Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome! We're about to start our webinar in a couple minutes here, but first I'd like
to take some time to introduce who I am and the program that is offering this webinar
today. My name is Jennifer Bruen and I'm the project coordinator on the EDA University
Center here at Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development. We
are a five-year program that is federally funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration and we started in 2011 in the fall for the purpose
of supporting and identifying and creating and developing innovative economic development
strategies that may yield high growth entrepreneurship, job creation in distressed regions in Michigan.
And each year we have the same cycle of co-learning plan development and we also host a webinar
for each one of our co-learning plan authors. Today we have Carolyn Hatch. She's a visiting
scholar, visiting Michigan State University from her home university in the city of Toronto
and I'm going to give you a little bit of background on her and then talk a little bit
about her research. She started with us in the spring, working on her co-learning plan
entitled Skills Gap or Training Gap: The Role of Manufacturing Firms in Solving the Skills
Problem. And I know this is a very hot topic in Michigan right now so I'm expecting that
we will have quite a few participants. If anybody can't hear me, by the way, type into
your question box or chat box and tell us your audio or visual issues and we'll do our
best to address that. Please also hold your questions till the end and Carolyn will read
them and answer them accordingly. Anyway, Carolyn is a Ph.D. and she studied Planning
at the University of Toronto. She completed her Ph.D. there and has research background
in Regional Development with an emphasis on the local/global dynamics in contemporary
economies and their social foundations. Mostly her doctoral work examined the learning dynamics
underpinning the resurgence of Canada's high-end office furniture sector and focused on the
institutional foundations of innovation and the role of design and quality in enhancing
the sector's competitiveness. And, also, how furniture producers learn from their users.
The research for the Skills Gap question or controversy has an emphasis on how producer
firms can play a role to address workforce development obstacles by collaborating with
institutions and actors in their local supply chains and industrial clusters. Her research
is drawing on case studies of Michigan's globally competitive thermal forming capital goods
sector and I'll let her explain what that is. I'm not exactly sure; I know it has something
to do with, I believe, the plastics industry. And so she's going to talk about how examining
the recruitment training and retention challenges that producers are often facing, currently
facing quite a bit, and how the increased technological intensity of manufacturing work
has been bearing on skill requirements and what the implications are on the job training.
So, in Michigan, we're looking at this from several different angles and is it really
a question of, is it education that needs to step up to the plate and provide this training,
or should it really be on the backs of the manufacturers. So, without any more from me,
I will bring Carolyn on. And I don't see any issues with audio so we will go ahead and
move forward. Thanks very much, Jen, for your very nice
introduction. And I'd like to begin by expressing my thanks to the generous sponsors of this
research: the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Economic Development Administration, and
the Michigan State University Center for Regional Economic Innovation whose support is very
much gratefully acknowledged. So I'm really pleased to be here today to
talk to you about this issue of vital public policy significance in Michigan and the U.S.
today. And, as Jen mentioned, that is the skills gap in the manufacturing sector. So,
today my focus is going to be on some of the workforce development challenges that employers
currently face as Jen alluded to in her introduction. As well as innovative insights into the way
that firms and other regional stakeholders have attempted to deal with these issues in
order to minimize constraints to firm and regional performance.
As Jen also mentioned, I am currently a visiting scholar in the School of Planning, Design,
and Construction at Michigan State and I recently graduated as she also said with my Ph.D. in
Planning from the University of Toronto, and my Ph.D. research, of which she also mentioned,
is focused on the institutional foundations of training, workforce development, and innovation
in the Canadian manufacturing industry, and, in particular, the high-end corporate furniture
industry. So I've really been thinking about the core
questions in skill development for quite some time. So what I'd like to share with you today
is the results of both a review of literature, but more importantly, interviews with key
informants representing government agencies in Michigan, industry associations, community
colleges, as well as senior managers representing private sector high-skill manufacturing machinery,
capital machinery, and manufacturing firms. And in total to date, I've spoken with 15
participants and managers from a total of 3 firms to explore these questions.
