American Manufacturing Is About More Than Just Jobs
When we talk about American manufacturing, we often emphasize its economic impact above all else. We remember the stories our parents and grandparents told us about a bygone era when their fathers went to work in factories and their mothers managed the household.
This was a time when a single income could comfortably support a middle-class lifestyle, allowing families to thrive on the earnings of just one breadwinner.
But it also ushered in something else. Manufacturing jobs were not only abundant, but they paid well. These jobs provided more than just a stable income—they also fostered a sense of pride and community.
Back then, society was structured in such a way that everyone had a defined role, and I think that strengthened communities.
Moms could raise their children rather than entrusting them to strangers. And people had more time to be a part of their community, unfettered by the myriad time constraints typical today of two-income households trying to juggle work, home and family.
I admit, it may be a bit naive to suggest it was all good and everything worked perfectly. Or even that, that story was the same for every American family. But I think it's safe to say, however naive it may seem, that family values were stronger then, and since then, we've lost quite a lot of that over these past few decades.
Even when I mention "roles," some might call me old-fashioned or even accuse me of being chauvinistic. "Are you suggesting women should be barefoot, pregnant, and doing dishes and laundry?" Absolutely not. When I talk about defined roles, it's similar to how a factory operates. Everyone on the production line has a specific function, and together they ensure the product is successfully brought to market.
Blur the lines and what you get as a result is something, perhaps, that's not quite what you expected. The quality of what you produce becomes potentially compromised.
Kids learn values that may not be our values. The environments they are exposed to are less structured. The bonds they form with family is weakened. And even the whole community becomes less tethered as well. Does one even know who lives down the street a block away? And if we don't, how can we feel connected?
When we began this shift in the 1970s, with the rise of free trade and globalism, it seemed like a positive development. We could get products to consumers cheaper, increase corporate profits, and break away a bit from more hard labor jobs.
But it also marked the beginnings of a change of landscape of many towns and cities across the country. What was supposed to be a shift to a service economy, offering good wages and better opportunities, actually provided mostly the opposite.
Good paying jobs became increasingly less available, and while the number of jobs opportunities may have increased, the quality of the jobs offered didn't, and what it essentially accomplished was to hollow out the American middle class.
Today, dual income households are the norm, pulling people from earlier more well-defined roles to new ones just to keep up. Wages did not keep up with the rising cost of living, and the jobs offered today are less stable and lower paying.
In that way, community has also largely crumbled. No one has the time anymore to even be part of one.
That's not to suggest that if we were to bring back American manufacturing in full force that it would be entirely good or even send us back to that bygone era. But bringing it back is still an important thing to do—not just because it could provide better wages, bolster middle-class society, or restore a sense of community and family values.
It goes beyond just economic and societal considerations.
When it comes to most new ideas, its often the bigger picture part that we tend to miss. When we shifted to more of a service economy, I don't think many people considered the erosion of the middle-class would be a part of that. We envisioned better wages and cleaner and safer work environments. We shifted our focus away from the value of the trades to college educations.
"Life will be better and our kids will have better futures," we thought.
But factories served other, very important roles in society beyond just making things and providing good paying, stable work. They were the backbone of America not just from an illustrious industrial standpoint. If America could produce things, it could also better insulate and protect itself from outside threats.
I am talking about national security, which may seem like a strange thing to bring up in this discussion. At the same time, it's that bigger picture again. How secure can we be in a world in which we must rely on someone else to make the things we need?
For example, if a major war were ever to break out. And let's face it, it's not a matter of if that ever happens. But when. How prepared will America be to fight a war if the goods we manufacture today are potentially made by the very people who could become our enemies?
I have talked about this before many times in my life, especially considering I have been a life-long Republican and protectionism has not been a strong position held by most Republicans—although that has shifted with Donald Trump's stance on protectionism, which he is strongly committed to.
I have always leaned heavily toward protectionist ideology personally. And while the reasons I began with are a large part of that ideology, it's not the only reason.
It's not just about jobs or cohesive communities or even keeping the middle-class afloat. It's about being able to produce the important things our nation may need here if certain ties were cut during a major world conflict.
In a way, the idea of protectionism tied to this narrative is not all that much unlike the perspective held by survivalists when you think about it. It serves the same basic purpose—to be able to be self-reliant at such a time when other resources are not as readily available to ensure our survival.
To me, that's as much a part of the bigger picture as the other considerations happens to be.
Just like we remember the stories our fathers told us about grandpa running off to work while grandma stayed home to manage the household, we remember the stories of men being sent to battle while our factories at home were converted to makers of munitions and wartime needs.
Could America have won its wars without having that ability? And how capable is America today to do this on the same scale that it could do it back then? How many factories left could be converted to fulfill real wartime needs?
Sure, we may have friends who could help us. But that would be a major part of our war effort as well. Protecting our friends facilities and the transport ships that would deliver our wartime supplies to our soldiers in the field.
In other words, it spreads our defense capabilities to other areas and make our overall defense thinner.
It's an aspect of protectionism I have not considered as much in the recent past, say over the last ten years, as I begin to consider more again now. Because the world has become restless. War machines are on the move and tensions are increasingly higher nearly everywhere.
We hope that we never need to use our factories in such a way. But at the same time, we need them to at least be available. Over the last 50 years I think the United States has given up too much, and as much as it pains me to say it, I largely blame that on my own political party. Which makes me happy to see the shift toward it.
We need strong American manufacturing not just for the jobs and all the other things it provides to community. But we need it also to protect the nation. It's part of the reason I support the blocking of the sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon in Japan, despite Nippon's claim it will keep production here in the United States and bolster American steel if the deal were to go through. It would be better and more productive, and even a good use of taxpayer resources to support U.S. Steel in a way that keeps its operations here.
Because when you think about war time needs, steel is big part of that. We need it for ships, planes, tanks and munitions. And if we give that away, we are then reliant on who else gets it, to get it back when we need it.
The bottom line is that having a strong and robust American manufacturing sector is important to us as a nation and as a society on a variety of levels. I believe that our reliance on global supply chains has made America more vulnerable to an increasingly less stable world.
While it may not be the focus of protectionism that Trump and others are alluding to, our wartime capabilities or the threats to national security globalism has potentially led to, I think it's at least in the back of some minds. Perhaps even Trump's. Because I think most people understand that economics are not the only glue that binds a nation and helps it to maintain its sovereignty and power. It's what it can produce when it needs it that is at the core of what it needs to defend itself.
This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.
© 2024 Jim Bauer
