How to boost U.S. manufacturing jobs: Fake them

July 25, 2014
Sometimes news coming out of Washington D.C. seems to defy common sense. At least that was my reaction to word about a proposal to call American firms that send production offshore “factoryless goods” producers. The problem is that if this idea gets implemented,  the value of U.S. brand-name products made elsewhere and imported here would be counted as manufacturing “services” imports, not imported goods. In other words, it would inflate figures for goods manufactured in the U.S.

Sometimes news coming out of Washington D.C. seems to defy common sense. At least that was my reaction to word about a proposal to call American firms that send production offshore “factoryless goods” producers.

The problem is that if this idea gets implemented, the value of U.S. brand-name products made elsewhere and imported here would be counted as manufacturing “services” imports, not imported goods. In other words, it would inflate figures for goods manufactured in the U.S. Worse, white-collar workers at firms that have offshored their production would be counted as manufacturing workers.

Fortunately there has been quite a negative reaction to these shenanigans. The folks over at the Naked capitalism site call this an Orwellian statistics fudge to make off-shored production look like U.S. made. The Public Citizen site says the plan is even worse than it seems initially. For example, it's widely known that Foxconn assembles Apple iPhones in China. iPhones would be rebranded as “services” imports rather than imports of manufactured goods under the new scheme. And if Foxconn exported iPhones to other countries, the proposed reclassifications would count the iPhones manufactured in China as U.S. manufactured goods exports.

Yes, you read that right. Stuff assembled in China and sent to Japan would count as U.S. manufactured goods.

All in all, says Public Citizen, the whol idea results in a "fabricated reduction of the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit." 

About the Author

Lee Teschler | Editor

Leland was Editor-in-Chief of Machine Design. He has 34 years of Service and holds a B.S. Engineering from the University of Michigan, a B.S. Electrical Engineering from the University of Michigan;, and a MBA from Cleveland State University. Prior to joining Penton, Lee worked as a Communications design engineer for the U.S. Government.

Sponsored Recommendations

Safety Risk Assessment Guidelines for Automation Equipment

Dec. 20, 2024
This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) covers the basics of risk assessments, including the goals of the assessment, gathering the right team to perform them, and several methodologies...

Safety Products Overview

Dec. 20, 2024
The collection of machine safeguarding devices from Schmersal include keyed interlocks, solenoid locks, safety sensors, limit switches, safety light curtains and more.

SAFER Workplace: Stop, Assess, Formulate, Execute, Review

Dec. 20, 2024
Our SAFER Workplace initiative promotes workplace safety, with a heightened focus on machine safety, to reduce the potential of near misses, accidents, and injuries. Behaving ...

The advantages of a Built-in Bluetooth Interface for Your Safety Light Curtains

Dec. 20, 2024
Safety Light Curtains with Bluetooth InterfaceGuido Gutmann, Key Account Manager, Optoelectronic Safety Devices, Schmersal Group, explains the advantages of ...

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Machine Design, create an account today!