So just to provide an overview of my talk today, I'm going to begin by talking a little
bit about the importance of manufacturing to Michigan's economy. Then I'm going to comment
on what is really quite a promising trend that is being discussed in policy and academic
circles and that is this reverse outsourcing trend and a return of manufacturing that was
once outsourced to emerging economies back to the U.S. Then I'm going to talk a little
bit about what a viable manufacturing strategy looks like in the contemporary period and
how it differs from our previous understanding of mass production from an earlier era. And
the next part of my presentation is going to focus on the skills problem in the U.S.
manufacturing sector and some of the causal factors that I've learned about through my
interviews. Then I'm going to focus, hone in a little bit on the situation in Michigan.
And the final part of my presentation is going to discuss solutions to the skills problem,
the role of industry clusters, and some of the best practices that I've observed throughout
the course of this research. So, why does manufacturing matter to the State's
regional economy? Well, the auto industry's mass production methods, invented in Michigan,
were the core of the 20th century industrial revolution. As well, manufacturing employs
10% of the State's workforce, over half a million people in production of automobiles
and parts, metals, and machinery, breakfast cereal and other foods, furniture, plastics,
as well as many other highly innovative sectors, producing goods for global markets. Manufacturing
constitutes 30% of Michigan's economic production, more than twice that of any other sector.
As well, manufacturing workers enjoy a significant wage premium over their non-manufacturing
counterparts with an average annual salary of over 75,000 dollars per year, which is
nearly 25,000 dollars more than non-manufacturing workers.
The bulk of research and development (R&D) in the economy also happens in the manufacturing
sector. According the Michigan Manufacturing Association, Michigan is second in research
and development behind California and first in industrial research and development intensity
in the country, with more than 85% of North America in automotive R&D occurring in this
state. Finally, manufacturing small to medium enterprises are the backbone of Michigan communities.
Again, according to the Michigan Manufacturing Association, Michigan's manufacturing industry
contributes more than 1.5 billion annually towards educational, cultural, human services,
and other community building efforts. So, I'd like to turn now to, as I mentioned
in my introduction, a really important trend that is being observed in both policy and
academic circles, and that is the return or the repatriation of manufacturing activity
that was once outsourced to other economies, back to the U.S. Several U.S. firms including
Caterpillar, GE, and Ford, and others, have announced that they're shifting manufacturing
operations back to U.S. because of increasing production and energy costs overseas. As for
the states that are creating the most manufacturing jobs, the chart shows the ranking here, with
Michigan on top and well ahead of other states for job creation between December 2009 and
March 2013, with over 88,000 jobs being created in this sector in Michigan during this time
period. So what's starting to happen here is that
multi-national corporations that have formerly outsourced their supply chains and production
networks to emerging economies are beginning to recalculate their production costs, and
in so doing, they're starting to consider a new set of factors that influence where
companies invest in new manufacturing capacities. For example, the wage gap between the U.S.
and key competitors is narrowing. All over China, wages are climbing at 15 -- 20% percent
each year because of the supply and demand imbalance for skilled labor.
And some of the other important factors that are shaping theses locational decisions of
firms include things like supply networks, financial, tax, legal, and regulatory systems,
speed to markets and intellectual property protection. And these factors that might incentivize
a return to the U.S. will undoubtedly vary by both firm and industry. For example, industries
that rely on intellectual property are drawn to the stronger protection and the more robust
regulatory framework offered by the U.S. after, for example, experiencing the challenge of
piracy elsewhere. And other firms have found that long supply chains in Asia add cost and
reduce flexibility to serve customers in North America and Europe. Others seek access to
the cutting edge U.S. automation and robotic technology. So these are but a few examples
of why firms are being drawn back to the U.S. But the main point here, that I want to make,
is that this trend, this repatriation of supply chains and manufacturing activity creates
a stronger demand for skilled and qualified workers in the local labor market, particularly
in Michigan, as we see here in this chart. But what kind of manufacturing are we talking
about here? In other words, what does a viable production model in a high wage economy like
the U.S., look like in 2013? Manufacturing in the U.S. today looks very different from
the production system that was prominent during Henry Ford's automobile era, and throughout
the period, up to around 1970, that's come to be known as "Fordism". In the U.S. today,
you know we can no longer compete based on mass production economies and low cost, simply
because there's always going to be other places out there where production costs are cheaper.
