Several months ago, a group of Americans committed to reviving manufacturing in this country, and having expertise in a wide range of areas relevant to that goal, met for a day-long meeting, The Second Annual Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing: Jobs, Trade and the Presidential Election, in Washington, D.C. The Conference focused on what needs to be done to revive U.S. manufacturing and why this objective must be a central issue in the 2012 Presidential Election. Speakers ranged from Gene Sperling, Assistant to President Obama for Economic Policy, to Grant Aldonas, former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade under George W. Bush, speaking for the Romney Campaign. Corporate and labor leaders included Gordon Brinser, President of SolarWorld; Brian Toohey, President of the Semiconductor Industry Association; and Thea Lee, Deputy Chief at Staff at the AFL-CIO. Policy gurus included writer Clyde Prestowitz, Rob Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Ralph Gomery, former Senior Vice President at IBM, Leo Hindery from the New America Foundation, and Alan Tonelson of the United States Business and Industry Council. Present and former elected officials included Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and former Governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich.
Such a diverse group of participants has no one solution for reviving manufacturing in the United States. But a number of key ideas emerged, which are described below. These need to be followed-up on immediately by policy makers, and by candidates at the Presidential, Congressional, and State levels.
Two-Part Strategy: As a matter of process, we need to embrace a two-part strategy: (1) specifying what we need to enhance based on that we are already doing (i.e., trade enforcement, R&D tax benefits) and (2) taking on major new strategic elements (e.g., trade action against currency undervaluation, creation of a Secretary of Manufacturing, a large Economic Development fund at the Federal level).
Capitalizing on Recent Growth Areas: We need to take advantage of events that are already occurring, capitalizing on three areas of robust economic development in the United States: the communications boom, the tremendous increase in natural gas production, and the health care boom. We should think of health care in Buy American terms-in other words we should buy from domestic manufacturers–given the heavy subsidies from the U.S. Government to this industry.
Off-Shoring Policy: Many participants believe there should be a governmental and economic review of the implications of off-shoring by companies in the most sophisticated segments of the manufacturing base (such as electronics and avionics). Off-shoring of technologies in these areas is particularly problematic.
Eliminating the Trade Deficit: There is a strong belief that the trade deficit contributes to the budget deficit and we need to take steps to eliminate it — in other words “Trade Deficits Matter.” We also need better scoring on trade agreements. We should only approve trade agreements that demonstrate a “plus jobs, plus factories effect.”
Addressing the SOE Problem: State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China and elsewhere have become a major challenge for U.S. manufacturing. Many U.S. manufacturers are now competing against arms of the state to a much wider degree than in the past, yet our trade system is still geared toward dealing with market-oriented companies who have market-oriented motivations. We need a broader set of remedies and review mechanisms related to SOE investments and imports into the United States and their unfair practices abroad. One proposal is to create a CFIUS-like system for review of investment and sales by SOEs in the U.S. market. CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, is a governmental inter-agency committee with jurisdiction to review foreign investments in U.S. companies, and stop such investments if they pose a threat to national security. A similar program could relate to SOEs, trade, and economic security.
A Comprehensive China Policy: A central issue remains trade with China, where we had a $295 billion trade deficit last year. Almost all of it in manufactured goods. With regards to China, our Conference panelists strongly urge the passage of legislation to offset currency manipulation. We also want a standstill in any further trade benefits for China, including negotiation of an investment treaty, until the Chinese government changes its indigenous innovation program, a program which undercuts U.S. high-tech companies in their efforts to access and prosper in China. We also believe we need a broad-scale effort to combat Chinese subsidies and a more vigorous program to combat Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property, which would include serious consequences for Chinese companies that engage in such behavior. Finally, coerced transfer of IP and even of company ownership has become a prerequisite to doing business in China and cannot be tolerated.
Incentivizing Reshoring: We support reshoring initiatives that have recently demonstrated that it does make sense to bring manufacturing plants and jobs back to the United States now. The Boston Consulting Group and the Reshoring Initiative have done important work in this area.
Structural Changes in Government: We think some structural changes are needed in the U.S. Government, including the creation of a Secretary of Manufacturing, who should be in a position to make sure sound manufacturing policies are developed and implemented throughout the Federal Government. We believe there should be an attempt to replicate the German Fraunhofer Institute system, which is a government-funded applied research organization that disseminates R&D and has successfully assisted the German manufacturing sector for many years, much of it through direct contracts with industry.
