NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy: What Are the Facts?

September 8th, 2016

Image result for wharton

NAFTA

Sep 06, 2016

When President Bill Clinton signed the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in December 1993, he predicted that “NAFTA will tear down trade barriers between our three nations, create the world’s largest trade zone, and create 200,000 jobs in [the U.S.] by 1995 alone. The environmental and labor side agreements negotiated by our administration will make this agreement a force for social progress as well as economic growth.” Twenty-three years later, scholars and policy makers often disagree about the impact that NAFTA has had on economic growth and job generation in the U.S. That impact, they say, is not always easy to disentangle from other economic, social and political factors that have influenced U.S. growth.

On the positive side, overall trade between the three NAFTA partners — the U.S., Canada and Mexico — has increased sharply over the pact’s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. NAFTA has also facilitated a multi-layered integration of the U.S., Mexican and Canadian supply chains. According to the Wilson Center, twenty-five cents out of every dollar of goods that are imported from Canada to the U.S. is actually “Made in USA” content, as are 40 cents out of every dollar for goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico.

Geronimo Gutierrez, managing director of the North American Development Bank (NADB), notes that trade between the United States and Mexico reached over $500 billion in 2015, a five-fold increase since 1992, when NAFTA negotiations concluded. Thus, he explains, Mexico imports more from the U.S. these days than do all of the so-called BRIC nations combined – Brazil, Russia, India and China. (The NADB acts as a binational catalyst in helping communities along the U.S.-Mexico border develop affordable, long-term infrastructure.)

Gutierrez adds that there are lesser-known benefits of NAFTA. By promoting the tight integration of North American industrial supply chains, “NAFTA is creating partners and not competitors among its member countries. As for Mexico’s interest in this bilateral relationship, it can be summarized in two facts: about 80% of Mexico’s exports go to the U.S., while 50% of the accumulated foreign direct investment received between 2000 and 2011 comes from the U.S. Moreover, NAFTA has been the fundamental anchor for reforms that make Mexico a more modern economy and open society.”

A Modest Impact

For all that, most studies conclude that NAFTA has had only a modest positive impact on U.S. GDP. For example, according to a 2014 report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), the United States has been $127 billion richer each year thanks to “extra” trade growth fostered by NAFTA. For the United States, with its population of 320 million at the time of that study, the pure economic payoff was thus only $400 per person, while per capita GDP was close to $50,000. And while the costs of NAFTA are highly concentrated in specific industries like auto manufacturing — where job losses may be significant for specific firms — the benefits of the trade pact (such as lower prices for imported electronics or clothing) are distributed widely across the U.S., as they are in the case of any trade pact worldwide.

Most studies conclude that NAFTA has had only a modest positive impact on U.S. GDP.

Supporters of NAFTA estimate that some 14 million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico combined, and the nearly 200,000 export-related jobs created annually by NAFTA pay an average salary of 15% to 20% more than the jobs that were lost, according to a PIIE study. Furthermore, the study found that only about 15,000 jobs on net are lost each year due to NAFTA. “On our reckoning, since NAFTA’s enactment, fewer than 5% of U.S. workers who have lost jobs from sizable layoffs (such as when large plants close down) can be attributed to rising imports from Mexico,” wrote its authors, PIIE senior fellow Gary Clyde Hufbauer and research analyst Cathleen Cimino-Isaacs. For the roughly 200,000 out of 4 million people who lose their jobs annually under these circumstances, the job losses can be attributed to rising imports from Mexico, they wrote, but “almost the same number of new jobs has been created annually by rising U.S. exports to Mexico.” Moreover, “For every net job lost in this definition, the gains to the U.S. economy were about $450,000, owing to enhanced productivity of the workforce, a broader range of goods and services, and lower prices at the checkout counter for households.”

Trade specialists agree that it has proven difficult to separate the deal’s direct effects on trade and investment from other factors, including rapid improvements in technology, expanded trade with other countries such as China and unrelated domestic developments in each of the countries.

Walter Kemmsies, managing director, economist and chief strategist at JLL Ports Airports and Global Infrastructure, notes that that many of the job losses that are popularly blamed on NAFTA would likely have taken place even in the absence of NAFTA, in part because of growing competition from China-based manufacturers, many of which have taken advantage of currency manipulation by the Chinese government that has rendered China-made products more price-competitive in the U.S. Likewise, Mauro Guillen, head of Wharton’s Lauder Institute, agrees that without NAFTA, many American jobs that were lost over this period would probably have gone to China or elsewhere. “Perhaps NAFTA accelerated the process, but it did not make a huge difference.”

“A lot of instant experts on NAFTA don’t really understand trade and what drives trade,” said Kemmsies. “And so they get confused between NAFTA and the globalization of the world’s economy. The fact is, with or without NAFTA, we would have done a lot more trade with Mexico anyway. I’m not sure that NAFTA has even fostered any growth of trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Look at Mexico and forget about everything else for a second: What is the single-biggest trade-flow corridor in the world? It’s East-West — Asia to Europe to North America. Mexico happens to sit right smack in the middle of the East-West trade flow…. Here is Mexico, with 120 million people, and all of these abilities to draw raw materials…. You have a cheap labor force, a global geographic advantage, a rising middle class. It’s a good place to make stuff.”

For a long time, because of a lack of investment, Mexico’s infrastructure was well below par, including its ports, which were made to process raw materials, rather than handle industrial goods. In that respect, NAFTA has had a positive impact on Mexico’s economic development, and it has encouraged foreign investors to trust that Mexico, whose governments were long protectionist and populist, would follow the rule of international law. International trade specialists M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson of the Congressional Research Service wrote in a recent report: “While Mexico’s unilateral trade and investment liberalization measures in the 1980s and early 1990s contributed to the increase of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Mexico, NAFTA provisions on foreign investment may have helped to lock in Mexico’s reforms and increase investor confidence [in Mexico.]” Nearly half of total FDI investment in Mexico is in its booming manufacturing sector.

