Tag: job

FASH455 Debate: Is the U.S. Textile Manufacturing Sector a Winner or Loser of Globalization and International Trade?

(note: the following comments are from students in FASH455 based on the video “Textile Manufacturing in America, post-globalisation”

Argument: The U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a winner of globalization

Comment #1: The video highlighted some of the few remaining textile plants and the cotton refinery’s in the U.S. and how they are taking risks daily to stay afloat with risks of inflation and climate change. However, for these American companies to stay afloat, they must participate in globalization themselves. The video mentioned how these factories were using Swiss and German dying machines to make production more efficient. For these onshore jobs to stay alive, they have to now utilize globalized information and technology to stay successful. 

Comment #2: Deeper down, the US textile sector seems to be winning in the long run. The squeeze that globalization has placed on them has allowed for innovation within the industry as they fight to stay relevant and compete with overseas goods. Operational slack such as high turnover jobs have been eliminated with automation, and US manufacturers gained a new branding niche that overseas companies do not: a US “personal touch.” Consumers may now be more willing to pay more for a garment just because it says it is made in the USA. USA-made clothing may now be perceived as higher quality and more scarce. The sentiment towards US-made goods and their quality could enact change to reduce overseas reliance, which is a win for US manufacturing in the long run. Additionally, globalization expands the export market for the US textile manufacturing sector.

Argument: the U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a loser of globalization

Comment #3: According to the video, the U.S. textile manufacturing sector is a loser in globalization and international trade.  Robert Lighthizer, a former U.S. trade representative, believes the drive to globalization saw the United States effectively giving away its own prosperity and success.  He explains the effects of trade deals on jobs, illustrating how the U.S. would place most of its focus on service sector jobs and outsource its industrial base.  However, this resulted in the loss of roughly 6 million jobs and 60,000 factories, destroying many communities all across the country and causing a lack of diversity in the job economy. 

Comment #4: I think the US is a loser of globalization and international trade because they rely on other countries for their cheap goods and services. When I look at clothing tags, I rarely see them made in the US nowadays. Again, this is because the US being dependent on other countries due to unbeatable costs. I also think since we rely so heavily on other countries, it has contributed to job displacement.

Comment #5: The US textile manufacturing sector is a loser of globalization and international trade. Cotton production in the US is beneficial to the communities it exists in. However, these companies must fight against a strong dollar, competitors in China who do not always abide by the same regulations as US companies, and use cheap labor. When China entered the WTO, the US suffered greatly. Many textile factories in the US have closed, disrupting the entire community.

Comment #6: Overall, I believe that the U.S. textile manufacturing industry is a loser of globalization and international trade, mostly due to the competition from overseas. This competition includes more manufacturers from other countries, but also the competition of pricing since other oversea manufacturers are able to sell their cotton/textile materials at a lower price. Since the U.S. struggles to compete with these lower prices, they are forced to look for another way to have a competitive advantage in the textile manufacturing sector, such as lean manufacturing and technology improvements. At Carolina Cotton Works, Bryan Ashby shares how they have increased efficiency and use high-quality machines (note: imported) for their products. Although this sounds great, this also means that there are fewer workers.  

Comment #7: I think the US textile manufacturing sector was a loser of globalization and international trade because big companies were using other countries for their sourcing and manufacturing. This was because it was much cheaper compared to the United States. In doing this, it declined the need for textile manufacturing jobs in the United States.

Comment #8: Globalization creates a trade dependence on imports. It’s important we don’t depend on things for when things happen that we can’t predict like the pandemic where we can’t import anymore. Since there was a lack of local textile manufacturing and sourcing in the United States compared to what was being imported, there was less of a chance for technological advances and improvement in the United States textile manufacturing sector. Post Globalization however may be the chance for the United States to bring back the textile manufacturing sector momentum. I think this because the United States has seen the result of heavily relying on other countries for their cheap labor/sources and this could add extra motivation for companies to want to figure out better alternatives in manufacturing in their own country.

Comment #9: I think currently the US is a loser to globalization only because brands want to get the product for cheap. I think brands think that would create more profit that way. However, I do believe we could get to a future where more things would be created in the US and wouldn’t have to pay that much in tariffs and other external prices. I think it would help boost people to work more. I think people are worried about making things in our country because of the relations we have with other countries.