Revision of Tax Policy: It is a national scandal that we have allowed a gross tax disadvantage for U.S. exporters to go on for decades, due to a peculiarity in the WTO system. When U.S. companies export their products, they cannot obtain a rebate of their income taxes and thus their
expor
t prices must be higher, but foreign countries, which have a VAT (value added tax), are permitted to rebate the VAT on export under the WTO system. This gives many foreign exporters a 17 percent advantage over U.S. companies. No wonder our manufacturers are suffering! We also need to lower the corporate tax rate — we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Regulatory Reform and R&D Promotion: It is critical to remember that we do not operate in a vacuum; we are in an international competition for manufacturing market share. Other countries engage in competitive efforts to attract manufacturing, whether it consists of our own, or their own, companies. To that end, and to make the United States fully competitive in this worldwide struggle, we need to lower the regulatory burdens on U.S. businesses and manufacturers, create an Economic Development Fund to match foreign support for manufacturing, increase funding for R&D and innovation in the United States, and provide larger and more dependable tax benefits for R&D and innovation. The R&D tax benefits should be tied to having the subsequent manufacturing take place within the United States. We recognize that when it comes to taxes and general business regulation, other competing demands arise within the U.S. political and economic system. Those of us in favor of a stronger manufacturing base cannot solve all of these conflicts, but we do believe the current status quo is creating disincentives for making things in America.
Enhancing Buy America Provisions: We think more can and should be done with Buy America requirements. These have been worn away to the point that they seldom operate in the way originally intended by the Congress. As infrastructure spending increases, as we believe it should, federal and state government purchases should be made from suppliers in the United States. Insofar as our international agreements prevent this preference, we need to review the operation of these agreements to see if they are benefiting U.S. exporters in foreign government procurements to any significant degree. The International Trade Commission or the Government Accountability Office should conduct a study of this issue. The regulations underlying the Buy America program must be critically examined and probably rewritten — waivers should be curtailed and the new regulations should specify that we need a very high level of U.S. content before a product can be considered to be “Made in America.”
Re-Tooling the Work Force: Finally, there are more and more instances where we do not have the right people available at the right time to fill manufacturing jobs. This does not mean it’s all a question of training, as some would say. It is certainly not because of a “lack of training” that we have
lost five million manufacturing jobs over the last decade. But it does appear there is a mismatch between some existing skill sets and the newest demands on manufacturing workers. To that end we should redouble our investments in community colleges and other training programs that can prepare the next generation of workers for a manufacturing career. And we need to fully support the great engineering schools of the United States, and provide funding for any student who wants to undertake this critical and challenging career.
There is no one solution that will solve the problem of a declining U.S. manufacturing base, but there are solutions. We need to have a national commitment to manufacturing, which was one of the main focuses of the Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing. And we need to be prepared to revise our strategy on a real time basis. We cannot build a Maginot Line. We need to build the next space program.
Made in America: States and Businesses Can Restore American Manufacturing
by MAM TeamHaley Barbour and Terry McAuliffe
for The Huffington Post
Some have given up on American industry, saying manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Business leaders beg to differ, evidenced by growing efforts at reshoring and a recommitment to the “Made in America” label. And Mississippi, among other states, is leading the way. Since 2004, an aggressive job-creation agenda has brought higher skilled, higher paying jobs to Mississippi. The result: Employment is higher now than it was before Hurricane Katrina and per capita income increased 34 percent over the last eight years.
These successes stem from state and local governments and business leaders accepting that the renaissance of American manufacturing won’t happen overnight, and resolving to bring the restoration about by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. There is no magic pill from Washington. Job creation is driven by the growth of small businesses and real gains can be made when entrepreneurs collaborate with their state and local governments to develop innovative solutions.
As a Virginia businessman and a former Mississippi governor, we are proud of our success story. We have been able to slow the rapid loss of manufacturing jobs in one hard-hit part of the country because of a jobs-before-politics philosophy exemplified in our unlikely partnership: a Democratic businessman who purchased an award-winning, advanced Chinese car company and moved it to America, and a Republican governor who fought hard to bring manufacturing jobs to his state. As the former chairs of the Democratic and Republican national committees, we’ve had plenty to disagree about over the years. But we found common ground in creating new jobs. Jobs should not be a partisan, political issue.
Now two years later, GreenTech Automotive’s first manufacturing facility in Horn Lake, Miss., is creating hundreds of new jobs and supporting thousands more. Furthermore, these jobs are built for the future, providing next-generation solutions to America’s energy needs by manufacturing all-electric, zero emission passenger vehicles.