Job Losses and Lower Wages

Some critics argue that NAFTA is to blame for job losses and wage stagnation in the U.S., because competition from Mexican firms has forced many U.S. firms to relocate to Mexico. Between 1993 and 2014, the U.S.-Mexico trade balance swung from a $1.7 billion U.S. surplus to a $54 billion deficit. Economists such as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Robert Scott, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute, argue that the consequent surge of imports from Mexico into the U.S. coincided with the loss of up to 600,000 U.S. jobs over two decades, although they admit that some of that import growth would likely have happened even without NAFTA.

“A lot of instant experts on NAFTA don’t really understand trade and what drives trade.” –Walter Kemmsies

While conceding that many U.S. high-wage manufacturing jobs were relocated to Mexico, China and other foreign locations as a result of NAFTA, Morris Cohen, Wharton professor of operations and information management, argues that NAFTA has, on balance, been a good thing for the U.S. economy and U.S. corporations. “The sucking sound that Ross Perot predicted did not occur; many jobs were created in Canada and Mexico, and [the resulting] economic activity created a somewhat seamless supply chain — a North American supply chain that allowed North American auto companies to be more profitable and more competitive.”

Moreover, in their 2015 study published by Congressional Research Service, Villarreal and Fergusson noted, “The overall economic impact of NAFTA is difficult to measure since trade and investment trends are influenced by numerous other economic variables, such as economic growth, inflation, and currency fluctuations. The agreement may have accelerated the trade liberalization that was already taking place, but many of these changes may have taken place with or without an agreement.”

Some of its harshest critics concede that NAFTA should not be held entirely responsible for the recent loss of U.S. industrial jobs. According to Scott of the Economic Policy Institute, “Over the past two decades, currency manipulation by about 20 countries, led by China, has inflated U.S. trade deficits, which [in combination with the lingering effects of the Great Recession] is largely responsible for the loss of more than five million U.S. manufacturing jobs.” Scott argues that while NAFTA and other trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership are bad for American workers, the fundamental problem is not that they are “free trade” pacts, but that they “are designed to create a separate, global set of rules to protect foreign investors and encourage the outsourcing of production from the United States to other countries.”

Unlike the earliest generation of “free-trade agreements” – which focused on reducing or eliminating tariffs and duties that stifled trade — these newer pacts are more comprehensive. As Scott explains, they “contain 30 or more chapters providing special protections for foreign investors; extending patents and copyrights; privatizing markets for public services such as education, health, and public utilities; and ‘harmonizing’ regulations in ways that limit or prevent governments from protecting the public health or environment.” When critics of the TPP conflate their criticism of that pact with their criticism of “free trade,” they miss an essential element of the TPP that has disaffected many otherwise loyal supporters of earlier-generation agreements that truly focus on deregulation of “trade” per se, he notes.

The Role of China

Two decades ago, when NAFTA was born, China had only a faint presence in the global economy, and was not yet even a member of the World Trade Organization. However, the share of U.S. spending on Chinese goods rose nearly eight-fold between 1991 and 2007. By 2015, U.S. trade in goods and services with China totaled $659 billion— with the U.S. importing $336 billion more than it exported. China has become the U.S.’s top trading partner for goods — a development never anticipated at the signing of NAFTA. And yet, NAFTA continues to attract the lion’s share of the blame among U.S. critics of globalization, despite the fact that the U.S. and China have yet to sign any bilateral free-trade treaty.

“NAFTA did foster greater U.S.-Mexican integration and helped transform Mexico into a major exporter of manufactured goods.” –Robert Blecker

How is that possible? In a recent study that de-emphasized the impact of NAFTA on the U.S. economy, economists David Autor (MIT), David Dorn (University of Zurich) and Gordon Hanson (University of California, San Diego) stress the role of China’s emergence on job growth and wages in the U.S. In the study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, they write: “China’s emergence as a great economic power has induced an epochal shift in patterns of world trade. Simultaneously, it has challenged much of the received empirical wisdom about how labor markets adjust to trade shocks. Alongside the heralded consumer benefits of expanded trade are substantial adjustment costs and distributional consequences…. Exposed workers experience greater job churning and reduced lifetime income. At the national level, employment has fallen in U.S. industries more exposed to import competition, as expected, but offsetting employment gains in other industries have yet to materialize. Better understanding when and where trade is costly, and how and why it may be beneficial, are key items on the research agenda for trade and labor economists.”

As Robert Blecker, an economist at American University, notes, “Contrary to the promises of the leaders who promoted it, NAFTA did not make Mexico converge to the United States in per capita income, nor did it solve Mexico’s employment problems or stem the flow of migration.” However, “NAFTA did foster greater U.S.-Mexican integration and helped transform Mexico into a major exporter of manufactured goods.”

The benefits for the Mexican economy were attenuated, however, by heavy dependence on imported intermediate inputs in export production, as well as by Chinese competition in the U.S. market and domestically. The long-run increase in manufacturing employment in Mexico (about 400,000 jobs) was small and disappointing, while U.S. manufacturing plummeted by 5 million — but more because of Chinese imports than imports from Mexico. In both Mexico and the United States, real wages have stagnated while productivity has continued to increase, leading to higher profit shares and a tendency toward greater inequality.”

Blaming NAFTA for all of these disturbing problems may make some NAFTA critics feel good, but as trade researchers have learned in recent years, the growing complexity of today’s economic challenges defies any simplistic explanations.