Therefore, it's become imperative for producers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, as well as other
high wage economies, to adopt "high-road" strategies, based on high skills, high value-added,
high productivity, and low employee turnover. Successful producers have responded to new
market conditions by adopting by adopting practices and forms of work organization that
enhance their innovativeness, their flexibility and their responsiveness. And this has often
entailed a number of dimensions. The first one is investments in capital and technology,
as well as an emphasis on product quality, in many cases design intensity and customization
rather than cost alone, and finally the recruitment and development of a multi-skilled technologically
sophisticated workforce, as well as a strategy in which firms are able to harness the specialized
knowledge of their workers to create innovative products and processes.
Given that contemporary manufacturing is dependent upon an increasingly strong skills base, one
of the core questions that have been driving my research is really to try and understand
some of the workforce development obstacles that producers currently face as well as some
of the factors and processes that are shaping these obstacles. So my research has shown
that the past 20 or 30 years or so, U.S. manufacturing employment has declined due to dramatic productivity
improvements through automation, global competition and labor intensive goods from low cost producers,
and rapid growth in overseas markets along with other factors. Ironically, despite an
ongoing recession, and unemployment hovering around 7.6%, U.S. manufacturers face a significant
talent shortage. The U.S. needs highly skilled workers to realize the productivity gains
essential to remain globally competitive. Yet current, and anticipated, human capital
deficiencies exist across the board. Not only are openings for highly skilled workers increasing,
workers are also retiring at a faster rate than they are being replaced. So this means
that companies are going to lose a large portion of their seasoned skilled workforce in the
next five to ten years and the goal and shortfalls represent the current need for a wide range
of skills. In fact, a recent study by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute found that
5% of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. remain unfilled simply because people with the right
skills are not available. As manufacturing productivity and outsourcing soared during
the last several decades, downsizing, plant closures, and layoffs ensued. This trend was
obviously very much intensified in the wake of the most recent global economic recession
and the near death of major giants in the industry like GM and Chrysler. In the best
case scenarios, workers who were laid off were successfully retrained and transitioned
to other parts of the economy or simply left for opportunities elsewhere. However, in the
worst case scenarios, these layoffs have resulted in poverty and devastation in manufacturing
communities throughout Michigan and the U.S. Not surprisingly, the industry suffers from
a bad public image. Although a majority of Americans consider manufacturing important,
the Deloitte study finds that less than 20% of those surveyed think that there's a future
for manufacturing or would encourage their kids to enter manufacturing-related fields.
Because nobody wanted to go into manufacturing, the pipeline for skilled workers has all but
disappeared. This stigma has led to a lack of student enrollment in and demand for technical
programs which has caused secondary and post-secondary schools to drop their programming. Now in
2013, when manufacturing is resurging due to an upswing in the economy as well as this
reverse-outsourcing trend that's taking place, there's a severe shortage of skilled workers.
The situation in Michigan is really a microcosm of a pervasive problem throughout the U.S.