In addition to these new jobs, GreenTech Automotive is shipping Made in America vehicles around the world and proving that America remains the world’s best place for manufacturing quality products. We’re not content to stop here. For example, similar efforts are underway to restore jobs in Virginia, where we are exploring repurposing a shuttered facility to produce wood pellets for export into the growing European biomass market.
Long-established automakers including Toyota and Nissan have come to Mississippi in the last decade, creating some ten thousand jobs. Advanced manufacturers from General Electric Aviation and EADS’ American Eurocopter in aerospace, the Russian steel giant Severstal, truck maker PACCAR and several alternative energy manufacturers have taken advantage of the state’s quality workforce and business-friendly environment. They join Chevron’s largest North American refinery and Huntington-Ingalls shipyard in proving manufacturing has a future not only in Mississippi, but also America.
Our Mississippi and Virginia-based GreenTech Automotive offers an example of how states and businesses can work together to get the job done. To continue this growth in other parts of the country, state governments need to recognize their role, not in being the source of jobs, but in fostering an environment conducive to job creation. They must level the playing field for competition; implement smarter tax policies that promote growth rather than punish success; invest in worker training; and promote innovation as well as the manufacturing required to make the products that result. Businesses, too, must commit to American manufacturing. They will find the risks are few. The U.S. is still home to the world’s best workers and technology.
We have begun to accomplish great things in a state committed to creating a business-friendly environment by putting aside our differences and embracing Made in America as both a corporate goal and a deeply held value. Other states and other businesses should do the same.
Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 12 People Dead
by MAM TeamWitnesses in the movie theater said Holmes crashed into the auditorium through an emergency exit about 30 minutes into the film, set off a smoke bomb, and began shooting. Holmes stalked the aisles of the theater, shooting people at random, as panicked movie-watchers in the packed auditorium tried to escape, witnesses said.
“You just smelled smoke and you just kept hearing it, you just heard bam bam bam, non-stop. The gunman never had to reload. Shots just kept going, kept going, kept going,” one witness told ABC News.
“I’m with coworkers and we’re on the floor praying to God we don’t get shot, and the gunshots continue on and on, and when the sound finally stopped, we started to get up and people were just bleeding,” another theatergoer said.
Police said 10 victims died inside the theater, while dozens of others were taken to local hospitals, including a child as young as 6 years old.
A San Diego woman identifying herself as James Holmes’s mother spoke briefly with ABC News this morning.
She had awoken unaware of the news of the shooting and had not been contacted by authorities. She immediately expressed concern that her son may have been involved.
“You have the right person,” she said.
“I need to call the police,” she added. “I need to fly out to Colorado.”
Holmes was wearing a bullet-proof vest and riot helmet and carrying a gas mask, rifle, and handgun, when he was apprehended, according to police. Holmes mentioned having explosives stored, leading police to evacuate his entire North Aurora apartment complex and search the buildings early this morning.
The highly-anticipated third installment of the Batman triology opened to packed auditoriums around the country at midnight showings on Friday morning, and features a villain named Bane who wears a bulletproof vest and gas mask. Trailers for the movie show explosions at public events including a football game. Though many moviegoers dressed in costume to attend the opening night screening, police have made no statements about any connection between the gunman’s motives and the movie.
Police in New York have intensified security around showings of the film throughout the five boroughs today, with police commissioner Ray Kelley saying that “as a precaution against copycats and to raise the comfort levels among movie patrons in the wake of the horrendous shooting in Colorado, the New York City Police Department is providing coverage at theaters where the ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is playing.”
The Paris premiere of the movie has been cancelled in the wake of the shootings. “Warner Bros. is deeply saddened to learn about this shocking incident. We extend our sincere sympathies to the families and loved ones of the victims at this tragic time,” the movie’s producers, said in a statement.
Witnesses watching movies in theaters next to the one where the shooting took place said bullets tore through the theater walls and they heard screaming.
“The suspect throws tear gas in the air, and as the tear gas appears he started shooting,” said Lamar Lane, who was watching the midnight showing of the movie with his brother. “It was very hard to breathe. I told my brother to take cover. It took awhile. I started seeing flashes and screaming, I just saw blood and people yelling and a quick glimpse of the guy who had a gas mask on. I was pushed out. There was chaos, we started running.”
One witness said she saw people dropping to the ground after the gunshots began.
“We were maybe 20 or 30 minutes into the movie and all you hear, first you smell smoke, everybody thought it was fireworks or something like that, and then you just see people dropping and the gunshots are constant,” witness Christ Jones told ABC’s Denver affiliate KMGH. “I heard at least 20 to 30 rounds within that minute or two.”