Despite fears, Mexico’s manufacturing boom is lifting U.S. workers

August 27th, 2016

Image result for los angeles times

Factories south of the border are fueled by American goods and services


Workers assemble the Forte sedan on the floor of a Kia plant in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, which began production in May. (Natalie Kitroeff / Los Angeles Times)

Enrique Zarate, 19, had spent just a year in college when he landed an apprenticeship at a new BMW facility in San Luis Potosí, Mexico. If he performs well, in a year he’ll win a well-paid position, with benefits, working with robots at the company’s newest plant.

Within a decade or so, most of the BMW 3 series cars that Americans buy will probably come from Mexico, built by people like Zarate.

“When you start with such little experience, and get such a big salary, it’s unbelievable,” says Zarate, whose father is a taxi driver and whose mother is a housewife.


Enrique Zarate, 19, at a BMW training facility in San Luis Potosí, Mexico. (Joy Tirado / BMW)

Mexico is in the throes of a manufacturing boom.

Exports from Mexican factories have jumped 13% since 2012. The country already ranks as the seventh-largest producer of cars in the world, and Chrysler, Honda and Volkswagen have major operations there. Over the next five years, another wave of big automakers, including Ford, Audi and Toyota, plan to bring new plants online.

And it’s not just cars. Bombardier, Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft have opened aircraft assembly lines in Queretaro and Chihuahua, Mexico. Plastics and iron and steel exports have steadily risen.

In the process, workers like Zarate are being lifted into the middle class by the thousands.

That sounds like an exported version of the American dream, circa 1965, in places such as Dearborn, Mich., or Marysville, Ohio. Indeed, the influx of those types of jobs to Mexico has enraged Ford employees in Wayne, Mich., and the makers of furnaces in Indianapolis.

Donald Trump called the North American Free Trade Agreement “the worst trade deal in history.” Bernie Sanders said that an American company moving to Mexico is “the kind of corporate behavior that is destroying the middle class.” Even Hillary Clinton, who once praised the pact with Mexico, has expressed increasing skepticism about trade deals.

But despite what you might have heard on the presidential campaign trail, Mexico’s manufacturing surge has not been an unalloyed disaster for American workers.

U.S. manufacturing production, it turns out, is rising as well. Factory output has nearly reached its all-time high this year, and is up more than 30% since 2009.

Partly thanks to automation, factory jobs are still way off from their peak of more than 19 million in 1979. But they have been climbing slowly since the end of the Great Recession in 2009. Over the last six years, U.S. manufacturers hired 744,000 new workers, an uptick of 6%.

The bottom line, say economists and company executives, is that what’s good for Mexico’s factory workers is good for some U.S. workers too.

That’s because the chain of goods that supplies Mexico’s factories is very different from the one for China. Simply put, Mexico needs to consume a chunk of U.S. goods in order to make its own.

Around 40 cents of every dollar that the United States imports from Mexico comes from the U.S., compared with just 4 cents of every dollar in Chinese imports, according to the Woodrow Wilson Center. The influx of auto factories in Mexico might sustain hundreds of supplier jobs in Deforest, Wis., or Calhoun, Ga.

“Instead of thinking of Mexico as a separate part of production, it’s now part of our manufacturing process,” said Raymond Robertson, an economist at Texas A&M University. “Mexican companies aren’t just producing products that rival ours, they are producing parts of our products.”

The evolution of factory work in the United States, Mexico and China is illustrated by Evco Plastics, a family-owned, Wisconsin-based plastics maker.

Dale Evans, the owner of Evco Plastics, is not ashamed to admit that recently he’s been hiring more people in Mexico than in Wisconsin — or Dongguan, China.

In the last two years, Evco has added 100 people to its three Mexican plants, and has been hiring more slowly in its five U.S. facilities. Meanwhile, the company is shrinking two Chinese plants into one.

But Evans says that being able to give clients the option of getting their plastic parts made in Mexico more cheaply has allowed him to move much of his 500-member staff in Wisconsin and Georgia to higher-skilled tasks, such as programming robots.

“The easy things — people picking things up and putting them in boxes — that [work] left,” said Evans. It’s too expensive for him to employ rote manual laborers in America.

He has instead invested in training his employees to maintain huge, potentially dangerous robots handling plastic parts. “The difficult things you can do with machinery, that stayed.”

The shift is driven in part by labor costs.

Evans says he used to pay Chinese workers $1 an hour, but now pays them closer to $3 per hour. In Mexico, he says, he now pays a typical plastics assembler around $4 per hour, which is just a dollar more than what he paid when he first set up shop there in 2001.

“It’s just gotten cheaper in Mexico,” Evans said.

One of the workers who has benefited is Tania Berenice Salazar, a 25-year-old from Monterrey. The single mom was working as a cashier earning about $1.60 per hour before she got an entry-level job packing up plastic materials at Evco in 2012.

Now she supervises other packagers and makes about $1.80 per hour, even as the peso has plummeted. That’s significantly above the minimum wage in Mexico of around $4 per day.

“I feel that this is a step forward. I am rising, I am not stuck,” Salazar said.

As she spoke, two nearby plastic injection robots were loudly stamping out pieces of dashboards for Mexican-made Kia sedans and lamp fixtures. The drab Evco factory floor in Monterrey sounds like the inside of a washing machine.

the call
Workers on the assembly line of a new Kia plant in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. (Natalie Kitroeff / Los Angeles Times)

U.S.-supplied raw materials account for 60% of the cost of the plastic incubators and ATV parts the company makes in Mexico. For Evco’s China plant, the figure is just 15%.

Evco’s experience supports the findings of several studies on the effects of NAFTA, which 22 years ago loosened barriers to trade among the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Whereas China’s prowess in electronics and textiles appears to have made a lasting dent on U.S. manufacturing — costing up to 2.4 million jobs from 1999 to 2011, according to one study — trade flows with Mexico have been more balanced.

Multinational manufacturing companies hire an extra 250 U.S. workers for every 100 employees they bring on in Mexico, according to a 2014 study by researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan organization.

