remain key outcomes of Amazon practices, not just lower prices.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Contact him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Manufacturing Day, RIP
/in General/by Bart TaylorThis column originally appeared in October, 2017.
On one hand, Manufacturing Day, an event dreamed up by the National Association of Manufacturers in 2012, serves a useful purpose. Americans are in need of a reawakening to the potential of manufacturing employment, for the benefit of their families and our communities. The Day has become a showcase of manufacturing jobs, with companies throughout the nation opening their doors to high-school kids and undergraduates. As today’s factories are certainly a far cry from several generations ago, it’s useful for kids to see the modern technology and clean rooms of today’s manufacturing and by all accounts, the Day was a rousing showcase of modern manufacturing.
On the other hand, we’ve moved on. Manufacturing is more relevant than Manufacturing Day imagines, even though we continue to conjure up the image of a Pittsburgh steel plant to contrast the new manufacturing economy and use the day to bemoan a negative perception of the sector. It’s more likely these dated images reside mostly in the minds of business columnists who’ve never made or bent or cut or shaped anything without an eraser on one end and a ballpoint on the other. (An official objective is to “change public perceptions of manufacturing.”)
Instead, Manufacturing Day should also be reimagined. Where activities and pronouncements earlier this month worked to reinforce negative stereotypes, a new Manufacturing Day would embrace a national mission to overcome shortcomings that continue to weigh on growth, in addition to workforce.
Let’s keep it simple and focus on two outcomes:
Provide direct support for early-stage and middle-market manufacturing. We could count the ways, but tax cuts masquerading as tax reform are one example of economic policy that helps large corporations and National Association of Manufacturing members, but does little to tip over decades of paltry investment in early-stage manufacturing companies and workforce.
The notion that U.S. corporations are suffering because of punitive tax rates is folly. The opposite is true. They’re killing it. The price-earnings ratio of the stock market the past 20 years has been 70 percent higher than the previous 100. The profit margins of U.S. corporations have been 30 percent higher.
But these extraordinary profits aren’t translating into jobs, into a middle-class employment rally. Again, the opposite. Companies aren’t using these dividends to build new plants in the US. They’re buying back stock, in part to drive stock prices higher. Great for stockholders, bad for growth. It’s a mindset that also diminishes the creation of new companies. The number of people working for companies one to two years old is half of what it was 20 years ago.
Tax reform would direct proceeds from any tax-cut windfall to investments in new companies and factories, capital equipment, and infrastructure. Germany and other industrial powers set a GDP target for manufacturing investment. A meaningful tax reform outcome for manufacturers would be reinvestment to drive U.S. manufacturing GDP back over 15 percent — an outcome that requires a new commitment to early-stage and middle-market companies.
A national effort to reconstitute the domestic supply chain. I’ve said it before: manufacturers need, well, everything, and much if it has been offshored or remains out of mind in our stilted view of what a ‘global’ economy should look like.
A supply-chain transformation begins with a forceful argument for what manufacturing is. For the first time in four years, since launching CompanyWeek, I heard a National Public Radio journalist refer to a distiller as a manufacturer. Progress! Manufacturing today is an eclectic mix of industries and companies.
Communities that embrace a new industrial future will develop resources, real estate, financing, talent and contract manufacturing for food startups, high-tech fabricators, brewers and distillers, outdoor industry, and bioscience and aerospace companies. And invest in services and technology that better connect manufacturers with each other and the supply chain.
This is a ground-up call to arms. It doesn’t begin in Washington D.C. It’s not a NAM-inspired marketing program. The National Association of Manufacturing is a phantom to 95 percent of manufacturers, most of whom are small businesses.
Let’s instead turn Manufacturing Day into a week or even a monthlong effort to connect entrepreneurs and middle-market companies with domestic resources that help them keep business investments in everything, including talent, local.
In other words, Manufacturing Day has runs its course. More connecting, and less caterwauling, is the true north for sector development. Let’s get on with it.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Five reasons why manufacturing jobs are coming back to stay
/in General/by Bart TaylorLast month after taking a shot at Forbes columnist Tim Worstall for his snarky column, “Manufacturing Isn’t Important But Factory Goods Orders Are Rising — That’s Nice,” I heard back from Worstall in a cordial if combative response.
Among other things, I’d argued that his habit of diminishing manufacturing simply because companies move it offshore undermines the sector by undervaluing it. Worstall wouldn’t have it. He responded, “I am not saying that manufacturing shouldn’t happen. I am saying that it’s entirely unimportant that it happens in the U.S. or not.”
I invited Worstall to Colorado to debate the proposition, as I disagree with his premise and his clarification. But our friendly, in-person spat will have to wait, as Worstall’s ensconced in Portugal.