A man who talked to a couple who was inside the theater told ABC News, “They got up and they started to run through the emergency exit, and that when she turned around, she said all she saw was the guy slowly making his way up the stairs and just firing at people, just picking random people,” he said. “The gunshots continued to go on and on and then after we didn’t hear anything…we finally got up and there was people bleeding, there was people obviously may have been actually dead or anything, and we just ran up out of there, there was chaos everywhere.”
Witnesses and victims were taken to Gateway High School for questioning.
Hundreds of police and FBI agents are involved in the investigation. A senior official who is monitoring the situation in Washington said that early guidance based on the early snapshot of this man’s background indicated that this act does not appear to be linked to radical terrorism or anything related to Islamic terrorism.
Though police have said that they believe the shooter was acting alone, they checked all cars in the parking lot and cleared the area near the theater.
Dr. Comilla Sasson, at the University of Colorado Hospital where many of the victims were taken, said they are currently operating on nine critical patients and have treated 22 in all. She called the hospital “an absolutely terrifying scene all night.”
“The good news is that the 3-month-old has actually been discharged home and is in the care of their parents
In a statement, President Obama said, “Michelle and I are shocked and saddened by the horrific and tragic shooting in Colorado. Federal and local law enforcement are still responding, and my administration will do everything that we can to support the people of Aurora in this extraordinarily difficult time. We are committed to bringing whoever was responsible to justice, ensuring the safety of our people, and caring for those who have been wounded.”
A man who was in the adjacent theater with his son, said that the commotion began as one of the action scenes was starting up.
“These guys came through, and they say someone’s shooting,” he said. “I thought, ‘Oh, they must have heard the fireworks, you know … I had no idea. And then the alarms started to go off in the theater.'”
An explosive device was also found inside the movie house. Police are not sure whether the device, which investigators are calling a bomb, was already in place or whether it was thrown into the crowd.
Ambulances rushed to the scene as audience members fled the theater.
Investigators are now interviewing friends and associates of the suspect to get a sense of the man’s background.
Matthew Mosk contributed to this report.
Source: YAHOO! News
Hatch Calls Dems' 'Insourcing' Bill 'Misleading'
by MAM Team“There is an utter lack of seriousness with this proposal,” the ranking member on the Finance Committee said. “On the surface this might sound reasonable … but as far as tax policy goes, this is a joke.”
Hatch said the bill was straight from President Obama’s campaign committee.
“It’s devoid of serious content because it is a product of political rather than economic priorities,” Hatch said on the floor Thursday.
Hatch said the bill should have come from the Finance Committee. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who is on the Finance Committee, introduced the measure.
Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would eliminate that deduction, and create a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back into the United States.
But Hatch said Democrats are being misleading by saying that there is a tax break for outsourcing.
“I’ll keep this book of tax codes at my desk here, if someone wants to show me the tax code that allows deductions for shipping jobs overseas,” Hatch said while holding the large book. “I’d like to see it, but it’s not in here.”
It’s unclear if the bill will clear the voting hurdle to end debate. Republicans were expected to support it until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was unlikely to include any Republican amendments.
Hatch said he’s recommending that the bill be sent to his committee for tweaks.
Source: THE HILL
Russian Spin on Olympic Apparel Fray
by MAM TeamBy DAVID LIPKE and CATHERINE BLANCHARD
But do they really? ABC did not source that apocryphal sentiment to any actual Russians. WWD reached the Russian Olympic and Paralympic Organizing Committee to check on the group’s sourcing proclivities as they plan for the Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. “The Sochi 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Organizing Committee is not in negotiations with American Apparel for the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. The official outfitter of the Russian team up to 2016 is the company Bosco Sport,” relayed the organization.
Moscow-based Bosco Sport manufactured uniforms for the upcoming London games in Asia and Europe, according to a spokesman. “Bosco is the official and exclusive outfitter to the Russian Olympic Committee. Our contract with the ROC means Bosco will be dressing Russia’s Olympians and Paralympians through to Rio 2016, in the same bold and beautiful designs we have been creating for the team since Salt Lake 2002. There is no reason for that to change in the foreseeable future,” the company told WWD.
It was unclear at press time whether Bosco had engaged in any discussions with American Apparel about potentially sourcing future uniforms from its Los Angeles facility. Charney declined to comment on whether American Apparel has had any talks with Bosco.
“I had contact from an organization that is connected to the government. Nothing has been signed but we were in dialogue,” insisted Charney. “I invited them to come to our London store and buy samples at our expense and see what interests them.”