Dean Baker, the co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, was an early critic of NAFTA and continues to believe that “it put downward pressure on manufacturing wages” in America.

Still, he acknowledges that the pact had benefits, at least for U.S. corporations.

“It helped the competitive position of our automakers,” he said. NAFTA was “bad, but not as bad for U.S. workers as China.”

None of that research is any comfort to Frank Staples, who will lose his gig supervising an assembly line when Carrier moves 1,400 furnace-manufacturing jobs from Indianapolis to Monterrey, Mexico, by 2018.

Staples, who has worked at the company for 11 years, blames the move on “corporate greed.”

“I think NAFTA was one of the biggest screw-ups that has ever been put in place,” he said.

The 37-year-old father of three has been working with his hands — in demolition, then in warehouses, and now at Carrier’s factory — since graduating high school two decades ago. Now, for the first time, he’s genuinely worried about how he’ll support his family.

Staples said that anyone who says trade comes with more pros than cons has no idea what it’s like to be on the losing side of that equation.

“People can say what they want to say [about trade], but they aren’t experiencing it firsthand,” Staples said.

United Technologies, which owns Carrier, says the move reflects “the steady migration of the company’s competitors and suppliers to Mexico, as well as ongoing cost and pricing pressures driven in part by evolving regulatory requirements.” The company said it would pay for four years of traditional or technical education for laid-off employees.

The trade pact hit low-skill factory jobs hardest. Many garment manufacturers deserted Los Angeles for border maquiladoras in the 1980s and ’90s. Starting in the 2000s, though, some aircraft builders and carmakers, which were already firing up plants in the U.S. Southeast, followed in earnest.

Today, the United States has a $67-billion trade deficit with Mexico in cars and car parts, according to the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

There are no firm estimates on the total number of jobs that have migrated to Mexico. One study, from a liberal think tank funded by unions, found that a total of 851,700 positions were lost to Mexico in the wake of NAFTA. But several other nonpartisan reports have found that after factoring in jobs created by increased trade, the pact had little to no effect at all on employment.

Some factory work is returning to the United States, but jobs aren’t necessarily following. New generations of robots can do the work faster and more precisely than humans can.

Even in Mexico, with its lower labor costs, machines are replacing people.

At a new Kia factory in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, robots dominate the vast production spaces where the skeletons of Forte compacts take shape. The facility occupies an expanse of arid land that would comfortably accommodate three plants the size of Tesla’s main hub in Fremont, Calif.

In a welding area at the center of the assembly line, more than 300 automated machines work in concert with one another to fuse sedan doors to roofs and attach trunks to bumpers.

the call
Workers on the assemble the Forte sedan at a Kia plant in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Even in Mexico, with its lower labor costs, machines are replacing people. (Natalie Kitroeff / Los Angeles Times)

The towering robots are fenced off in playpen-like areas; workers rarely interact with them.

Even when people are using their hands to, say, install a car hood, they are actually just guiding a machine holding the steel to the front of the car and pushing it forward until the piece slots in.

“It’s so he doesn’t tire his back,” explained Victor Aleman, a spokesperson for Kia, watching as a welder pushed a massive machine toward the shell of a future Forte. Going forward, virtually all of the Forte sedans and hatchbacks purchased in the United States will be produced at this plant in Mexico, Kia said.

“We are really happy because these workers don’t complain,” Aleman said, gesturing toward a sea of yellow robots that help this Kia facility produce a car every 54 seconds.

A Mexican autoworker at the Kia plant earns $3.75 per hour, the company said. A typical auto manufacturer in the United States makes about $40 per hour, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But cheap labor south of the border hasn’t derailed Bernie Degenhardt’s career.

The father of two started working at Evco Plastics headquarters in Deforest, Wis., in 1986, when he was a sophomore in high school. He never left.

Degenhardt began as a machine operator, making about $5.50 an hour plucking plastic parts from an injection molding machine. He quickly realized that the influx of robots onto the factory’s floor might pose a threat.

“You want to be managing the new automation and technology, and not worried about ‘something is going to take my job away,’” Degenhardt says. So he got an associate degree in electronics, and then in 2006, a bachelor’s in mechanical engineering.

Today, Degenhardt earns around $120,000 per year as the plant’s automation manager, supervising about 20 people.

At Evco’s Wisconsin plants, robots do the work Degenhardt once did, pulling just-made plastic from its mold.

“The robots do my [old] job, and I am managing people that manage them,” he says.

Detroit and Southeast Michigan’s premier business news and information website

January 26th, 2016

Originally Published: June 07, 2015 8:00 AM   Modified: June 12, 2015 9:26 AM

Mexico auto boom a boon for local suppliers

Photo by ASSOCIATED PRESS An employee at a Honda Motor Co. plant in Celaya, Mexico, one of the plants that’s part of the $23 billion worth of new auto production either operating or promised since 2012.

Hollingsworth Logistics Group LLC, a Dearborn-based automotive transportation and assembly supplier, plans for sales in Mexico to be a quarter of its business by 2025.

That’s an ambitious target, considering none of the company’s $400 million in revenue in 2014 came from that nation.

But Hollingsworth isn’t alone, as Southeast Michigan’s lower-tiered supply base is again heading south — 20 years after the North American Free Trade Agreementbroke business barriers further open between the U.S. and Mexico.

In what local experts are calling the new automotive gold rush, automakers such asNissan Motor Co. and Mazda Motor Corp. are producing a record number of vehicles in Mexico, most of them destined for export.

Since 2012, carmakers have invested or promised nearly $23 billion in new production in Mexico. In April, Toyota Motor Corp. announced it would spend about $1 billion on its first car factory in Mexico, with the capacity to assemble about 200,000 Corolla compact cars annually, Bloomberg News reported.

