Re-Shoring – Bringing Manufacturing Back To American Suppliers

Add comment March 16th, 2010

A new type of Trade Fair is coming to the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Irvine, CA on May 12, 2010. 

Sponsored by the National Tooling and Machining Association and the Precision Metals Association, the Re-Shoring Fair is all about bringing back work that has been outsourced to foreign competitors.  Read about it here…Re-Shoring

Robotics Competition Update

Add comment March 16th, 2010

On Mar 5-6, Winnovation Robotics team competed in the Greater Kansas City Regional.  60 teams were in attendance for the first weekend of FIRST Robotics Competition.  Winnovation started out a bit shaky, but as the day went on, the robot performance improved, and the team finished 2nd in the rankings after qualifying rounds.  During the elimination matches, the team’s alliance of 3 robots proceeded from Quarter Finals, to Semi-Finals. Winning 2 of 3 matches.  During the Championship matches, Winnovation won the first match, lost the second, and then lost the third match by 2 points!  It was a very exciting time!  The team earned an award for Excellence in Engineering and the Finalist trophy.  The ride home was spent discussing how to improve certain components for competition in Chicago.

Winnovation, Oregon RoboHawks, and Boone Co. Flaming Monkeys will be competing at the University of Illinois-Chicago Pavilion, 525 S. Racine, Chicago, on Friday and Sat., Mar 19-20. Agenda is here..  Agenda

Admission is free.  There is a fee for parking.  Our goal is to win this competition or an award that will qualify the team for play at the World Championships in Atlanta, GA.  The team promises an EXCITING time to all who come watch the competition! Look for Orange and Black tie-dye and the numbers 1625!  Event website is www.ilfrc.org, event webcast info found at this site.  Please let us know if you attend, students would be glad to give you a tour! 42 teams will be in competition, one is coming from Turkey!

Pictures from our Kansas City Competition can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29689971@N06/sets/72157623495114255/with/4433061764/

Our challenge from Dean Kamen this year is to get new people to attend!  PLEASE help us with this challenge!  The team greatly appreciates your support and would love for you to see what a difference this program is making in their lives!

Hope to see you in Chicago!!!
Karen Hill
Coordinator of Team 1625 Winnovation
815-742-0873 cell

ANDREAS SCHELL, appointed President, Electric Systems and Rockford site leader

Add comment March 15th, 2010

Electric Systems includes HS Elektronik Systeme and Page Aerospace. 

Electric Systems, a growing and very strategic business, will benefit from Andreas’ history of successful engineering program management and business strategy development. In addition to his Electric Systems role, Andreas will provide leadership for the Rockford campus, our second largest site. Andreas will relocate to Rockford, Ill.

As Rockford site leader, he will have responsibility for the Rockford site’s multiple business units and functions and will play a central role in cultivating HS’ relationship with the Rockford community. He will also lead the Rockford Site Council, which is represented by functional and business unit leaders from across the Hamilton Sundstrand Rockford plant sites. The council meets on a regular basis to share information and discuss matters affecting employees, HS Rockford facilities and the community.

Andreas joined Hamilton Sundstrand in July 2009, when he was named vice president, engineering, Aerospace Power Systems. Since joining HS, he has developed a keen understanding of our business challenges and opportunities, particularly in Electric Systems.

Prior to joining Hamilton Sundstrand, Andreas worked at Chrysler where he had positions of increasing responsibility including vice president, Electrical/Electronics Core Engineering, and was responsible for developing and releasing electric/electronic systems for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge product lines. While at Chrysler he also served as director of Business Strategy and executive assistant to the CEO of Chrysler Group. Earlier in his career, Andreas was responsible for hybrid development, fuel cell systems and advanced vehicle engineering at DaimlerChrysler, both in the U.S. and Germany. He also served as a development engineer at Daimler-Benz.

Andreas received an MBA from Michigan State University and a master’s degree in mechanical engineering with a specialization in energy systems engineering from Technische Universität Clausthal in Germany.   

Rockford Robotics on the Move

Add comment March 15th, 2010

Nice to see the Rockford Robotics team doing well…the region now has four teams in action!

Robots

Best Bet For a Post-Graduation Job: Engineering

Add comment March 15th, 2010

New college graduates may be entering the worst job market in decades, but there are still some majors that pay off—and all of them are in the applied sciences.