Comment #10: U.S. Businesses are now focusing on the cheapest way to do everything instead of thinking about creating good jobs for their working community with fair pay. The U.S. is losing jobs, factories, communities, etc. in efforts to help other countries build themselves up through globalization. It is time for the U.S. to make some changes and look out for our own country and people.

Discussion questions:

Do you agree or disagree with any particular argument above? Any follow-up comments on the impact of globalization on the US textile manufacturing sector? What should government do with trade given the debates? Please feel free to share any additional thoughts.

FASH455 Interview Series—QVC Global Sourcing Internship (Guest: Lora Merryman)

About Lora Merryman

Lora Merryman is a Master of Science student in Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware (class of 2021). She also graduated from the UD with a Bachelor’s Science in Fashion Merchandising in 2020. She currently works for QVC as a global sourcing intern.  

Lora was selected as a 2020 University of Delaware summer scholar. She also served as a graduate teaching assistant for FASH455 in Fall 2020 and Winter 2021. Lora is the author of a recent research publication on data science education for fashion majors, featured by Just-Style and several other industry news outlets.  

Automation Comes to Fashion

Video Discussion Questions:

#1 Why do you agree or disagree with the video that automation will post a significant challenge to garment workers in developing countries such as Bangladesh? How should policymakers react to the challenges?

#2 Can automation be a permanent solution to the social responsibility problem in the garment industry?

#3 In your view, how will automation affect the big landscape of apparel sourcing and the patterns of world textile and apparel trade?

#4 Why or why not do you anticipate a sizable return of apparel manufacturing to the United States if apparel production can be largely automated?

Additional reading: The robots are coming for garment workers. (WSJ, 2018)

Please feel free to share your views and join our online discussion!

New USCBC Study Suggests Overall Positive Impacts of China on the US economy

oe-cover_0

Although the trade relationship with China is often blamed for causing job losses in the United States, a new study prepared for the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) by Oxford Economics suggests overall positive impacts of China on the US economy. According to the study:

  • China has grown to become the third-largest destination for American goods and services, only after Mexico and Canada. China purchased $165 billion in goods and services from the United States in 2015, representing 7.3 percent of all US exports and about 1 percent of total US economic output. By 2030, US exports to China are projected to rise to more than $520 billion annually.
  • The US-China trade relationship supports roughly 2.6 million jobs in the United States. Specifically, US exports to China directly and indirectly supported 8 million new jobs in 2015.
  • The reported gross US trade deficit with China is overstated and somehow misleading. As China has become an integral part of the global manufacturing supply chain, much of its exports are comprised of foreign-produced components delivered for final assembly in China. If the value of these imported components is subtracted from China’s exports, the US trade deficit with China is reduced by half, to about 1 percent of GDP—about the same as the US trade deficit with the European Union.
  • Additionally, “Made in China” lowered prices in the United States for consumer goods. As estimated, US consumer prices are 1 percent – 1.5 percent lower because of Chinese imports–trade with China saved each American household up to $850 in 2015. Given the fact that hourly labor costs in the textile industry were $2.65 in China in 2014 compared with $17.71 in the United States, the report argues that replacing Chinese imports of textiles and clothing with US manufactured products would significantly raise US consumer prices.

uscbcjob2017.jpg

uscbcjob20172

In terms of the textile and apparel (T&A) sector, the report suggests that:

  • The rising U.S. import from China mostly represents China’s displacement of imports from other countries and regions: China has been squeezing out traditional apparel manufacturers such as Mexico, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
  • Meanwhile, textile and apparel manufacturing is one of the very few sectors that observe a paralleled pattern of rising imports from China and declining gross value added in the United States since 2000. In comparison, over the same period other sectors that experienced the most rapid growth in Chinese imports are also the sectors where US businesses have seen the strongest growth.

The report can be downloaded from HERE.

USITC Studies the Impact of Trade on Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry

job impact of trade

employment in the US T&A industry

In its newly released Economic Impact of Trade Agreement Implemented under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a quantitative assessment on the impact of trade on manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry. According to the report:

  • Manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry have been declining steadily over the past two decades. Between 1998 and 2014, employment in the NAICS 313 (textile mills), NAICS314 (textile product mills) and NAICS 315 (apparel manufacturing) sectors on average decreased annually by 7.6 percent, 4.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively.
  • Rising import is found NOT a major factor leading to the decline in employment in the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313)–as estimated, imports only contributed 0.4 percent of the total 7.6 percent annual employment decline in the U.S. textile industry. Instead, more job losses in the sector are found caused by improved productivity as a result of capitalization & automation (around 4.6 percent annually) and the shrinkage of domestic demand for U.S. made textiles (around 3.5 percent annually) between 1998 and 2014.
  • Rising imports is the top factor contributing to job losses in apparel manufacturing (NAICS 315), however. As estimated by USITC, of the total 11.2 percent annual employment decline in apparel manufacturing, almost all of them is affected by imports (10.8 percent). On the other hand, increased domestic demand for apparel (such as from U.S. consumers) is found positively adding manufacturing jobs by 2 percent annually in the United States from 1998 to 2014.
  • To be noted, USITC did not estimate the impact of trade on employment changes in the retail aspect of the industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 80 percent of jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry came from retailers in 2015. These retail-related jobs are typically “non-manufacturing” in nature, such as: fashion designers, merchandisers, buyers, sourcing specialists, supply chain management specialists and marketing analysts.

The Future of “Made in China”: Robots are taking over China’s Factory Floors


The video echoes one recent Wall Street Journal article about Levi Strauss using automation technologies to revamp their apparel production in China:

“In an apparel factory in Zhongshan, a gritty city of three million stuffed with industrial parks across the Pearl River from Hong Kong, lasers are replacing dozens of workers who scrub Levi’s blue jeans with sandpaper to give them the worn look that American consumers find stylish. Automated sewing machines have cut the number of seamstresses needed to stitch arc designs into back pockets. Digital printers make intricate patterns on jeans that workers used to do with a mesh screen.”

One important factor that gives a push to adopting robots in China’s factory floor is the end of very cheap labor in China. China’s wage level has been rising in double-digit percentages for the past decades. And as a consequence of its “one-child policy”, by 2050, the working-age population in China could decline by 212 million according to estimation from the United Nations.

But Levi executives say they have largely abandoned a strategy of relocating production to one impoverished country after another, known as “chasing the needle,” in favor of other forms of cost-cutting.” “Labor is getting more expensive and technology is getting cheaper,” says Andrew Lo, chief executive of Crystal Group, one of Levi’s major suppliers in China.

“Levi is adapting its laser technology so it can etch different patterns to make one type of denim look like another, reducing costs by buying less fabric. For a new line of women’s wear, Levi said it needed only 12 fabrics, rather than 18. In the past three years, Levi said, it cut the number of its suppliers by 40% and the number of fabrics by 50%.”

“The changes also give Levi greater flexibility, said Ms. O’Neill, the 44-year-old executive who helps oversee the company’s supply chain. If a pair of jeans using a particular fabric is selling well, she says, Levi can use lasers to produce more of the desired look, and pare back designs that are losers. “The idea is to delay decision-making for as long as possible,” said Ms. O’Neill.”

And this is only the beginning! Some technologists think that inventions such as 3-D printing—essentially printers that replicate solid objects like copiers reproduce printed pages—will have a big impact by 2050. In such a world, printers could spew out clothing, food, electronics and other goods ordered online from a nearly limitless selection, with far fewer workers involved in production.

“In 2050, you could potentially have a 3-D printer at home that could produce all the fabrics you want,” said Roger Lee, the chief executive of Hong Kong’s TAL Group, which makes 1 of every 6 dress shirts sold in the U.S. for brands from Banana Republic to Brooks Brothers. “That would make us obsolete.”

Ironically but not surprisingly, automation also keeps wages down. Levi said it expects China production to rise only “modestly” next year; new orders are up for grabs. Apparel InternationaI’s president, Oscar Gonzalez, says the company now boasts an advantage over China—a large pool of apparel workers who were laid off in past downsizings. Excess labor has helped him keep wage increases to 2% or 3% a year he says. “Every Monday when we recruit,” he adds, “there are long lines of applicants.”

Welcome for any comments and discussion questions.

Employment in the US Textile and Apparel Industry (Update: August 2014)

[Please read the updated version: U.S. Continues to Lose Apparel Manufacturing Jobs in 2016]

Employment in the textile sector has remained stable since 2011. From the end of 2013 to July 2014, employment in textile mills (NAICS 313) even slightly increased 0.1 percent, mostly contributed by fiber & yarn mills (NAICS 3131) and fabric mills (NAICS 3132). The data supports the argument that textile manufacturing is gradually returning back to the United States.