Asked about the denials from the Russian Olympic Committee that there have been any negotiations with American Apparel, Charney responded: “I don’t know that every senior person there knows everything that’s going on with an inquiry about product.”
Besides ABC’s misleading inference, both Forbes.com and Cocoperez.com incorrectly reported on their sites that American Apparel had a done deal for Russian Olympic uniforms — something neither Charney nor the Post had actually stated.
——————–
Original article
In trying to get you the story as quickly as possible, we failed to do our due diligence. We will try to be more diligent in obtaining more information before we publish any news going forward.
Bring Jobs Home Act Blocked by Senate. Here is the 'Roll Call'
by MAM Teamas compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3364 )
Vote Number: 181 Vote Date: July 19, 2012, 02:15 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: S. 3364 (Bring Jobs Home Act)
Measure Title: A bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America.
Vote Counts: YEAs 56 – NAYs 42 – Not Voting 2
Click here for Complete Roll Call
Senators Block ‘Insourcing’ Bill: S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act
by MAM TeamThe Bring Jobs Home Act also would have given a tax incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the United States. The measure failed to advance on a 56-42 vote, with 60 votes needed to end debate on the bill.
Republicans were considering supporting the insourcing bill until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wouldn’t include any GOP amendments.
“At a time when millions of Americans are looking for work, I’m not sure what could be more serious than protecting good-paying, middle-class jobs,” Reid said. “This obstruction tactic is unfortunate, but it’s not surprising. After all, Republicans’ nominee for president made a fortune working for a company that shipped jobs overseas.”
The Bring Jobs Home Act would have created a new tax credit for companies that spend money to bring overseas jobs back to the United States, and eliminate a tax credit for companies that spend money to move jobs overseas.
Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would have eliminated that deduction, and created a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back to America.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.) voted in favor of the measure. But other Republicans called the bill “political” and “misleading.”
“On the surface this might sound reasonable … but as far as tax policy goes this is a joke,” said ranking member of the Finance Committee Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “It’s devoid of serious content because it is product of political rather than economic priorities.”
Reid said the bill was very serious to those losing their jobs.
“To 21 million Americans whose jobs could be the next ones sent to China or India, it’s a very serious proposal,” Reid said. “And to the 2.5 million Americans who jobs have already been offshored, it doesn’t get any more serious than this. The only ones who aren’t taking this legislation seriously are Republicans in Congress.”
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced the bill as a jobs measure.
“It’s time to stop rewarding companies that send jobs to other countries and instead support businesses creating jobs here at home,” she said.
See how your Senator voted on the Bring Home Jobs Act: Senate Roll Call
Source: The Hill
You may find Ramsey Cox original article here. The Hill
Made in America: Apple's supply chain increasing US production
by MAM TeamPublished: July 19, 2012 07:38 AM EST (04:38 AM PST)
But the iPhone and iPad — Apple’s two most popular products — are made up of much more than the CPU and glass that Cook highlighted. These complex mobile machines include power controllers, proximity sensors, cellular radios, Wi-Fi chips, audio and video chips, accelerometers and more — and a number of those parts come from American companies.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that any of the parts found in Apple’s products are, with absolute certainty, made in America, even if they’re sold by a U.S. company. Many chipmakers build their products at a number factories located around the world. And ever-secretive Apple doesn’t even disclose who makes many of the parts found in its products, leaving enthusiasts to tear the company’s devices apart and hunt for clues, sometimes to no avail.
But over the last year, some of the more prominent chipmakers that Apple does business with, including Texas Instruments and Avago Technologies, have begun to increase their stateside production of components.
One industry contact who spoke with AppleInsider said that many of these companies are expanding their U.S. production in part because of orders received from “a large personal electronics manufacturer” that continues to see record breaking sales. Afraid to identify Apple by name, some in the industry are said to jokingly refer to growing orders from a mysterious “fruit vendor.”
One Apple supplier, Avago Technologies, is currently expanding its manufacturing processes in Fort Collins, Colo., and is planning to buy as much as $130 million worth of manufacturing equipment. Avago is responsible for making a custom part for Apple’s iPhone 4S that allows one handset model to connect to multiple forms of wireless networks around the world, according to IHS iSuppli.
AppleInsider inquired with Avago about its U.S.-based chip fabrication, as well as its assumed partnership with Apple, but the company declined to comment.
Texas Instruments, another key Apple partner, is also currently ramping up production at its Texas chip fabrication factories. While the chipmaker is closing factories in Japan and Houston, one person familiar with the company’s operations said those moves have come as the company turns its focus to products seeing increased demand.