A new report from the National Association of Colleges and Employers finds that eight of the top 10 best-paid majors are in engineering, with petroleum engineering topping off the list at $86,220.See Table.

“Petroleum engineering has been at the top for the last three years,” said Edwin Koc, director of strategic and foundation research at NACE. “The oil industry for the last couple of years has been a bit more active and a bit better off than some of the other sectors. Texas had a better employment picture than other locations, and a lot of the [petroleum engineering job] offers came out of Texas schools.”

Computer science was the fourth most lucrative degree, with graduates starting at $61,205 on average. The average salary for computer science majors has increased by at least 5% each year since 2007, said Mr. Koc.

The other non-engineering major in the top ten is information sciences and systems, with an average starting salary of $54,038. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, this field will add 155,800 jobs between 2008 and 2018, an increase of 53.4%, the second fastest growing career in the data the BLS offers and well above the average job growth for all professions of 10.1%

The BLS projects biomedical engineering jobs to increase by an astounding 72%–the top-growing field–from 16,000 in 2008 to 27,600 in 2018. The NACE survey did not record enough offers for jobs in this field to include it in the top ten, but Mr. Koc said that the major commands a salary comparable to chemical engineering, $65,142.

Not only do engineering majors earn the most, but the field is expected to grow at a fast clip over the next eight years with 178,300 jobs added by 2018. The BLS report expects growth in civil engineering to be particularly large “as a greater emphasis is placed on improving the nation’s infrastructure.”

Still, even specialized, in-demand graduates like engineering majors are finding it difficult to find employment in this economy. NACE found that only 42% of engineering majors found jobs in 2009, versus 70% in 2007.

This is the first of four quarterly reports that NACE will release on the class of 2010, but so far things are not looking good for liberal arts majors, whose average starting salary has decreased 11% since last year, down from $36,445 to $32,555.

Recent college graduates have been hit hard in the current recession. Their annual unemployment rate in 2009 was 9.1%, the highest it has been since 1982.

NACE’s salary figures are based on 1,558 job offers received by college seniors at about 180 colleges and universities nationwide. Both December 2009 graduates and May 2010 graduates are included. This is the first of four quarterly reports that NACE will release on the class of 2010. A major had to have at least 20 job offers to be included in the top ten.

Source: WSJ March 15, 2010

Robotics Team Update…and invite

Add comment March 14th, 2010

 On Mar 5-6, Winnovation Robotics team competed in the Greater Kansas City Regional.  60 teams were in attendance for the first weekend of FIRST Robotics Competition.  Winnovation started out a bit shaky, but as the day went on, the robot performance improved, and the team finished 2nd in the rankings after qualifying rounds.  During the elimination matches, the team’s alliance of 3 robots proceeded from Quarter Finals, to Semi-Finals. Winning 2 of 3 matches.  During the Championship matches, Winnovation won the first match, lost the second, and then lost the third match by 2 points!  It was a very exciting time!  The team earned an award for Excellence in Engineering and the Finalist trophy.  The ride home was spent discussing how to improve certain components for competition in Chicago.

Pictures from our Kansas City Competition can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29689971@N06/sets/72157623495114255/with/4433061764/

CAT Considers Expanding U.S. Excavator Production

Add comment March 12th, 2010

CAT is considering building a new factory in the U.S to produce hydraulic excavators, a common piece of construction equipment.  NewCAT

Manufacturing Tour Available for March 18th

Add comment March 11th, 2010

The Rock River Valley Tooling & Machining Association is sponsoring a tour at Chemtool, Inc. on March 18th.   Sign up by march 12…see details here.. Chemtool

For reservations contact:

Kaye Busse Kleber
Rock River Valley Tooling and Machining Association (RRVTMA)
(815) 871-1228
akayebk@comcast.net

Obama Manufacturing Plan Analyzed

1 comment March 5th, 2010

In an earlier blog…  here.. ObamaPlan  I said I would have Congressman Manzullo take a look and comment on the plan.  Here’s what his office said…

“There are many good policy recommendations in this Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing, many of which Rep. Manzullo has worked on over the years.  Of most importance, we need to acknowledge and praise the Obama Administration for recognizing the critical role manufacturing plays in our economy.  But as with all reports from an Administration, there are areas of disagreement; thus the Framework represents a mix bag.