2

Employment in the apparel manufacturing sector (NAICS 315) continued to shrink. By July 2014, total employment in apparel manufacturing had declined by 15.6 percent since 2010 and went down 7.3 percent just from the end of 2013 to July 2014. Still it is getting harder and harder for US consumers to find “made in USA” apparel in the retail stores.

5

Retailers remains the leading job providers in the U.S. textile and apparel industry. By July 2014, within the total 1.76 million employment in the US textile and apparel industry (NAICS 313, 314, 315 and 448), almost 80 percent came from the retail sector (NAICS 448).

3

From 2010 to July 2014, employment in the US manufacturing sector as a whole enjoyed a 5.5 percent growth, much higher than the case in the textile and apparel sectors. This trend reminds us that the principal of “comparative advantage” is still working in the 21st century.

4

Last but not least, geographically, manufacturing jobs in the US textile and apparel industry were gradually moving from the North to the South from 2007 to 2011.

Slide3

Slide2

Slide1

by Sheng Lu

Exclusive Interview with Nate Herman, Vice President of the American Apparel and Footwear Association

NateHerman (Photo: Courtesy of the AAFA)

Nate Herman is the Vice President of the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA). Mr. Herman manages AAFA’s regulatory and legislative affairs activities, advocating on behalf of, and providing information to, the industry on international trade and corporate social responsibility issues. Mr. Herman also handles product safety, customs, transportation and other technical (slip resistance, safety toe, etc.) issues as well as labeling matters for AAFA’s footwear members as co-leader of AAFA’s Footwear Team.  In addition, Mr. Herman develops all apparel and footwear industry data and statistics as AAFA’s resident economist.  Prior to joining AAFA, Mr. Herman worked for six years at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (ITA) assisting U.S. firms in entering the global market. Mr. Herman spent the last two years as the Department’s industry analyst for the footwear and travel goods industries.

Interview Part

Sheng Lu: First of all, would you please make a brief introduction of AAFA to our students, including your history, your current members, your key missions and main functions?

Nate Herman: Representing more than 1,000 world famous name brands, the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) is the trusted public policy and political voice of the apparel and footwear industry, its management and shareholders, its four million U.S. workers, and its contribution of $350 billion in annual U.S. retail sales.  AAFA was formed in 2001 following a merger of the American Apparel Manufacturers Association and Footwear Industries of America.

AAFA stands at the forefront as a leader of positive change for the apparel and footwear industry.  With integrity and purpose, AAFA delivers a unified voice on key legislative and regulatory issues.  AAFA enables a collaborative forum to promote best practices and innovation.  AAFA’s comprehensive work ensures the continued success and growth of the apparel and footwear industry, its suppliers, and its customers.

We achieve these goals through aggressive advocacy on Capitol Hill and before the Administration on the issues most important to the U.S. apparel and footwear industry. AAFA also hosts more than 50 conferences, seminars, workshops, and webinars both in the United States and around the world to ensure the industry is able to comply with growing state, federal, and international regulations.

Sheng Lu: AAFA recently released a video clip “What do we wear”, which is very encouraging and eye-opening to our students. What makes AAFA create this video and what specific information you would like to deliver to the audiences?

Nate Herman: A few years ago, we were asked a question during a meeting with a top-ranking senator.  “What is the economic impact of your industry?”  We didn’t have an answer, which didn’t help policy makers see the important jobs within our industry and our significant contribution to the U.S. economy.  That led to the launch of our “We Wear” brand.

You see, when we get dressed each day, we wear more than clothes and shoes.  We wear four million U.S. jobs.  We wear intellectual property.  We wear social responsibility.  Our new video is a visual reminder of our important mission and economic impact.  We use it to educate policy makers, administration officials, the industry, and consumers about our industry and how vital we are to the overall health of the U.S. economy.

Sheng Lu: One phrase often used by AAFA is your member companies “produce globally and sell globally”. How should our students understand the global nature of today’s apparel industry?

Nate Herman: The apparel and footwear industry is on the frontlines of globalization.  In fact, our industry’s supply chain is the most global supply chain in the history of commerce.

Simply put: We are a nation of 330 million importers. In 2012, 97.5 percent of the apparel and 98 percent of the footwear sold in the United States was produced internationally. This model allows families to spend less of their family budgets on clothing and shoes while still getting more bang for their buck.

Sourcing is made possible through strong and positive trade relationships with a variety of countries, including China, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Colombia, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and more.  Companies even source product from the United States.  Sourcing decisions are often made through serious processes that evaluate a country’s trade programs, environmental record, social responsibility standards, intellectual property protections, material and labor costs, shipping time, and reliability of sourcing partners.