Part of this story relates to a lack of lifelong training investments by firms in the U.S.
economy compared to other high-wage manufacturing powerhouses like Germany and Japan. This has
to do with the structural characteristics of U.S. capital markets and a short-term,
shareholder-driven investment regime that engenders short-termism and instability in
employment relations. Despite the obvious links between labor force development and
the performance of firms, the importance of training in the U.S. tends to be undervalued
and firms maintain much shorter-term relations with their workers. One of the reasons is
the poaching or free-rider problem that is endemic in economies like the U.S. where trained
workers may leave to work for a competitor before the firm is able to reap the full benefit
of its training investments. The situation in the U.S. can be compared
with countries like Germany where market-government regimes and labor market industrial relations
institutions produce more long-term, stable relationships and therefore a stronger propensity
for firms to invest in their workers. Compared with the U.S., for example, Germany has achieved
better outcomes for its manufacturing sector including higher wages, a slower rate of job
loss, and a large trade surplus. It's done so by creating a set of institutions that
adhere to the principles of high-wage, high-skill, and high-value added production. For example,
German workers benefit from continuous vocational training and higher wages than their U.S.
counterparts as well as a system of wage regulation that discourages poaching. These features
have served to strengthen firm competitiveness over the long run.
Referring the slide here, the example in the bottom I think is quite instructive. This
shows the results of a tool and die employment needs survey conducted by the Michigan Economic
Development Corporation in 2012 which was sent to 280 firms with a 44% response rate.
Results from the survey show that while 53% of Michigan companies claim that they prefer
to hire workers with certification, the average starting-wage is $13.99 an hour, which is
really not that much more than what a worker at Costco is getting paid.
My point is to suggest that the skills gap in Michigan and the U.S. may be exacerbated
by the unwillingness of manufacturing firms to pay competitive wages and other benefits
needed to recruit and retain qualified employees. I think that this opens up some really important
questions for further research that we need to be paying attention to.
The 2011 Manufacturing Skills Gap Survey by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute that
I referred to before and that I'm also referring to throughout the presentation is also instructive,
particularly this question. On this slide, one of the questions to manufacturing firm
survey respondents is: What methods do you use to reduce the skills problem? What I find
particularly instructive here is that higher wages and benefits and increased company loyalty
did not even make it onto the survey instrument as a potential strategy choice. It's not only
interesting, it's perhaps emblematic of the more pervasive problem in the U.S. manufacturing
sector, which is a lack of demonstrated investment in worker loyalty engagement and long-termism
that is essential to a hirer's strategy. So far, just to recap, I've talked about the
importance of manufacturing to Michigan's economic base as well as a resurgence in manufacturing,
or as I should say, a so-called resurgence in manufacturing back to the U.S. and especially
to Michigan and, yet, a vital skill deficiency in local labor markets that threatens to constrain
firm and regional performance. Now I'd like to talk a little bit about the
nature and the extent of the skills gap in Michigan. This data is drawn from the 2011
Skills Gap Survey and shows that, out of 199 respondent firms in Michigan, 69% report a
moderate to severe shortage of available, qualified workers. Moreover, 47% report a serious shortage of workers in
skilled occupational categories. Three-quarters of respondents expect that the problem of
recruiting skilled employees in particular will increase over the next three to five
years. Research on skilled-trade job openings by state from February to May 2012 shows that
Michigan tops the list with 2,029 openings. I think that this finding complements previous
findings on Michigan's need in manufacturing job creation in recent years, which I showed
on an earlier slide. Finally, research on talent demand in one
specific occupational category, CNC Machinists, from January to September 2012 shows that
the highest demand is coming from MSAs in the Detroit area. These findings point to
the nature and extent as well as the severity of the skills gap problem in Michigan, where
manufacturing constitutes a higher percentage of Michigan's economic base compared with
other states. When thinking about solutions to the skills
problem, my review of the literature in my interviews with key regional stakeholders
in the state of Michigan shows that there's not simply a "one-size-fits-all" approach;
rather there are many different models out there from which we can learn. What these
successful models have in common is that they often involve collaborative partnerships between
employers and other regional actors; whether they be government agencies, training providers,
industry associations, local economic developers, unions, community organizations, and so on.