The Obama Administration lists seven broad issue areas that need improvement to help the manufacturing sector.  All these areas are important; however, the devil is in the details.  We need improved worker skills that can be accomplished through the right job training assistance programs and our nation’s community college network.  We need to invest in new technologies and business practices that can be accomplished through making the Research and Development (R&D) tax credit permanent; improve intellectual property protection; and, of personal interest to Rep. Manzullo, better coordination of manufacturing programs already available through the federal government.  We need to improve our nation’s transportation network and infrastructure, particularly through the encouragement of “innovation clusters” such as what exists at the EIGERLab in Rockford.  We need to support fair trade through vigorous enforcement of existing agreements and expand user-fee based export finance programs at the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) with the goal of cutting our trade deficit.      

However, there are policy recommendations in this Framework that would work towards the detriment of our nation’s manufacturers.  The Framework discusses promoting “regulatory certainty” in environmental regulations which implies support for the many efforts the Obama Administration has made over the past year to overturn Bush-era regulations that helped the manufacturing sector and cap and trade.  The Framework endorses the creation of a new Office of Production & Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce, which may duplicate much of the work already being done by the Small Business Administration (SBA).  The Framework supports creating a “financial system” that works, which is code for endorsing the enactment of their comprehensive financial regulatory reform proposal that will cost jobs and could hurt availability of capital for manufacturers.  The Framework supports health care reform that cuts down costs.  Yet, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that the only health care reform plan that would actually cut costs is the Republican alternative.  The Framework supports eliminating “tax breaks for overseas investments.”  Unfortunately, this would result in companies with international operations paying double taxation, thus providing a perverse incentive to totally close all operations in the United States and relocate to a low-tax country.  One private sector study estimates that this proposal would negatively impact as many as 2.2 million jobs.  Finally, the Framework endorses a comprehensive energy and climate bill, which is code for cap-and-trade, which will cost 2.5 million jobs and hurt the manufacturing sector in particular.

Finally, the Framework makes no real mention of the pending Free Trade Agreements (other than saying it will “address outstanding concerns with the agreements”) or what a successful conclusion of the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO) would mean for manufacturers.  One outstanding goal of the U.S. manufacturing sector is to have zero tariffs on all manufactured products at the Doha Round; yet that receives no mention in this Framework.  The Framework just mentions the benefits of the yet-to-be negotiated Trans Pacific partnership.  There is also no mention at all of what unfair currency manipulation or misalignment by foreign governments means to manufacturers.  For China alone, this represents a 25 percent price advantage. 

Thus, while there are many positive policy recommendations in the Framework, there are also some negative recommendations and some omissions.  Thus, it represents a mixed bag”.

The Real Cost of Obamacare

Add comment March 5th, 2010

If manufacturers priced their products this way, we’d be out of business quick!

The following are remarks made by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, about the cost of the House and Senate health-care bills at President Obama’s Blair House summit on health care, Feb. 25:

Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.

Mr. President, you said health-care reform is budget reform. You’re right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That’s $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents’ generation, our generation, our kids’ generation. Medicaid’s growing at 21 percent each year. It’s suffocating states’ budgets. It’s adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for . . .

Now, you’re right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said—and I totally agree with this—I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can’t score your bill, because it doesn’t have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis—analysis from your chief actuary—I think it’s very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day—very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors.

Now, what do I mean when I say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

Now, what’s the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That’s $2.3 trillion.

[The Senate bill] does [a] couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That’s the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman [Kent Conrad] said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does [is treat] Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

. . . [A]ccording to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as much as 20 percent of Medicare’s providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can’t say that you’re using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That’s double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

. . . [P]robably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don’t think we should cut doctors [annual federal reimbursements] 21 percent next year. We’ve stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.

We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit . . . that provision was taken out, and it’s been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn’t add up.

. . . I’ll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?

Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we’re bending it up. He’s claiming that we’re going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it’s really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

. . . [W]e’ve been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it’s basically this. We don’t think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.

Now, we’ve offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It’s got to get fixed.

It’s bankrupting families. It’s bankrupting our government. It’s hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.

But we don’t think that this is the . . . the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I’ll just simply say this. . . . [W]e are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I’ve got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you’re not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them. And that’s basically the point.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19