Perhaps his colleague at Forbes, John Tammy, will accept in his stead. Tammy is also anti-manufacturing, as evidenced by his shortsighted missive published a few weeks later, “When They Promise To Bring Back Manufacturing Jobs, They’re Promising Stagnation.” Tammy chides that manufacturing jobs are a vestige of the Civil War era, when “New York was a city of factories.” He adds, “Lest we forget, it’s where the talented migrate, and the talented disdain low-wage, back-breaking manufacturing work. So have American workers of all stripes left manufacturing employment behind.”
This surprisingly common theme in the business press, that manufacturing and a modern U.S. economy don’t mix, runs headlong into a different reality on the ground. Manufacturing jobs are coming back, reshored or contemplated in the U.S. first, despite the protests.
Here are five reasons why:
The straightforward means to accelerate the trend and establish a new manufacturing labor class is to focus on the domestic supply chain. Companies that want to make more products in the U.S. need more of, well, everything.
Support of the domestic supply chain is a clear litmus test for any trade association, economic development entity, elected official, or academic leader that claims to support manufacturing.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.
Bold steps needed to advance a national manufacturing blueprint
/in General/by Bart TaylorSomewhere, on a Forbes magazine list of most-hated professions, manufacturer must appear just above lawyer and journalist.
It’s one explanation for the manufacturing-related musings of columnist Tim Worstall who, in a snarky column last month entitled Manufacturing Isn’t Important But Factory Goods Orders Are Rising — That’s Nice, proclaimed of manufacturing:
“It just doesn’t have all that much relevance in a modern economy. I mean, sure, it’s nice, manly men have been doing more manly things with machines and all that, but in terms of how it affects the rest of the economy we’re down at a level of significance where, well, it doesn’t. Affect the rest of the economy in any manner we’ll notice that is.”
In working up a response, I instead fell upon Fast Company’s saving feature, 25 Brands that Matter. Of the 25 “companies whose products you love to love because they stand for something more than merely what they sell,” eight were manufacturers, and two of the top five. It’s a beautiful repudiation:
By Fast Company’s reckoning, technology and manufacturing companies are the pin-ups of the U.S. economy.
It’s unlikely that FC’s editors or readers will draw the same conclusion, let alone Worstall. Today, Apple is known as technology company, Patagonia an outdoor industry brand, and Nike a sporting goods giant.
We’ve been okay with these labels because manufacturing’s been something companies just do offshore, out of sight and out of our globalized view of what should constitute a “modern” economy. But until manufacturing is considered the full extension of a brand’s identity, America’s sector will continue to be marginalized.
It’s ironic that voices emerging to challenge conventional wisdom are often not mainstream business media but instead entertainment-and-culture rags like The New Yorker, who last week explored manufacturing’s conundrum in Joshua Rothman’s smart column, “Should We Subsidize Manufacturing?”
He does all of us a favor by collating the thoughts of economists, industrialists and sociologists like Louis Uchitelle, author of Making It: Why Manufacturing Still Matters. For this group, America’s relationship with manufacturing is cultural as well as economic. As a result, a retreating sector tears at the social fabric of the country.
Uchitelle’s ideas are especially thought provoking. For one, he argues that Americans “are in denial about the importance and prevalence of subsidies.”
From Rothman’s New Yorker piece: “Our factories have always been ‘semipublic institutions’ funded, to a surprising degree, by taxpayer dollars. ‘The false premise that manufacturing is a free-market activity — that subsidies don’t exist or are inconsequential — should finally be put to rest,’ Uchitelle writes. ‘No one anywhere in the world makes steel or autos or shoes or virtually anything else in a factory without subsidies.’ Uchitelle thinks we ought to subsidize manufacturing more, and more rationally. We should also recognize that, when we decide not to subsidize manufacturing, we are deciding to kill it.'”
Uchitelle’s prescriptions are bold: “Subsidies should be increased, and their role emphasized. The dollar should be devalued to encourage exports and slow the financialization of the economy. Import tariffs should be raised and trade agreements renegotiated. Taxpayers should have more say in where factories are located: similar factories should be built near one another, ideally in or near densely populated cities, to strengthen the industrial base and force companies to compete for workers. ‘Buy American’ clauses should be extended: Uchitelle notes that the glass in the new World Trade Center was made in China, as was the steel in the new Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.”
And the coup de grace: “A G.D.P. percentage target for manufacturing. In the nineteen-fifties, twenty-eight per cent of G.D.P. came from manufacturing; today, it’s twelve, and only Britain and Canada lag behind the United States in manufacturing output. Uchitelle argues that a figure of seventeen per cent would put us in line with other industrialized nations. In Germany, he points out, ‘manufacturing output has generated a steady 22 percent of the national income year after year for at least seventeen years, and the government is quite open about its participation.'”
With the the current dialogue stuck at ‘how important is manufacturing?’, bold steps like a G.D.P. target can seem a bridge too far. On the other hand, a new, disruptive agenda may be exactly what’s needed to reorient policy makers, and reticent business columnists, to a new manufacturing reality.
Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.