In particular, Texas Instruments is said to have seen orders grow considerably for its power management chips for mobile devices like smartphones. Texas Instruments already supplies a number of components to Apple, including the touchscreen controller in the iPhone 4S, as well as power management chips and a control device found in the new third-generation iPad. The company was also rumored in March to have begun manufacturing new power management chips for Apple’s next iPhone.
A person familiar with operations at Texas Instruments said its power control chip business, which is said to receive a significant number of orders from Apple, has generated “thousands of jobs” in the U.S. Many of those jobs are said to be high-paying technical jobs that require employees with engineering degrees, particularly at its Richardson, Tex., facility, known internally as “RFAB.”
Fairchild Semiconductor, which is believed to supply power supply chips for Apple’s iOS devices, is also said to be producing over capacity at its American facilities. The San Jose-based company, which has been around in various forms since 1957, saw record quarterly sales for mobile products in the first quarter of 2012, and is in the process of adding more equipment in the U.S.
An individual familiar with Fairchild’s business indicated to AppleInsider that the company’s 200-millimeter wafer fabrication plant in South Portland, Maine, is currently at full capacity, as is its 150-millimeter facility in West Jordan, Utah. This person said Apple-ordered components built by Fairchild will primarily come from its Maine plant in the second half of 2012.
There are also rumors in the industry that Maxim Integrated Products, a semiconductor manufacturer based in San Jose, has secured orders from Apple. The company has plants in San Antonio and Dallas, as well as Beaverton, Ore., and San Jose, Calif.
AppleInsider reached out to Maxim to comment on rumors that it has received orders from Apple, but the chipmaker declined to comment on that particular topic.
However, Vivek Jain, senior vice president of Manufacturing Operations at Maxim, did discuss his company’s general chip production business, and revealed that about 50 percent of its wafer fabrication production is based in the U.S.
Maxim recently began a multi-year investment in its American facilities, upgrading and expanding capacity at all of its U.S. fabrication plants. Jain said the investment will allow Maxim to improve product quality and upgrade its equipment while assimilating production from recently acquired companies. Maxim’s 380,000-square-foot semiconductor fab in San Antonio was purchased from Philip
s Semiconductor
s Inc. in 2003.
Jain said the companies Maxim partners with have not specifically asked the chipmaker to build more products in the U.S. But Maxim has focused on its American operations regardless, because the company feels it gives them a competitive advantage.
“We have a very talented pool of resources in Silicon Valley and across (the) U.S. to develop new process technologies and do cost effective manufacturing, while protecting critical intellectual property,” Jain said.
Combined, Maxim’s plants in San Antonio and Beaverton employ nearly 1,100 manufacturing and engineering staff. Even more high-end workers are expected to be added as the company continues its $200 million in upgrades aimed at expanding its U.S. semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
Breaking down the iPhone’s parts
It’s impossible to tell exactly how much of Apple’s products are truly built in the U.S. As evidence of this, Andrew Rassweiler, senior principal analyst at research firm IHS iSuppli, put together a breakdown of components found in the iPhone 4S, and 52.6 percent of the parts were considered “unknown.”
iSuppli’s research did find that Samsung Semiconductor, which builds Apple’s custom ARM processors in Texas, plays the biggest role in the iPhone 4S. They estimate that Samsung’s components represent 12.4 percent of the smartphone’s identifiable bill of materials.
Avago Technologies is estimated to account for 1 percent of the bill of materials in the iPhone 4S, while Texas Instruments is pegged at 0.6 percent, Maxim is estimated to account for 0.5 percent, and Fairchild Semiconductor has 0.1 percent.
Corning’s Gorilla Glass, which serves as the scratch-resistant surface for the iPhone 4S touchscreen and is publicly acknowledged to be made in America, is estimated by iSuppli to represent another 0.6 percent of the smartphone’s total bill of materials.
Other noteworthy iPhone component makers on iSuppli’s list are:
While a number of parts found in the iPhone, iPad and other Apple products come from American companies and are made in the U.S., those parts are still shipped to China where Apple’s assembly partner, Foxconn, puts together the final product. Cook noted at D10 that much of the media scrutiny regarding Apple’s overseas partnerships comes from an “intense focus on the final assembly.”
“Could that (assembly) be done in the U.S.? I sure hope so,” Cook said. “But look, how many tool-and-die makers do you know in America? I could ask them, nationwide, to come here tonight and we couldn’t fill this room.”