The result is a need for a more cohesive supply chain that extends farther down the tiered system, including assemblers and distributors such as Hollingsworth.

“Mexico is booming, and what we see trending is phenomenal opportunities for us,” said Greg Martinez Jr., director of international sales for Hollingsworth. “It’s key for our sustainability. If we, and others, don’t make those business expansions down there, the marketplace will become much smaller.”

Rapid expansion

Hollingsworth — minority-owned and controlled by Stephen Barr, who is of American Indian decent — is bidding on four programs in Mexico for distribution services and commodity management for FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Bombardier Inc., Martinez said.

Mike Wall, director of automotive analysis for Southfield-based IHS Automotive Inc., said that the tier structure in Mexico is “vastly underdeveloped” but that the projected volume coming out of the country is forcing automakers and suppliers to ensure their chain is more robust.

“The volumes are there, and as more automakers go down to Mexico, an infrastructure is being created that can support more suppliers down the line,” Wall said. “New plants are coming on board in the next few years, and they are already quoting that business.

“The reality is, if you want that business, you’ve got to be down there because automakers aren’t looking for parts to be shipped in anymore.”

Automakers in Mexico produced 3.2 million vehicles in 2014, surpassing Brazil’s 3.1 million to become the seventh-largest producer of vehicles. China and the U.S. remain the largest producers of cars in the world.

Production in Mexico is projected to top 4 million in 2017, according to IHS, as it gets closer to the country’s plans to reach 5 million units by 2020. This would move them ahead of India and South Korea in production.

Labor costs

Low labor costs and favorable trade agreements with more than 45 countries make Mexico an attractive location for Southeast Michigan suppliers looking for global expansion.

An average unskilled laborer in Mexico costs $8 an hour, including wages and benefits, according to data from the Ann Arbor-basedCenter for Automotive Research. Comparatively, similar workers for General Motors Co. cost $58 an hour.

Although cheap labor is a benefit, Wall said, labor rates will rise.

“I don’t think the move to Mexico is just a labor solution; it’s not the endgame,” he said. “Just as labor cost is rising in China, the whole labor cost benefit in Mexico will turn on its head eventually.”

Alejandro Rodriguez, country manager for Southfield-based Plante & Moran PLLC in Monterrey, Mexico, said constraints on the labor force will occur as the need for skilled workers and engineers rises.

“There’s already more demand than supply for the highly skilled workers,” Rodriguez said. “It’s a complete misconception that labor is inexpensive overall. … There’s a huge gap between skilled and unskilled labor.”

For instance, suppliers and automakers are likely to pay more for a plant manager in Mexico than in the U.S., Rodriguez said, because fewer people are qualified for those positions in Mexico. That creates demand that raises pay.

The next labor challenge in Mexico will be retaining talent — a familiar challenge to Southeast Michigan suppliers, Rodriquez said.

“You can’t manage your operations in Mexico with just expats; you must build a culture there,” Rodriquez said. “Not everything is about money for Mexicans. They want to feel part of something larger, just like their American counterparts.”

While issues with labor are bound to crop up, it’s Mexico’s expansive trade agreements with more than 40 countries that have driven the global auto industry into the country, experts said.

Mexico’s strong agreements allow exporters duty-free access to markets that contain 60 percent of the world’s economic output,The Wall Street Journal reported this year.

Automotive exports from Mexico this year are projected to rise to a record 2.9 million vehicles, more than 87 percent of its projected production, according to the Mexican Automobile Industry Association. As much as 70 percent of those exports are projected to be going to the U.S.

For Hollingsworth, exporting isn’t one of its options, but the increased exports from Mexico are a welcome catalyst to its own growth.

“Customers are looking for suppliers that can deliver their services on an international level,” Martinez said. “If we’re not down there as soon as possible, we’re not going to be able to compete long term.”

Mexico’s Bright Economic Future

January 25th, 2016

Stratfor

Mexico's Bright Economic Future

Mexico has long had a privileged position in Latin America. Its proximity to the United States — the largest consumer economy in the world — has contributed to the growth of a robust domestic manufacturing industry, which has become the bedrock of the Mexican economy. Manufacturing has made Mexico the third-largest U.S. trading partner and has propelled its economy to the rank of second-largest in Latin America. Still, as in all oil-producing countries, the drop in global oil prices will hurt the country’s financial position, possibly jeopardizing its security reforms. But overall, the country will manage the price drop relatively well.

Despite low growth compared with previous years, Mexico will continue to make economic progress and will lead in regional manufacturing for the foreseeable future, largely because of its close economic ties to the United States. Nearly 80 percent of Mexican exports are destined for U.S. markets, and almost half of these exports are higher-value products, such as vehicles and electronic goods. Manufacturing growth is sustained by rising natural gas flows from the United States, which have propelled the rapid expansion of Mexico’s electric grid by making energy availability more reliable.

Unsurprisingly, the commercial linkages created between the two countries over the decades, particularly since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, have also accelerated capital flows into the country. Mexico received about $28.5 billion in foreign direct investment in 2015. The same year, remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States totaled nearly $22 billion — the most since 2009. During the current Mexican president’s term, the country has also opened additional avenues for foreign investment into sectors formerly closed to large inflows of foreign capital, and it has made major changes to its regulatory regime in the hydrocarbons and electricity sectors to break state monopolies, many of which have become costly and uncompetitive.

Overall, Mexico’s next few years will be quite bright. Its economy will continue benefiting from foreign investment to fund manufacturing initiatives to supply the U.S. domestic market. The growing energy trade between the United States and Mexico will also ensure secure electricity supply that will further drive manufacturing growth. Still, security concerns will persist as funding for anti-crime measures becomes less reliable.