They also entail an alignment of efforts to develop talent locally in order to meet long
term industry and community needs. In the workforce development context, the term that's
often used is "cluster." That means efforts are explicitly regional in scale and they're
dependent of the geographic proximity of the different institutions and actors in the regional
economy and supply chain. Research shows that these types of public-private cluster partnerships
have emerged throughout the U.S. in response to the skills gap problem and in a variety
of forms. All of them consist of local, broad-based community initiatives that focus on talent
development through a wide array of innovative programs. I'm going to talk about just a handful
of them today. I'd like to begin by talking about the state
of Michigan's cluster strategy, which I really think exemplifies a model whereby the public
sector acts as an intermediary in connecting, convening, and engaging employers, partners,
and others at the local level through the Michigan Works! agencies. This strategy seeks
to enable dialogue between employers, employment and training providers, economic developers,
and other partners to result in collaborative problem-solving of workforce and training-related
issues. For example, simply by organizing into groups, employers can become aware of
resources that may be right next-door to them and achieve economies of scale derived from
pooled workforce training programs linked as part of a supply network.
One of the most exciting discoveries of my research so far has been what's happening
in the Jackson Area Manufacturers Association, or JAMA. The Jackson Area Manufacturers Association
is a not-for-profit association of manufacturers and associate members located in Jackson County.
As I talked about in the beginning of today's talk, one of the most critical factors that
employers are facing is a lack of a talent pipeline to meet workforce needs. That pipeline
starts at an early age. JAMA has created really innovative, in-depth youth programming for
ages birth to adulthood that teaches kids applied knowledge in manufacturing and exposes
them to hands-on experiences. For example, "I Can Make It" is a weeklong, overnight summer
camp at the lake where fourth to sixth graders have the chance to design and build products.
Another example, "Machining U," is a more advanced summer camp for twelve to fourteen
year olds and introduces kids to CAD design, things like machining, welding, laser cutting,
and programming. "Engineering is Elementary" is a program that fosters engineering and
technological literacy in young children from kindergarten through to second grade. These
are a few examples of some of the innovative programming that the Jackson area has created
to provide exposure to manufacturing and also hands-on applied experiences at an early age,
which is really critical to filling that talent pipeline need later on in life.
Quite similar to the employee partnership-led model of JAMA that I just talked about is
the Bluewater Wood Alliance (BWA), a cluster of wood products manufacturing companies located
in southwestern Ontario. It's a model for "sectoral-clustered" organization that aims
to solve training problems and confront other innovation-related issues that are common
to member firms. The BWA brings together over 80 companies in the advanced wood products
industry for the purposes of joint projects in skills development as well as technology
transfer, export development, and experience exchange. In the arena of training, the Alliance
works with community colleges, high schools, and independent education providers in the
region to set up a comprehensive skills development program that seeks to upgrade plant workers
and pre-train new hires. The benefit to members is the ability to place workers into higher-quality
training programs at a lower cost than if individual companies attempt to provide training
on their own. The next cluster approach that I'd like to
talk about is quite unique in that the local community college has played a role as convener
of regional stakeholders to address economic and workforce issues. Mid-Michigan Community
College serves the regions of Arenac, Clare, Gladwin, and Midland, which is the center
of plastics and plastics machinery production in Michigan. Recognizing that the workforce
necessary to sustain the local plastics industry had been eroded, the college began convening
focus groups in 2007 to explore factors that could potentially inhibit growth in the industry.
To this end, the college applied for and was recently awarded funding from the National
Science Foundation to work with regional partners including area manufacturers, secondary and
post-secondary educational institutions, as well as the region school district, local
economic development actors, and community organizations. The goal of the grant, as I
show you in this slide, is threefold: 1) To create an industry alliance, 2) To develop
a college curriculum, and 3) To recruit and retain students. One of the unique aspects
of this initiative that I wanted to tease out and focus on is how it's quite tailored
to address the specific needs of a pool of potential workers; many of whom suffer from
the pervasive impact of generational poverty, meaning that they often lack academic preparedness.
To address this vital issue, the college has also received funding from the Talent Search
Program at the federal level, which provides comprehensive mentoring for students in-need,
from the sixth through the twelfth grades to help fill that preparedness gap and to
successfully transition them into college programs.