It’s also worthwhile to consider that assembly jobs with companies like Foxconn tend to be low paying positions, which is in part why so many Chinese workers take on large amounts of overtime for extra pay. In contrast, the engineering jobs required for chip fabrication at companies like TI, Avago, Fairchild and Maxim are highly skilled, more desirable positions.
“We do as many of these things [in America] as we can do,” Cook said at D10. “And you can bet that we’ll use the whole of our influence to do this.”
What the Candidates Should Do About U.S. Manufacturing
by MAM TeamFormer Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce
Original Post: 07/18/2012 3:22 pm
This cannot go on. But what do we do?
Such a diverse group of participants has no one solution for reviving manufacturing in the United States. But a number of key ideas emerged, which are described below. These need to be followed-up on immediately by policy makers, and by candidates at the Presidential, Congressional, and State levels.
Two-Part Strategy: As a matter of process, we need to embrace a two-part strategy: (1) specifying what we need to enhance based on that we are already doing (i.e., trade enforcement, R&D tax benefits) and (2) taking on major new strategic elements (e.g., trade action against currency undervaluation, creation of a Secretary of Manufacturing, a large Economic Development fund at the Federal level).
Capitalizing on Recent Growth Areas: We need to take advantage of events that are already occurring, capitalizing on three areas of robust economic development in the United States: the communications boom, the tremendous increase in natural gas production, and the health care boom. We should think of health care in Buy American terms-in other words we should buy from domestic manufacturers–given the heavy subsidies from the U.S. Government to this industry.
Off-Shoring Policy: Many participants believe there should be a governmental and economic review of the implications of off-shoring by companies in the most sophisticated segments of the manufacturing base (such as electronics and avionics). Off-shoring of technologies in these areas is particularly problematic.
Eliminating the Trade Deficit: There is a strong belief that the trade deficit contributes to the budget deficit and we need to take steps to eliminate it — in other words “Trade Deficits Matter.” We also need better scoring on trade agreements. We should only approve trade agreements that demonstrate a “plus jobs, plus factories effect.”
Addressing the SOE Problem: State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China and elsewhere have become a major challenge for U.S. manufacturing. Many U.S. manufacturers are now competing against arms of the state to a much wider degree than in the past, yet our trade system is still geared toward dealing with market-oriented companies who have market-oriented motivations. We need a broader set of remedies and review mechanisms related to SOE investments and imports into the United States and their unfair practices abroad. One proposal is to create a CFIUS-like system for review of investment and sales by SOEs in the U.S. market. CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, is a governmental inter-agency committee with jurisdiction to review foreign investments in U.S. companies, and stop such investments if they pose a threat to national security. A similar program could relate to SOEs, trade, and economic security.
A Comprehensive China Policy: A central issue remains trade with China, where we had a $295 billion trade deficit last year. Almost all of it in manufactured goods. With regards to China, our Conference panelists strongly urge the passage of legislation to offset currency manipulation. We also want a standstill in any further trade benefits for China, including negotiation of an investment treaty, until the Chinese government changes its indigenous innovation program, a program which undercuts U.S. high-tech companies in their efforts to access and prosper in China. We also believe we need a broad-scale effort to combat Chinese subsidies and a more vigorous program to combat Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property, which would include serious consequences for Chinese companies that engage in such behavior. Finally, coerced transfer of IP and even of company ownership has become a prerequisite to doing business in China and cannot be tolerated.
Incentivizing Reshoring: We support reshoring initiatives that have recently demonstrated that it does make sense to bring manufacturing plants and jobs back to the United States now. The Boston Consulting Group and the Reshoring Initiative have done important work in this area.
Structural Changes in Government: We think some structural changes are needed in the U.S. Government, including the creation of a Secretary of Manufacturing, who should be in a position to make sure sound manufacturing policies are developed and implemented throughout the Federal Government. We believe there should be an attempt to replicate the German Fraunhofer Institute system, which is a government-funded applied research organization that disseminates R&D and has successfully assisted the German manufacturing sector for many years, much of it through direct contracts with industry.