Mexico transitions to high-value manufacturing location

August 3rd, 2015

Mexico is no longer the low-wage sourcing location for low-value consumer products for the U.S. market that it was two decades ago when the North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and Canada was implemented. True, average wages have risen higher in coastal China, where so much export production is based, than in Mexico. But with an increasingly skilled Mexican workforce and a rapidly growing middle class, many international companies are investing in facilities that manufacture higher-value products for the U.S. and Mexico’s domestic market, and still more are planning to invest in sourcing there.

The near-sourcing trend is fueled by the desire to reduce turnaround time from order to delivery, cut transportation costs, and, increasingly, to avoid any repetition of the West Coast port congestion and delays that plagued so many supply chains in late 2014 and early this year.

One U.S. importer, for example, responded to a JOC.com survey about shippers’ supply chain plans in the wake of the West Coast longshore labor agreement in May by saying he wanted to shift as much production as possible away from China to Mexico.

“The whole near-shoring trend is based on ‘How do I make sure I don’t have my supply chain cut off because of lack of capacity or longshoremen’ and all of the issues you have when you’re bringing in product by boat from around the world,” said Troy Ryley, managing director of Frisco, Texas-based third-party logistics provider Transplace Mexico. “In Mexico, you’ve got multiple points to enter the U.S. via truck, and trucks are a lot more consistent on the highway than vessels on the open ocean. It’s a matter of days by truck, rather than weeks at sea.”

Over the past several years, there has been a continuous move of production to Mexico for the North American market. Some of that has come at the expense of Asia, but more often the investment in Mexican production may be in addition to Asia. “Investment going forward may be in Mexico, which doesn’t mean it’s being relocated from Asia,” said Foster Finley, a managing director of logistics consulting firm AlixPartners who specializes in supply chain performance. “Plants that in years gone by may have gone to Asia are going to Mexico now.”

In a survey last year of the near-sourcing plans of 143 senior manufacturing and distribution executives, AlixPartners found that 86 percent plan to increase their foreign manufacturing capacity closer to the U.S. in the next two or three years. The chief reasons behind these plans were the desire to cut the landed cost of imports, lower freight costs, improved speed to market and improved customer service.

The survey, conducted before the severe congestion that began to clog West Coast ports last fall, also found that 30 percent of those surveyed said near-sourcing of production would result in fewer supply chain disruptions.

“After NAFTA was implemented in 2004, many companies located in Mexico to take advantage of low wages and duty-free access to the U.S., but when China joined the WTO, they moved there to get even lower wages,” said Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “Over time, companies have become more sophisticated about the way they make site-selection decisions and are looking at a much wider range of factors. What that has done is push Mexico into its proper niche into areas where it has important competitive advantages vis-à-vis other countries.”

AlixPartners uses local wage costs as one of seven factors in measuring the competitiveness of global supply locations. The other six factors include availability of raw materials and cost, regulatory overhead, inbound transportation costs, inventory cost tied up in product flow, exchange rates, and tariffs or duties.

“Although Chinese wages are on average lower than Mexico’s, wages have risen rapidly up and down the coast of China that has historically been the factory of China, and they continue to go up,” Finley said. “China has made a concerted effort to tap into lower wages in inland China, but the problems are the lack of infrastructure to get product to and from the coast. The number of qualified workers also is still well behind the coast.”

The Mexican government is moving to enhance its competitive position by investing heavily in road, rail and aviation infrastructure improvements and by streamlining its customs procedures. As a result, it has become a major source for U.S. imports of bulky products such as automobiles, aerospace products and components and appliances that don’t fit easily into a container, but can be shipped by road or rail to the U.S.

Mexico is also the second-largest source of high-value, high-tech products such as cell phones, gaming consoles and computers, after China.

In the past, the Mexican government spurred the growth of these industries by providing incentives for them to group in clusters around cities that have an abundance of skilled engineers graduating from universities and the infrastructure to support shipments to and from the plants. It has since ended those incentives for all but the aerospace industry.

“Mexico has a very well-educated workforce that has the expertise to produce more technical products, like the aerospace industry,” said Derrick Johnson, vice president of segment marketing for UPS. “It is graduating 230,000 engineers every year.”

UPS is working with the Mexican government to identify the areas that have the infrastructure to support the transportation needs of industry clusters. “We look for good roads and rail infrastructure, but also the people with the skills to support these clusters,” Johnson said.

The aerospace industry is clustered around Chihuahua, which boasts plants by Hawker Beechcraft, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and Zodiac Aerospace. Bombardier, Eurocopter and Messier-Bugatti-Dowti have plants around Queretaro.

Although the government has scaled back on incentives to other industries, the incentives it provided in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in a cluster of more than 600 high-tech plants in the state of Jalisco around Guadalajara, which is known as Mexico’s Silicon Valley. Foxconn, Jabil Circuit and Flextronics assemble products there with components imported from Asia for the local and the U.S. market. Other plants are clustered around Chihuahua, Monterey and Mexico City.

“One of the big concerns for these highly technical products is intellectual property,” Johnson said. “Mexico’s IP protection is as strong as or stronger than other areas of the world, such as China.”

The automotive industry is far more spread out. Ford Motor Co. has plants in Chihuahua and Sonora in the north and Toluca in the south. Audi and Volkswagen have plants in Puebla near Mexico City. Honda has a number of plants. Chrysler, General Motors and Mercedes Benz have plants in Saltillo. BMW plans to build a plant in San Luis Potosi by 2019.

Approximately 1,100 top-tier parts makers also have opened production facilities in Mexico to supply these plants. Mexican automotive plants export about 80 percent of their production and account for 11 percent of all new car sales in the U.S.