The final practice that I wanted to talk about is not really a cluster initiative at all,
but rather it points to the importance of manufacturing firm level strategies aimed
at promoting worker loyalty, engagement, and long-termism in the workplace. These findings
derive from both my previous research on the Canadian furniture industry as well as exploratory
research from a small sample of firms in Michigan's Capital Machinery and Thermoforming sector.
These incentives include strong investments in skills and training; things like on-the-job
training as well as, in some cases, classroom training, investments in offsite training,
as well as online courses. It also includes long-term retention of workers, especially
through periods of economic downturn. In the research that I've done, these core
practices are often complemented by monetary and non-monetary incentives such as the most
obvious one being competitive salaries and wages, generous benefits, performance-based
pay and ownership, opportunities for career advancement and growth within the company,
opportunities for workers to share their knowledge in the innovation process, positive working
conditions, cooperative management-labor relations, investment in a culture of motivation -- for
example, programs to recognize employees -- those sorts of things.
My Ph.D. research shows that furniture companies who adopted these practices place a higher
emphasis on the development of a highly multiple-skilled and flexible workforce and were more competitive
in the marketplace as a result based on annual measures of sales and productivity. In the
small sample of lead machinery firms that I interviewed in Michigan, companies also
reported well-developed internal training programs, opportunities for job rotation and
career advancement in the company, opportunities and systems in place to enable shop floor
workers to share their knowledge and ideas in the innovation process, and consequently
low employee turnover. I think I'm going to stop there and conclude
by saying that the examples that I decided to talk about today represent a diverse cross-section
of different solutions to the skills problem; one being, an example whereby the public sector
acts as an intermediary to bring innovation partners together. A couple examples are employers
partnering with each other to build networks with local schools, community colleges playing
a central role in convening different parties, and finally that effective strategies at the
firm level have been shown to be successful in addressing the skills issue. I think I'm
going to stop there. Thank you so much for your time and your listening. I look forward
to your questions and ideas. Thank you, Carolyn. I'm going to go ahead
and open up the chat box and see if we have a few questions or comments. Go ahead, attendees,
and type away and we'll answer them as they come in.
The comment is: "Regarding the distinct lack of investment in workers and a mindset of
long-termism as these relate to the issues of loyalty and worker mobility -- the problem,
it seems, is rooted in the macro-situation for manufacturer."
Absolutely. They too suffer from a perception of low-probability of success. This impacts
the access to capital. Perhaps the worst problem is the problem of long-termism. Our world,
particularly our financial world, has become much more subject to emphasis brought by increased
volatility. The issue is: how to workers fair in such a climate? Perhaps worker mobility
and marketability are at issue. Another question: "Could it be that one answer
lies in more worker mobility -- for example, more freelance work -- in turn more mobility
could put training investments at risk?" In terms of the first question (Could it be
that one answer lies in more worker mobility?), I would argue that it is certainly the case
for the industries and sectors in the U.S. Things like new media, high technology, certain
kinds of industries where innovation is very much dependent on the ability of workers to
move around, a higher degree of turnover in local labor markets, and the ability in short
project-oriented type industries. Growth and innovation are dependent on those short-term
structures. I would argue that in manufacturing, that's absolutely not the case. We know that
kind of manufacturing innovation is dependent on more long-term working structures and environments.
The ability for workers to be recruited into an organization and to learn through training
over the long-term is a more incremental innovation process in contrast to a more radical innovation
that we know in these other kinds of industries that rely on short-term worker mobility. So,
I don't think the answer lies in volatility at all; I think it's quite the contrary.
And to answer the question about how then do we protect a company's investments in training;
that's a really good question because you alluded to the macro-economic conditions that
are shaping these mobile practices at the firm scale, which is very much true. All I
can say is that my previous research on the Canadian furniture industry points to the
importance of firm level strategies that compensate for this apparent disjunction of national
scales. The ability of firms to create strategies and practices where they emphasize and invest
in their workers' training and long-term development in spite of the institutions that counteract
those goals. I'm not sure if that's helpful, but I think that industry is definitely a
very good example that's showing success in the ability to train and retains workers and
consequently those firms are doing very well on a competitive basis.