At the same time, don’t ignore the rest of the world.  The United States only represents just five percent of the world’s population.  So when a company sources from China or Vietnam, they are sending products all over the world through a complex supply chain.  One of our goals at AAFA is to help ensure the entire world has access to world famous U.S. name brands.

Sheng Lu: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are two buzzwords nowadays. From the perspective of AAFA, why should the US apparel industry care about these two agreements? 

Nate Herman: Trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) offer U.S. name brands direct market access to new sourcing and retail markets.  For example, the United States and the European Union, under TTIP, accounts for more than 40 percent of global clothes and shoes retail sales.

Trade agreements also provide opportunities to harmonize regulations to make it easier to do business in the global market.  For instance, the United States maintains strict product safety standards.  Through trade agreements, we can make regulations consistent to ensure if a shirt is safe in one country it’s safe in another.  This prevents redundant testing costs, which ultimately makes clothes and shoes cheaper for consumers.

Sheng Lu: Last year, several tragedies happened in the Bangladesh garment factories raised the public awareness of the corporate social responsibility issues in the apparel sector. How has the tragedy changed the business practices in the apparel sector from your observation?

Nate Herman: Over the past year, the U.S. apparel and footwear industry has rallied together to address significant social responsibility challenges, including worker safety.  In fact, we’ve never seen the industry come together so fully in a spirit of collaboration.  Safety inspections, training, and fire safety prevention have been or are now part of many companies’ compliance programs.  AAFA supported the creation of the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, an industry-led effort to prevent future tragedies in Bangladesh.  While all these positive steps encourage us, we know our social responsibility and environmental work will never be finished.  We can always do better.

Sheng Lu:  Look ahead in 2014, what top issues in the apparel industry you would suggest our students to watch?

Nate Herman: 2014 is already shaping up to be a busy year for the U.S. apparel and footwear industry.  One major trend we are watching is the continued growth of e-commerce and Omni-channel retail.  You see, the point of sale is just the starting point of a long – and global – supply chain.  We will see sourcing patterns and business models change as retail shifts away from brick-and-mortar shopping to online e-commerce.  We are now beginning to focus on new ideas like online privacy and data security, terms the industry didn’t have to focus on 10 years ago.

learnmorewewearmain

Outlook for the US Textile Industry in 2014

In its latest industry analysis report, the Textile World (TW) presents a fairly optimistic outlook for the US textile industry in year 2014. According to the report:

  • Output of the US textile mills may increase 2 percent for basic products like fibers, yarns and fabrics; more highly fabricated items like industrial textiles could achieve an even higher growth rate.
  • US Imports of textiles may continue the pattern of flatness (i.e. limited growth) over the next 12 months whereas exports of US-made textiles will remain modest growth. As results, the US textile industry may see some fractional decline in trade deficit in the year ahead.
  • US textile mills may avoid meaningful upward fiber cost pressure, which includes cotton, rayon staple, acrylic staple, textured nylon and polyester.  High cotton stock level worldwide and the weak demand for natural gas and petroleum are cited as the two major reasons for the minimum price change.   
  • As another encouraging sign, the operating rate (production as a percentage of capacity) in the US textile industry has rebounded to above 70% which is accompanied with a robust growth of capital investment. As quoted in the report “US textile mills spent more than $1 billion each year to replace obsolete facilities and to take advantage of new, state of the art technology aimed at turning out new products and increasing overall efficiency”.
  • In terms of the job market, the picture seems to be mixed. Productivity growth as results of capitalization both reduces the real production cost as well as the overall demand for labor. According to the report, labor had only accounted for 19% of textile mills revenue dollars in 2013, implying the highly capital-intensive nature of the industry.
  • Additionally, the rising demand for product innovation and improvement create brightening growth opportunities for the US textile industry. According to the TW report, US consumers seem willing to pay a premium for “pluses functions” of the fabrics. Some 50 percent said they’d pay extra for wrinkle resistance, 51 percent for stain protection, 50 percent for easy care, 46 percent for fade resistance, and 45 percent for stretch. A number of US firms are further weaving sophisticated electronic extras into the fabric of garment sensors that can monitor a variety of personal vital signs.

Other highlighted issues to watch in 2014 include: made-in-USA factor, improved supply chain management, energy cost advantage and government policy support.