Some cars are transported by rail to the U.S., and others by ocean. “Over the last two years, we’ve been seeing an increase in the traffic of car carriers transporting cars from Lazaro Cardenas through the canal to the U.S. East Coast,” Panama Canal Administrator Jorge Quijano said. “That may change if Mexico improves the roads and rail transport to Veracruz so cars can be shipped directly from there to the East Coast.” He said car carriers have told him they are building post-Panamax vessels that can carry 8,000 to 8,500 cars, compared with the current maximum capacity of 5,000 to 5,500 cars. “So for the next three years, we see strong performances for cars moving from Mexico through the canal to the U.S. East Coast.”

U.S. companies that source products in Mexico find it much easier to manage the engineering and quality control processes than in Asia because it is more cost efficient and easier to visit plants south of the border than across the Pacific. “The ability to supervise your engineering at a plant in Mexico is a lot less expensive than in Asia, and companies are starting to realize this,” said Phillip Poland, director of international trade compliance for DHL. “If I was making strategic decisions for a U.S. company, I would seriously consider building a plant in Mexico.”

Mexico has eased its customs procedures on imports of components for assembly in plants by moving all customs transactions onto a single electronic platform of window for export. “Mexico is ahead of the U.S. in that a single window increases compliance, decreasing the arbitrariness of customs from port to port,” Poland said. “It really streamlines and helps the movement of imports through customs.”

Mexico is working closely with the U.S. and Canada to harmonize their customs procedures under NAFTA. It signed on to the Wassenauer Agreement on export controls last year and is implementing an export control system, which together with its single platform on imports creates greater trade compliance.

Security is less of an issue in Mexico today than in the past, when theft of truckloads in transit was not uncommon. “That’s less frequent now, as the government has been cracking down on cartels to improve transportation safety,” Poland said.

The flow of trucks moving across the U.S. border promises to become easier as a result of changes in U.S. regulations introduced this year. For years, Mexican trucking companies with Mexican drivers could haul cargo only into a narrow commercial zone across the U.S. border, despite the provisions of the NAFTA treaty. In response, Mexico imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports estimated to cost $2 billion annually.

After a three-year pilot program, the U.S. Department of Transportation started allowing Mexican motor carriers to apply for authority this year to conduct long-haul, cross-border trucking services. Under this program, Mexican trucks must be inspected and meet the same safety regulations as those for U.S. motor carriers.

“You’re starting to see Mexican equipment go farther and farther north,” Ryley said. “What’s defining how far north they go is not any restriction by the law, but is more how much deadheading time they can afford to take on or whether they have the complementary southbound loads that allows for a round trip.”

More U.S. companies opening high-tech factories in Mexico

December 5th, 2013

latimes.com

Faced with rising wages in China and high shipping costs, many businesses are finding manufacturing close to home more appealing. But despite its advantages, Mexico has problems.

By Shan Li

4:37 PM PST, November 29, 2013

Manufacturing in Mexico

Oceas Verona Orocio inspects the latest-model drone at the 3D Robotics manufacturing plant in Tijuana. The company’s drones were formerly made in China. (Don Bartletti, Los Angeles Times / November 30, 2013)

TIJUANA — In an industrial park five miles east of downtown Tijuana, Ariel Ceja toils in a white room bustling with assembly workers hunched over blue tables.

A master scheduler, Ceja is in charge of all steps of production at this factory nestled inside a cavernous warehouse. A cluster of anonymous buildings surround the facility. Nearby are pitted roads, and just a few minutes away by car is the Tijuana airport and a university.

San Diego-based 3D Robotics moved into this once-vacant spot in June, producing affordable drones and electronic parts destined for customers in the U.S. and around the world.

It is just one of many American companies streaming to Mexico to open high-tech factories in a reversal of the outsourcing trend in years past. Called nearshoring, businesses are moving production to Mexico, Canada and other nearby countries to take advantage of their proximity to the U.S.

“Recently I have been seeing more American companies bringing production here,” said Ceja, who started working for 3D Robotics a month ago. During the 1990s, “there were more Asian companies coming in, Japanese, Korean, but that has changed.”

It’s not just in Tijuana. Manufacturing plants are also opening in Mexican cities such as Guadalajara and Mexico City, bringing a wave of new jobs to a country recovering from the economic downturn and still fighting constant drug violence.

From 2009 to 2012, foreign investment in Mexico jumped more than 50% to $7.4 billion, and exports from foreign-owned factories also grew 50% to $196 billion, according to one industry group that tracks maquiladoras, or assembly plants in Mexico that are owned by foreign companies. After plunging during the economic recession, employment also has jumped 25% to more than 2 million. According to an economic study from South/East San Diego, themaquiladora industry is one of Tijuana’s biggest employers, behind businesses linked to its border crossing.

“Sometime in the last year, we reached a crossover point where it became cheaper to make a lot of goods in Mexico than in China,” said Hal Sirkin, a senior partner at Boston Consulting Group. “A lot of American companies are looking or moving.”

The global recession and its aftermath led companies to rethink their supply chain. Faced with rising wages in China and high oil prices, many are reconsidering the appeal of manufacturing close to home, especially small and medium-size businesses without the bargaining clout of Apple and Wal-Mart.

Those businesses are finding a skilled workforce for high-tech manufacturing in Mexico. The country has doubled the number of post-secondary public schools, many devoted to science and technology. Former President Felipe Calderon last year bragged that Mexico was graduating 130,000 technicians and engineers a year, more than Germany or Canada.

The educated labor pool has attracted the car industry. Mexico has gained at least 100,000 auto-related jobs since 2010, according to a Brookings Institution report. Nissan, Honda, General Motors and Ford have all announced plans to expand in coming years.

3D Robotics, which makes drones and parts priced up to $730 for civilians and tech enthusiasts, is among the start-ups drawn to Mexico’s low costs and proximity to the U.S. The company once manufactured its drones and kits in Southern California and China.

But Chief Executive Chris Anderson said making products overseas was a lengthy process that meant waiting for months for merchandise to come on ships. Chinese factories also required bulk orders that tied up a lot of the company’s capital and prevented engineers from innovating quickly, which is vital in a tech sector such as drones.