Revision of Tax Policy: It is a national scandal that we have allowed a gross tax disadvantage for U.S. exporters to go on for decades, due to a peculiarity in the WTO system. When U.S. companies export their products, they cannot obtain a rebate of their income taxes and thus their
expor
t prices must be higher, but foreign countries, which have a VAT (value added tax), are permitted to rebate the VAT on export under the WTO system. This gives many foreign exporters a 17 percent advantage over U.S. companies. No wonder our manufacturers are suffering! We also need to lower the corporate tax rate — we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Regulatory Reform and R&D Promotion: It is critical to remember that we do not operate in a vacuum; we are in an international competition for manufacturing market share. Other countries engage in competitive efforts to attract manufacturing, whether it consists of our own, or their own, companies. To that end, and to make the United States fully competitive in this worldwide struggle, we need to lower the regulatory burdens on U.S. businesses and manufacturers, create an Economic Development Fund to match foreign support for manufacturing, increase funding for R&D and innovation in the United States, and provide larger and more dependable tax benefits for R&D and innovation. The R&D tax benefits should be tied to having the subsequent manufacturing take place within the United States. We recognize that when it comes to taxes and general business regulation, other competing demands arise within the U.S. political and economic system. Those of us in favor of a stronger manufacturing base cannot solve all of these conflicts, but we do believe the current status quo is creating disincentives for making things in America.
Enhancing Buy America Provisions: We think more can and should be done with Buy America requirements. These have been worn away to the point that they seldom operate in the way originally intended by the Congress. As infrastructure spending increases, as we believe it should, federal and state government purchases should be made from suppliers in the United States. Insofar as our international agreements prevent this preference, we need to review the operation of these agreements to see if they are benefiting U.S. exporters in foreign government procurements to any significant degree. The International Trade Commission or the Government Accountability Office should conduct a study of this issue. The regulations underlying the Buy America program must be critically examined and probably rewritten — waivers should be curtailed and the new regulations should specify that we need a very high level of U.S. content before a product can be considered to be “Made in America.”
Re-Tooling the Work Force: Finally, there are more and more instances where we do not have the right people available at the right time to fill manufacturing jobs. This does not mean it’s all a question of training, as some would say. It is certainly not because of a “lack of training” that we have lost five million manufacturing jobs over the last decade. But it does appear there is a mismatch between some existing skill sets and the newest demands on manufacturing workers. To that end we should redouble our investments in community colleges and other training programs that can prepare the next generation of workers for a manufacturing career. And we need to fully support the great engineering schools of the United States, and provide funding for any student who wants to undertake this critical and challenging career.
There is no one solution that will solve the problem of a declining U.S. manufacturing base, but there are solutions. We need to have a national commitment to manufacturing, which was one of the main focuses of the Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing. And we need to be prepared to revise our strategy on a real time basis. We cannot build a Maginot Line. We need to build the next space program.
Lose Your Job Due To Outsourcing? The Huffington Post Wants To Hear From You
by MAM TeamInfo@TheMadeinAmericaMovement.com
Russian Olympians Will Wear Uniforms Made By American Brand
by MAM TeamWalter Loeb, Contributor
Covers major developments in the retail industry.
Russian Olympians will wear American made Uniforms in 2014.
I think that the uniforms should have been made in the United States and share the feelings expressed in Women’s Wear Daily by Allen B. Schwartz, principal and creative director of A.B.S by Allen Schwartz–“it was a huge oversight when you are promoting the U.S.A at the Olympics.”
The USOC (US Olympic Committee) is funded privately, in contrast to the Russian Olympic Committee, which is government sponsored and subsidized. With 530 athletes representing the United States at the opening ceremony on July 27, it is reasonable to assume that the USOC made cost an important factor when ordering the snappy uniforms, designed by the quintessential U.S.A. brand, Ralph Lauren, but made in China. U.S. Congressmen and Senators have expressed dismay that the uniforms were made in China, leading Ralph Lauren to promise that in 2014 the uniforms will be made in the United States. Regarding the reaction in Washington, one observer suggested that if these same lawmakers were to look into the manufacturing source of the performance apparel and footwear the athletes wear during competition, they would find that most of the gear is made in China. Importing apparel and footwear from China is not new news in the U.S., it reflects trade policy and has been going on for decades.
A similar brouhaha has emerged in Spain. Spanish athletes will be wearing uniforms made in Russia despite the fact that both Inditex (owner of Zara) and Mango, two Spanish apparel companies, have excellent facilities located in Spain.
American Apparel is a vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor and retailer of branded fashion and basic apparel. The company operates about 249 retail stores, an on-line e-commerce business, and a wholesale business selling t-shirts and casual wear to distributors and screen printers. Its stores are located in 20 countries including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea and China. In 2010-2011, American Apparel experienced a liquidity crisis forcing it to refinance some of its debt in order to avoid bankruptcy. The crisis was caused by funding its rapid expansion with debt followed by the negative effects of the recession on consumer spending. More recently, the company’s financial prospects have been on the mend. Dov Cheney, CEO of American Apparel, was quoted by the New York Post as saying that the “Russians did not want to wear anything that was made in China.”