1

2

3

4

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Manufacturing-related Fashion Jobs Continue to Drop in the U.S.

A recent study released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed that manufacturing-related fashion jobs in the United States will continue to drop through 2020. Although the occupation of sewing machine operator is projected to face the most significant shrinkage in employment, the job decline is suggested to be an industry-wide phenomenon. According to the BLS, from 2003 to 2012, the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry (NAICS 315) had lost 57.7% of its jobs.

The question open for discussion, yet critical for textile& apparel major college graduates, is that how might the decline in manufacturing affect the destiny of other aspects of the U.S. fashion industry in the long run, such as the design and product development functions. No industry sector can survive as an island. As argued by the world’s leading scholar on the subject Michael Porter in his numerous studies addressing the industry competitiveness, the availability and strength of the local supporting industries have a key role to play in shaping the competitiveness of an industry in a nation. For example, the reason why the United States remains the world leading man-made fiber producer today is largely because the U.S. chemistry industry is able to provide needed inputs (such as raw material, technology and knowhow). By the same token, if fabrics are no longer locally made, compared with their overseas competitors such as Italy and China, the U.S. fashion designers might also be put at a big disadvantage in sourcing the needed material and developing the sample products in a timely manner, with flexible choices and at a reasonable cost.

Technology is another critical  factor contributing to job decline in the U.S. fashion industry. As the 2008 study Forecasting the US fashion industry with industry professionals—Part I material and design concluded that “design and production processes would rely heavily on computer and digital technology…the apparel package in the U.S., including creative design, will possibly migrate offshore with the exceptions of heavily technology-involved design and product development tasks.”   

In the meanwhile, the retail sector remains a robust job creator for textile & apparel major college graduates. From 2003 to 2012, total employment in the U.S. apparel retail industry (NAICS 4482) increased 5.7%. By 2012, almost 80% of the occupations in the U.S. textile and apparel industry were offered by retailers. 

by Sheng Lu

fashion_12_lrg

2

1

A Global View in Mind Means More Job and Career Oppertunities in the Fashion Apparel Industry

(Note: the functions & jobs below the U.S. flag mean they are based in the United States;  Remember, apparel are “made in the world”–just like iphone and ipad. Even imports contain U.S. added value.)

021313_Moongate_Assoc_Global_Value_Chain_Report

Source: Moongate Association (2012). Analyzing the Value Chain for Apparel Designed in the United States and Manufactured Overseas

Minimum Wage and Unemployment

minimum-wage

Although the graph above talks about the U.S. economy, the underlying principle applies to all countries in the world: raising minimum wage may reduce employment. The reason is fairly simple: just like how we purchase clothing given a cerain amount of budget, the higher the price, the less quantity we purchase. Similarily, when labor becomes more expensive, to reach the profit goal, companies also have to reduce hiring people if productivity remains unchanged. 

Moreover, a higher minimum wage makes capital, another production input, relatively cheaper. This is why in many developed countries, more and more machines are being used in production in replace of labor. The choice of labor versus capital is based on their relative cost and abundance. 

With that, it is easier to understand why many developing countries show grave concerns about paying more to their workers. The competition is so fierce in the textile & apparel industry and companies can hardly afford an increase of production cost. The only difference with the case of the U.S. economy is: because developing coutries have no money to capitalize production and apparel manufacturing is labor intensive in nature, therefore, a rising minimum wage will simply result in a shift of production to other places where cheaper labors are available.

Outlook of the U.S. Textile Industry in 2013

The latest industry outlook proposed by the Textile World argues that in 2013 the U.S. textile industry will improve industry strategy and planning in the following areas:

  • increased management emphasis in such areas as sourcing, inventory control
  • use of more flexible and efficient machinery and equipment
  • new and upgraded consumer products,
  • more ecologically friendly offerings
  • more Made-in-USA labels

 Don’t misunderstand/misinterpret these terms. The proposed strategies actually tell us:

1. the U.S. textile industry will become even more capitalized in production (as the result of “using more flexible and efficient machinery and equipment”).

2. the success of the U.S. textile industry relies on import (that’s why “management of sourcing” is suggested to be emphasized), despite the intension to promote “made in USA” label which has more to do with the current “rules of origin” defining the nationality of the products.

3. the softgoods industry (textile, apparel and related retailing) is a highly buyer-driven industry. Even textile mills have realized the importance of understanding and directly reaching the consumers.