Jen's comment was on the importance of firm investment and worker loyalty, which plays
a very fundamental role and very related to the training issue and the long-term development
of these workers. If a company is going to invest in a worker's training over many years,
then obviously that worker wants to play a more important role in the organization. I
tried to bring that up in my presentation. [In my research on Canadian furniture companies],
I didn't actually ask what the starting wage was, but in terms of potential for promotion
I certainly asked. The companies that I spoke with are pretty successful and have all these
models of long-termism and investment in worker training. There were definitely opportunities
for workers to grow in the organization. I think that's a really important question for
the research and it's one that we need to be asking. I did also ask a question about,
if companies raised wages and benefits and demonstrated more loyalty, whether that would
result in better, more highly-skilled applicants. The firms that I spoke with answered 'no'
to that question, which meant that they were only paying good wages and they were already
attracting quality candidates and retaining them. These groups have very low levels of
employee turnover for the most part. Should I address any questions on the screen?
Sure. "Carolyn, is a copy of your PowerPoint available?"
I can certainly make that available. Yes, I'd be happy to. The PowerPoint can be found
at the website and at the Innovate Michigan! Summit on September 4th. Registration will
be open soon for that. The next question: "In a firm-level strategy,
as you mentioned, what do their wages look like compared with your earlier example of
the Michigan tool and die industry? Could you comment on the average wages?"
Actually, that was a question that Jen just asked. My research on the firms is quite exploratory
and I didn't ask them what their starting wages are. Also, it's not one starting wage;
we're talking about all of these different occupational categories. These are all very
difficult questions for firms and senior managers to answer. I don't know what their average
wages were, but as I mentioned to Jen, I think that's a really important question for a bigger
project with more research in this area. To the next one, yes, manufacturing is a long-term
industry. However, the key is capital intensity. Absolutely. When I talked about what contemporary
manufacturing actually looks like in 2013, it's not only about the ability of firms to
invest in their workers, but what it's also about is complementary investment in capital
and technology. So it's not really an "either/or," but rather it's a "both/and." If firms that
are doing big investments in machinery and capital, they also need smarter and more highly-skilled
workers to operate those machines. So it's very closely related. Thank you, that's a
great point. The next one is, "What if instead, the workers
have access to capital (like maker co-ops)?" That's a really good point. So in other words,
access to capital where they could invest that in their own developments, but more acquiring
skills in the market instead of in the firm? Yeah, that's really neat. I'm not sure.
The next comment: "Think owner, operator, and truck rigs."
Okay, does anyone have any ideas there? I'm not sure.
"P.S. Essentially, the issue is that as long as workers feel that they are not getting
a good deal, they are reluctant to give their all to the effort. Without the attitudinal
mindset, the challenge is much greater." I agree.
I'm recently becoming more and more curious and interested in this. I'm having conversations
with technical campuses and high schools and community colleges. I'm asking them, 'Are
you students able to earn college credit and will that college credit be accepted at, perhaps,
Michigan State University?' What I've been told is 'No. My sixteen year old son is enrolled
in a technical campus curriculum. He meets every afternoon, goes to the campus, and begins
to learn how to do laser work or programming. He is not able to take that credit and transfer
it to Michigan State and he may be an all-A student in his other required courses in math
and science.' There is no incentive for him to do that, other than his mother telling
him that getting those practical, hands-on skills will turn into a job someday or will
help you in the long run. But these are not incentives for him because he is looking at
his peers and they're all taking their AP courses and having those transferred. They're
not interested because they don't see the incentive. Some of these students are taking
colleges classes in the general education area and they're transferring those, but they're
not interested in the technical campuses. It still has a stigma and in reality they're
still not able to get that college credit. I know some universities, like Oakland University
and maybe Lawrence Tech, are accepting these. A lot of them are not, including Michigan
State. That's a really good question. I'm not sure
about the situation in the Jackson area, but certainly the Mid-Michigan Community College
model that I talked about is creating curriculum at the college level that is laddered into
credit that is transferred for an associate's degree.
