Managing Automation - August 2008 - (Page 17)

COVER STORY POLL: IT’S TIME FOR ACTION BY D AV I D R. B R O U S E L L he votes are in and it’s a landslide! Manufacturers across the United States are seriously concerned about the state of industrial competitiveness, but they are even more upset that during this year’s presidential campaign, neither the Democratic nor Republican candidate for the White House is paying sufficient attention to strengthening manufacturing in the years ahead. Nevertheless, the future of U.S. manufacturing should be an important part of the national conversation this election year. After all, manufacturing plays a pretty important role in the U.S. economy and in the nation’s public life. The manufacturing industry represents about 12% of the country’s gross domestic product, or $1.6 trillion, and about one-fifth of worldwide manufacturing output. Nearly 20 million people are employed either directly (13.6 million) or indirectly (6 million) in the 333,460 establishments that make up U.S. manufacturing. One would think that those kinds of numbers would easily get the attention of the two major political parties, particularly during a presidential election year. The issue of manufacturing jobs, to take one talking point, certainly comes up in specific state contests — the primaries in Michigan and Pennsylvania come to mind — but the way elections are conducted in our fast-paced, sound-bite-focused era may simply not lend itself to serious and thoughtful discussions about the complexities of industrial competition in an increasingly global marketplace. In an attempt to provide that more thoughtful forum, Managing Automation magazine and its sister publications within parent Thomas Publishing Co. earlier this year conducted a survey of their reader audiences to gauge sentiment with regard to U.S. industrial competitiveness. The survey also asked Thomas readers what they would recommend to the next administration in such areas as healthcare, higher education, international trade, taxation, and manufacturing jobs. Conducted in February and March, the survey, sent to the subscriber bases of Managing Automation, Industrial Equipment News, ThomasNet (the former Thomas Register of American Manufacturers), Thomas Global, and InBound Logistics Magazine, produced slightly more than 2,000 completed responses. While some of the survey’s results reflect widely held views about U.S. manufacturing — concern about overall competitiveness is one example — the numbers also serve to quantify the depth of those feelings. On the question of U.S. industry’s ability to compete on the global stage, for instance, 70.8% of survey respondents said they were “very concerned” about the posture of U.S. manufacturing. Only 6.5% said they were concerned but confident that U.S. companies can compete effectively (chart 1). The numbers are even more overwhelming when it comes to the political parties. When asked whether the candidates have sufficiently addressed U.S. industrial competitiveness so far this election year, there is near-universal sentiment that industry is being short-changed, with 90.2% of respondents indicating “no” (chart 3). Yet, survey respondents are equally clear that the federal government has an important role to play in strengthening industry (chart 2) and “leveling the playing field” with such competing countries as China, India, Korea, and others. Roughly 80% of respondents want Washington to take an active role in addressing these issues (chart 4). There is clearly a perception within the U.S. manufacturing community that something is out of balance. But what exactly is out of balance is tough to pinpoint. Survey results indicate there is no one factor responsible for the perception. Instead, results reflect the complexity of the competitiveness issue. When asked, for example, about manufacturing jobs, only about one-third of survey respondents said they would favor having the next president devise dramatic new ways to protect jobs, including discouraging outsourcing. A larger group overall, about 49% of respondents, said the government should either provide incentives to the private sector to improve training and skills or create federally backed programs to generate and retain jobs in the United States (chart 6). Similarly, there is a mixed picture when it comes to international trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Just under a majority of survey respondents — 48.7% — said such agreements have had a mixed effect on U.S. industrial competitiveness. Nearly 42% said they have damaged competitiveness, and only 6.7% indicated that such agreements have helped (chart 5). A diversity of opinion surfaces as well on a number of issues that the next president and administration will face. When it comes to healthcare costs — a major component of the overall cost disadvantage suffered by 17 August 2008 ma Photo: Dieter Spears

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Managing Automation - August 2008

Managing Automation - August 2008 Contents Take 1 After 18 Months, the Oracle/SAP Suit Has Little Effect on Maintenance Sales At 100, Foxboro Reinvents Around Its Customers New Private Equity Firm Eyes Software A Software Suite Just for Manufacturers i2 Chief Focuses on Services Plan Notes It's Time for Action Examining U.S. Competitveness Leveling the Field An Unhealthy Situation Exploring Alternatives Math and Science: Key to the Future Product Scan Advertiser Index Next

Managing Automation - August 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.