The ‘Made in America’ slogan is equally exploited by politicians across the spectrums, yet it takes critical policy work and sound infrastructure to guide American goods through the bustling supply circuits. On Thursday, the Alliance of American Manufacturing (AAM), a body deeply engrossed in the homegrown goods landscape, hosted an event to evaluate how political approach has been influencing American manufacturing and its transition under the guidance of the Biden administration.
Heather Boushey, Chief Economist in Biden’s Invest in America Cabinet, highlighted the global supply chain instability unravelled by the Covid-19 pandemic as a primary trigger to their policy, marking the start of Biden’s term. Boushey’s narrative pitches ‘Made in America’ as central to Biden’s strategy to remodel the economy beyond merely bouncing back from the pandemic to amplify its capacity.
Boushey further credited the Biden-Harris administration for remodeling the domestic market to be more competitive and fair, refraining from any international focus. She applauded strategic investments in sectors poised for growth in the American markets. The priority for the Biden administration, as described by Boushey, is to ensure workers earn decent wages, communities flourish, and families prosper.
According to her, the administration stands for the well-being of workers and their unions in its bid to invigorate the manufacturing sector. However, critics argue that the benefits of the measures introduced by the Biden-Harris administration are yet to translate into visible growth in the industries. To this, Boushey replied that growth will be noticeable once Biden’s funds are invested into infrastructure and staffing.
Boushey’s response is characterized by hesitancy and uncertainty, suggesting that ‘jobs have not yet appeared’, but the promising factories are still under construction. It seems as if the Biden administration is preemptively celebrating unfulfilled promises. In truth, the community apprehensions can be justified as the tangible evidence of growth is absent.
Some cities have allegedly started embracing the manufacturing units in progress, hoping for new job opportunities. Mark Gitenstein, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, nostalgically evoked his hometown community’s vibrant past, largely contributed to by his father’s apparel manufacturing business.
However, when the factory shut down due to cheaper offshoring options, the ripple effects were devastating for his hometown, thereby underscoring the grim impact of such policy shifts. Gitenstein emphasized the social and economic importance of the lost factory, bringing to light the stark contrast between policy makers’ decisions and their impacts on ordinary citizens.
Despite acknowledging the failure of past administrations in curbing the offshoring strategies detrimental to industries like apparel and textiles, Gitenstein was hopeful about the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to reverse this trend. He suggested that the administration acknowledges the incapacity of old approaches, yet the rhetoric seems to lack practical ground evidence.
The scarcity of complete ‘Made in America’ textile and apparel goods demonstrates the critical challenges faced by American companies competing in the global market. Bayard Winthrop, the CEO of American Giant, a company that has managed to overcome some of these challenges, described the sacrifices made to provide living wages and work within the domestic supply chain.
Winthrop questioned the societal cost of a lower-priced product achieved via offshoring, highlighting the harsh realities borne by towns once thriving due to local manufacturing. He empathetically conveyed the despair and desolation felt by communities left jobless due to offshoring, asserting that the true cost of such policies continues to be overlooked.
Daleep Singh, Biden’s deputy national security advisor for international economics, criticized China for overwhelming certain industries with excessive supply inconsistent with global demand, which consequently squashes competition from other nations. However, the Biden administration’s strategy to combat this, as elaborated by Singh, seems more defensive than a proactive growth strategy.
Despite the hurdles, Singh iterates that the Biden administration remains keen to boost domestic manufacturing, with the administration believing that being better at building, producing, and innovating will lead to increased prosperity and equity in American society. This might overlook the fact that other countries might have a comparative advantage in certain industries.
Singh’s argument that ‘comparative advantage is created’ seems to be a mixture of optimistic delusion and the refusal to acknowledge market realities. Many industry analysts would argue that while some aspects of comparative advantage can be nurtured and shaped, it is generally dictated by factors beyond direct government control such as geographical advantages and highly specialized labor.
Overall, the administration states it aims to protect the national economy and the welfare of its citizens. However, it is disconcerting to see high-ranking officials distancing themselves from global market realities while advocating for policies that may largely play to populist sentiment rather than offer substantial and sustainable economic solutions.
From this angle, it can be considered that the Biden administration’s policies fail to align with the actual economic needs of the country and instead support an ideological narrative that continues to undermine American manufacturing’s global competitiveness.
While the Biden-Harris administration claims to put the workers first, the full impact of their policies remains to be seen. It will be interesting to monitor whether the promises made translate into the projected economic benefits and job creation or if they remain as ‘roofs still being put’ on hypothetical factories.