bigpicture
Peter Bradley
Editorial Director
peter@dcvelocity.com
Karen Bachrach
Executive Editor
karen@dcvelocity.com
Toby Gooley
Senior Editor
tgooley@dcvelocity.com
David Maloney
Senior Editor, Special Projects & eContent
dmaloney@dcvelocity.com
Mark Solomon
Senior Editor
mark@dcvelocity.com
Susan Lacefield
Associate Managing Editor
slacefield@dcvelocity.com
James Cooke
Editor at Large
jcooke@dcvelocity.com
Steve Geary
Editor at Large
sgeary@dcvelocity.com
George Weimer
Editor at Large
gweimer@dcvelocity.com
Erica E. Mac Donald
Assistant Editor
Keisha Capitola
Director of Creative Services
keisha@dcvelocity.com
Jeff Thacker
Director of eMedia
jeff@dcvelocity.com
Columnists:
Clifford F. Lynch
Don Jacobson
Shelly Safian
Kenneth B. Ackerman
Art van Bodegraven
Barry Brandman
Manufacturing the future
Gary Master
Publisher
gmaster@dcvelocity.com
Mitch Mac Donald
Group Editorial Director
mitch@dcvelocity.com
Jim Indelicato
Group Publisher
jindelicato@dcvelocity.com
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Tower Square, Number 4
500 East Washington Street
North Attleboro, MA 02760
Subscribe at
www.dcvelocity.com
or call (630) 739-0900
LATE LAST YEAR, THE CONSULTING FIRM BOOZ & CO. AND THE
University of Michigan’s Tauber Institute for Global Operations published
a study provocatively titled “Manufacturing’s Wake-Up Call.” In it, the
authors noted something that is often forgotten when politicians and
pundits lament the decline of U.S. manufacturing: that the United States
remains a manufacturing powerhouse. U.S. manufacturers produce about
75 percent of the products the nation consumes, according to the report.
Nonetheless, the study’s authors argue that U.S. manufacturing is at an
important crossroads. If policy makers, business leaders, and educators
make the right decisions, they contend, the manufacturing sector could
come roaring back, eventually producing 95 percent of what we consume. Make the wrong choices and output could drop by half, meeting
less than 40 percent of domestic demand. That’s a dismal prospect, to say the least.
One factor working in the United States’ favor, the
authors say, is that for a number of reasons, manufacturing will be largely regional for some time to come,
despite the globalization of many businesses. Among
those reasons are some we’ve been writing about for a
while now—namely, that regionalization minimizes
transportation costs and increases market responsiveness. In addition, they note, labor costs and currency
rates carry less weight in manufacturing location decisions today than in the past.
As for what considerations have taken precedence in
location decisions, the authors cite the following:
workers’ skills, clustering of businesses in ways that
drive innovation, modern infrastructure, access to neighboring countries
with growing consumer markets and low labor costs (think Mexico), and
a competitive regulatory and tax environment.
How we address those issues will go a long way toward determining
our manufacturing (and thus, our economic) future. Will we invest in
education to ensure we have a technologically savvy workforce? Will we
address immigration issues in ways that allow more skilled workers to
bring their knowledge and expertise to these shores? Will we fix our roads
and bridges and find ways to make our transportation infrastructure
safer and more productive? Can we address regulatory issues in ways that
provide adequate legal protections for the public while allowing businesses the flexibility to innovate in an increasingly competitive world?
Will we support the sorts of research and development efforts that were
crucial to our economic success in the last century?
None of that will be easy, particularly in an environment of poisonous
politics and weak economic growth. But what’s the alternative?