Not a four year? Yeah, like a degree at, for example, Ferris
State. They're making sure that these are transferrable to those associates programs.
So you first have to graduate from high school and enroll at Mid-Michigan Community College,
then get your associate's degree, then transfer to Ferris?
That's a really good question. I'm not sure that you have to necessarily go that particular
route, but I do know that the college programs they have created are credits and that they're
transferrable. If they want to continue on, for example, at Ferris State, the credits
can transfer. I'd like to see them transferrable from high
school to a four-year program rather than having to do the community college in between.
I think that even community college still has a stigma. When you have a 4.0 and you're
at high school, your parents are not encouraging you to go to community college.
Yes, that's a really good point. Even four-year schools, they're still trying
to encourage you to go to four-year schools. If I seem a little bit impassioned about this,
it's because it's actually happening to my son. I am wondering when -- MSU, U of M, Wayne
State -- if they are, please tell me. When are they going to accept a senior from high
school and say, 'Oh, you have experience on a technical campus, we'll take the credits
and they'll apply towards a four-year degree'? I don't know, I'm still learning.
I think what they're doing at Mid-Michigan is really innovative and I believe that is
happening there. It's definitely something to look into as a model for other leading
universities. How do we change parents' perceptions?
Well, one, the parents' perceptions are really key. A number of people that I spoke with
said that it's the kids, but it's also the parents. It's about changing the mindset of
the parents. It's about educating them that manufacturing is not that kind of dirty factory
job that it used to be and that there are viable career opportunities in manufacturing.
Today it's high-skilled, it's the police wear. You need to be technologically sophisticated
in order to work in those environments. There are also very viable careers in that area.
Parents aren't really aware of that. So it's really a lack of awareness. What Mid-Michigan
is doing is that part of their grant covering that issue. It's about changing that mindset.
It's about getting parents into those factories and on those floors and understanding that
these globally-competitive firms are in their backyard. Their children can be learning to
work in these companies and learn that they are offering exciting careers. That's very
much a part of the focus for all of the effort that I've been talking about.
Some of these entry-level positions are the beginning of an engineer. It's building up
your engineering knowledge Exactly. What the Jackson area's doing is
starting from ages zero to five. They're starting that pipeline with these incredibly cool summer
camps that are exposing young kids to manufacturing environments. They're rolling up their sleeves
and they're actually making stuff and learning to work with machines. It's really important
to start that at a very young age. That programming had been dropped from all the schools with
declining enrollment and so forth. They're starting to bring the programs back and they're
doing very well. It's going to be exciting to see what's happening in some of these areas.
Thank you for sharing those. Carolyn's co-learning plan will be complete and will have probably
a lot more content to it when she's finished. It will be on our website in the next month
or so. Then of course she'll be presenting at the Summit, as well. This is excellent
work. This is much-needed research. Do we have any more questions or comments? I think
we're good. Thank you, everyone, for joining us and stay tuned. We will send out a message
to participants once we have uploaded this recording. It will be transcribed so that
you can send it out to others. It will be ADA compliant. We do have another webinar
coming up on July 11th and, interestingly enough, it is somewhat related to this. It's
on "makerspaces" and if you're not familiar with what makerspaces are, this is the webinar
for you. This is what we're going to learn about; different ones that are popping up
all over the state. This is an opportunity to talk to three presenters from East Lansing.
They'll be presenting on their research on makerspaces. The webinar will be from two
to three in the afternoon. Stay tuned for the link with the promotional flier. Thank
you for your participation and thank you, Carolyn, for all of your work.
Thank you, Jen. Thanks for listening, everyone. We'll see you on July 11th.