4. sustainability is a major factor driving technical reform and upgrading in the textile industry. Other than the environmental concerns, there is another strategy behind the efforts: when the U.S. textile industry is fully ready to “be able to produce in a sustainable way”, it will ask for legislation support to require “everybody”(including imported products) to meet the same environmental standards(professionally, we call it “technical barriers of trade”). Developing countries can compete on price, but definitely cannot compete on technology and capital which are the basis of achieving “sustainability”.  Bu then, you will see sustainability becomes a real game changer.     

 Another relevant forecast made by the article “But holding these costs down through efficiency gains can also have a negative impact —namely, a smaller industry workforce. In the textile sector, for instance, squeezed by productivity gains, overall employment should drop from 232,000 in 2012 to near 209,000 by 2015.” As we menioned in the class, technology kills jobs too, although new types of jobs will be created at the same time–but with totally different skill requirements.

Race against the machine

machinejump3-popup

Remember the four key words I mentioned in the class—globalization, technology, sustainability and leadership?

This is a short but inspiring book to read about technology and its impact on us:

 “When talking about jobs and unemployment, there has been a great deal of attention paid to issues like weak demand, outsourcing and labor mobility, but relatively little attention given to technology’s role. This was a serious omission. “

“Computers are now doing many things that used to be the domain of people only…Our technologies are racing ahead but many of our skills and organizations are lagging behind”

“technological progress does not automatically benefit everyone in a society. In particular, incomes have become more uneven, as have employment opportunities.”

For TMD/TM majors & faculties, it is critical (although sometimes painful) to think about: How technology advancement will affect the job availability and nature of the job in the fashion apparel industry in the years to come? Do we have/are we learning the “right skills” that can help us survive in the race against the machine in the 21st century?

Is Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Coming back to the U.S.?

output

output growth rate

employment

employment growth rate

Preliminary Findings:

1. As suggested by numerous studies, the U.S. manufacturing sector as a whole demonstrated a robust V-shaped recovery from the 2008 financial crisis in terms of industry output.   Growth rate of the industry output from 2010-2011 was also among the highest in the past 10 years.

2. There is no sign yet that textile and apparel (T&A) manufacturing is coming back to the U.S, despite suggested popularity of “insourcing” as result of rising labor cost in China. However, the decline rate of apparel manufacturing in the U.S. seemed to be slowing down.

3. Jobless recovery happened both in the U.S. manufacturing sector as a whole and in the T&A manufacturing sectors. Particularly, the U.S. T&A industry respectively lost 21.0% and 25.6% of its manufacturing jobs from 2008-2012 compared with only 10.8% decline of employment in the manufacturing sector over the same period.  Based on the current data, it can be concluded that a sizable return of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. T&A industry would hardly occur at least in the near future.

Sheng Lu

Re-shoring US apparel making tough but not impossible

This recent comment from Just-style argues that re-shoring U.S. apparel manufacturing may become likely given China’s quickly rising labor cost. However, another two points mentioned by the article deserve more attention: one is that in order to make “made-in-USA” apparel competitive, industry leaders believe that tariffs and trade barriers on imported yarns and fabrics need to be much lowered. The question is, how realistic this “goodwill” can become true, considering the attitude of the US textile sector on the matter and their political influences. Second, although there might be some demands for sewing jobs in the U.S., these occupations are very low paid. The article admits that except immigrant, propably few Americans today (even those unemployeed) would like to take them (and have the qualified skills).  Then, does re-shoring really matter for college graduates in the fashion apparel program?  

To read the full article, click here

Opinion: Apparel imports boost U.S. jobs

Key points:

“These four million U.S. workers – seen and unseen – help you get dressed every day. They design shoes and clothes, perform research and development, cut and sew, supervise production, handle customs and logistics, ensure product safety compliance, market and merchandise product, outfit our troops and work on the sales floor. In addition to these four million workers, there are countless U.S. transportation, distribution, warehousing, and logistics workers who depend on our industry for their jobs.”

“about 75 percent of the retail value of most clothing and footwear comes from non-manufacturing activities that happen entirely inside the United States.”
“Supply chain jobs and manufacturing jobs are equally valuable to the overall health of the U.S. economy. It is wrong to foster a public policy agenda that forces these two groups to compete against each other. ”

Written by Kevin Burke. president and chief executive officer of the American Apparel & Footwear Association.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78779.html#ixzz21PNrJzHK

%d bloggers like this: