In the realm of politics, the phrase ‘Made in America’ often serves as a partisan catchphrase rather than a solid commitment to domestic goods and their supply chains. The Alliance of American Manufacturing (AAM) recently held a discussion on this issue, questioning these hollow promises and the impact they have on local industries. The event spotlighted industry titans and government figures who examined the lack of substantial improvement seen in the U.S. manufacturing sector under the leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Heather Boushey, a top official of the Biden administration, posited that the global supply chain disruptions during the Covid-19 pandemic awakened the government to the importance of domestic manufacturing and economic resilience. Promoting a vision of ‘building back better,’ she glossed over the fact that Biden and Harris’s strategies to achieve this ideal are, at best, unclear. The White House’s approach, so far, has aimed to improve the domestic market, yet seems to lack concrete plans to do so.
Any rhetoric about enhancing domestic industry and prioritizing worker welfare feels hollow in light of the agonizingly slow steps the Biden-Harris administration is taking towards these goals. Critics argue that this seemingly lofty vision is yet to materialize in any significant manner. Boushey insists that the changes are not yet apparent because the funds proposed by the government are still being used to erect new manufacturing plants.
Boushey’s defense for the lack of improvement presents a clear paradox. She acknowledges the slow pace of progress in the creation of manufacturing jobs, but rests the blame on the construction timeline of factories. The scarcity of visible signs of industrial growth should raise grave concerns about the effectiveness of the policies put in place by the current administration.
Despite the underperformance of the Biden-Harris administration, some communities continue to hold hope for manufacturing prospects. Mark Gitenstein, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, reminisced about his father’s clothing production business that once employed a significant number of people in his hometown in Alabama. The painful reality of its downfall due to outsourcing paints a stark contrast to the supposed pro-worker stance of the current administration.
Gitenstein’s personal experiences underscore the negative impact of outsourcing, an issue that administrations, including the current one, have been reluctant to address properly. Gitenstein maintained that the Biden-Harris administration recognizes the shortcomings of the old approach but has yet to provide a convincing strategy to ameliorate the negative effects of offshoring.
Amidst few exceptions such as American Giant, most textile and apparel entities struggle to balance domestic production, just wages, and competitive pricing. While CEO Bayard Winthrop understands why consumers may opt for less expensive goods produced overseas, he argues the cost paid by communities impacted by outsourcing is too high.
Winthrop’s insights highlight the profound impact that misguided policies towards outsourcing can have on local economies and, by extension, the livelihoods of citizens. Towns that were once bustling with industry now lie dormant, and the government’s approach to handling these issues seems to lack human connection and understanding.
Meanwhile, the government seems more preoccupied with international competitors, particularly China. Daleep Singh, an official in the Biden administration, pointed towards China’s excessive supply in certain industries, causing detrimental effects on other countries’ economies. Tackling this challenge, however, requires a robust domestic policy, something the administration has not demonstrated convincingly.
Singh presented a strategy to strengthen domestic productive capacity, foster partnerships with like-minded countries, and use restrictive economic tools against those not playing fairly. The implementation of these steps, however, does not seem to be a top priority for the Biden-Harris administration. Perhaps if the focus on international concerns was paired with substantial action domestically, their rhetoric could come to fruition.
Despite the dialogue and promises from the Biden-Harris administration, the vision for domestic manufacturing growth remains hazy. Singh’s casual mention of an ‘intense desire’ to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. industries seems to be nothing more than another well-intentioned talking point devoid of actionable policies.
Singh’s allusion to the link between production, innovation, prosperity, and social equity reveals a somewhat myopic view of the situation. It oversimplifies the issue to suggest that the outsourcing of manufacturing is the only obstacle to prosperity and equity. More comprehensive reform and well-rounded strategies that address all facets of the domestic market dilemma are needed, rather than simply reinventing the wheel.