Isn't Germany's current high growth rate a temporary spike? How long has the 9% rate been sustained? Is it a peak?
What specifically would you do to make U. S. manufacturing more attractive, and specifically how would it do so?
Any advancced product newly designed will have a manufacturing line. There we need limited talents to do the assembling. All manufacturers invested money will look for lowering the manufacturing costs to recover their money invested in the product development and capital investments. So can USA have assemble line competing the other countries?Then there can be a success.
US investors ( thats many of us ) like to have it both ways, live in the security and comfort of the US of A and keep enjoying the culture we grew up in but then send our investments and US jobs to China for a 3x return compared to manufacturing in the US.
The Boomer generation grew up doing / pushing dope, listening to bootleg copies of music on stereos built in Japan and then became MBAs & Lawyers in droves.
The hand-writing was on the wall even 30 years back.
Gullible sheep who have drank the Kool aid of diversionary rhetoric peddled by both Wall St. and the American "Nomenklatura" keep foolishly blaming Govt. regulations and public expenditure for our current decline.
They should first try to explain why Germany thrives ( current GDP growth rate 9 % !! ) in spite of much stricter regulations and higher taxes.
For starters the Germans do not have either a foreign policy that is dictated by the same "Nomenklatura", borders on the criminal and creates enemies all over or a profit - driven Military - Industrial - opinion maker complex that is only too happy to go to war on false pretext.
Education is only a potential long-term solution. There is a huge lag before education has a positive effect on the economy.
Real manufacturing takes a long time to build. If the process is artificially stimulated it just becomes a hollow industry that does not provide value or long term viability.
Unfortunately the voters want a painless quick fix and so that is what the politicians provide.
Nobody wants to think about 10 - 20 years of hard work to rebuild and pay down debt. Far easier to just run up more debt - and make the long term goals harder to achieve.
Development costs in USA are just too expensive. Some of that is due to regulation and healthcare etc, but a lot comes down to US workers wanting to be paid too much.
It is a global market place. Why should anyone want to pay US-worker prices when they can get the same job done for a lot less somewhere else?
If there is no manufacturing then expect the engineering to go too. What's the point in having products designed in USA and manufactured elsewhere when you can have the engineering done overseas too. These days there are many design/manufacturing companies which will design a whole turnkey product just ready for branding. Heck they'll even design and stick on the branding labels too!
The only solution here is value. If you're generating better value than your competitors then you're in with a chance.
I think there are many reasons why the companies are not hiring here: corporate taxes are higher here than in many other countries, government regulations (both environmental and legal) are stifling growth, heath care costs (either Obama care or private health care) are skyrocketing, and employers are only interested in making the quick buck instead of investing in their employees or hiring experienced people at the higher rates. It comes down to money and profit and opportunity. Until the federal government stops spending/taxing/over regulating companies just don't want to risk capital on uncertain long term environments.
In a free market, companies need to make financially wise decisions or cease to exist. So why are successful companies manufacturing overseas in many cases? Or holding on to cash on hand rather than using it to hire and expand?
Failure and growth, in my view are essential in a free market. We (the U. S.) have been bailing out failing financial institutions and companies that failed to compete against others in the same market? Would we be better off to let such institution fail and let the employees and assets eventually get adsorbed by growing companies that make better decisions and would make better use of them?
Our Federal Budget comes from taxing productivity either immediately, or by borrowing paid for by future taxes. When we bail out a failing company or institution we are taking money away from the productive parts of the economy that generated it and transferring it to failing entities. We are thus weakening companies that would grow in a free market in order to keep companies going that would fail.
We are discouraging coal to produce electricity and an oil pipeline from Canada. Do we have the right balance for weighing the environment against the economy? Or are we going to far?
We also have lots of regulation including rules for hiring and insuring an employee whether or not the employees want it. In a free market, I can (and do) consider benefits when taking a job. I don't want regulations forcing me to have benefits I may not feel are cost effective, especially if those benefits tends to make me too expensive to hire. When we have a common job title of "Compliance Engineer" you might wonder if you have too many regulations.
I would be interesting in hearing opinions as to what we can do so that companies will want to manufacture and expand here? Hopefully, as engineers we can come up with things that make sense. I tend to think government may need to do more getting out of the way and less helping.
If one has been following the news over the last year, particularly in mobile products, the answer is abundantly clear. USA companies are spending their resources suing each other for patent infringement, or defending themselves from dubious patent infringement lawsuits, or spending billions of dollars to buy patent portfolios to improve their arsenal for the patent war. If you think about how many engineers you could pay for each billion spent on the patent war, it's obvious why there isn't money to hire them. And what's the point of launching a new product? Your competitors will try to stop your product in the courtroom, or at least slow it down so you miss your market window.
And what about start-ups? Well, what investor would invest in a start-up when it's so obvious that they'll be crushed under dubious lawsuits if the product ever shows signs of success? Better to invest in patent litigation firms and at least make something off the way things have become. Given that US patents are supposed to "promote Progress in Science and Useful Arts", I find it pretty sad.
One of the key factor is education for mass. US should invest in education from early school to post graduation for most of the citizen.
It is true that US organizations should bring manufacturing back to US. But most people/organization preach but do not practice. Recent example on EEtimes was that from CEO of Xerox. She took so many job to India and then asks other to bring them back to US! Like Mahatma Gandhi, It is better to first follow, do something and then preach.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.