“We decided it didn’t make sense at our scale and pace of innovation to ramp up in China,” Anderson said.

Instead, the company looked south.

3D’s first Mexico factory in 2011 was in the three-bedroom Tijuana apartment of general manager Guillermo Romero, who spent the first months of the test run in Mexico soldering parts and assembling drones in his living room along with one employee.

“We started with some benches and soldering stations you can buy anywhere,” Romero said. “We were like, ‘Let’s see what happens.'”

Sales of drones assembled in Mexico quickly grew after Romero got the hang of putting them together, and 3D moved into its first manufacturing space last year.

The last of the manufacturing equipment was trucked to Tijuana this spring, when the company moved to its current 12,000-square-foot facility. American engineers in San Diego design drones that are crafted almost completely by about 60 assembly workers in Tijuana.

A walk through the cavernous warehouse that houses the factory shows 3D’s quick expansion. On the second floor, a newly completed call center opened about a month ago, bringing customer service in-house for the first time. Inside the assembly room, workers solder circuit boards, attach plastic arms and test the flying machines.

“Mexico is very flexible. You can start projects here and grow them,” Romero said. “It’s very good for start-ups.”

For California companies, Mexico can be an especially attractive bet, analysts say. The ability to order in small batches means that designs can be changed quickly and production can be revved up and slowed down in a matter of days instead of months.

That can be invaluable during the holidays, as San Bernardino-based Cannon Safe learned.

On Black Friday in 2008, the safe manufacturing company received a panicked call from a major retailer that had drastically slimmed down its inventory in response the financial crash, President Aaron Baker said. But shoppers were scooping up their safes, prompting the chain to issue thousands of rain checks that it had to quickly honor.

Cannon’s Mexico facility was able to increase production and deliver new merchandise within four days, compared with weeks or months if the safes had come from China, Baker said. “That was our ‘aha’ moment.”

Today, about 60% of the company’s safes are made in Mexico, nearly double the production levels five years ago. Meanwhile, its China production has dropped by half, Baker said.

Although wages are higher in Mexico than in China, the relative ease of doing business and proximity can bring costs on par or even lower. Companies find that they don’t lose valuable time waiting for shipments. Deliveries can also be routed to another port or simply brought by truck when problems crop up, such as the eight-day strike that paralyzed the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach last winter.

Companies looking to bring production closer to home rank Mexico as their No. 1 choice, according to a survey from consulting firm AlixPartners.

The tipping point may have come last year when manufacturing costs in Mexico, when adjusted for productivity, dropped below those in China, according to a Boston Consulting Group report. Within two years, the average cost of production in Mexico will be 6% below China and as much as 30% lower than countries such as Japan and Germany.

“Companies are bringing back parts of manufacturing to Mexico. They are saying, ‘We want our manufacturing process close to our engineers, we want our inventory next to our customers so it’s easier to ship,'” said Joe Mazza, a partner at advisory and accounting firm McGladrey in Los Angeles. “There are also many companies in China that are not exiting China, but reducing their manufacturing and bringing some to Mexico.”

With all its advantages, Mexico still has its fair share of problems. Companies that don’t produce their own goods can have a hard time finding the right third-party manufacturer in a country that can’t compete yet with China’s dense supplier base and strong manufacturing infrastructure. Mexico also just passed fiscal reforms that include raising taxes on U.S.-owned companies and other businesses, increasing worries that foreign firms might leave the country.

Despite these challenges, more U.S. companies will consider locating factories in Mexico in the coming years, analysts said.

“This is the return of manufacturing in Mexico,” said Scott Stanley, senior vice president of NAPS, which aids companies setting up factories in Mexico. “Every month it seems like there are more and more companies moving. There is no sign of that trend slowing down.”

shan.li@latimes.com

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

President’s proposed tax reform is huge threat to Maquiladoras and border economy

October 7th, 2013

Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto recently presented to Congress the executive’s fiscal reform initiative which will be evaluated by the House of Representatives first and then by the Senate.

The highly controversial proposal, originally expected to structurally reform Mexico’s budget model, turned out to be a general tax increase on businesses, higher income earners and international firms manufacturing in Mexico, among other already “captive” tax payers.

The proposal does not include any provisions for the reduction or transparency of public spending, and does not properly provide for the incorporation of informal, unregistered businesses to the taxpaying base.

According to Alfredo Coutino, Moody’s Latin America Director: “The proposal is short of the expectations originally outlined by the President and it does not reach the objective of balancing the budget.

The proposal is based on hiking current taxes and creating new ones for the current tax payers; it does not propose to improve the efficiency of the tax authority by increasing the number of tax payers.”

The proposition is a political social initiative as it seeks to dedicate a large portion of the tax proceeds to support unemployment insurance and universal health coverage in Mexico. It also waives to impose IVA (value added tax, VAT, or sales tax) on food and medicines (The possibility of taxing food and medicines was highly unpopular and was strongly opposed by the left parties).

Selective social programs are certainly needed in Mexico, but not at the sole expense of businesses.

Although rather unlikely, some hope that the government controlled House of Representatives is able to produced a more balanced proposal that includes spending cuts, transparency and accountability by state and federal entities and the expansion of the tax payers base.

Mexico’s legislators were setting an example so far through the “Pact for Mexico”, blitzing through reforms in education, telecom and anti-trust among others. Although the heat of recent elections seems to have dented the process, Mexico’s legislators are not yet ready to “join the club” of their U.S. colleagues where Congress is practically paralyzed.

The resulting tax reform legislation in Mexico, if passed, is expected to be announced during this coming week of October 20.

THE EFFECT ON MAQUILADORAS

Maquiladoras’ oldest cry in Mexico is the need for permanent and clear tax rules so that they can adequately make their typical 5-year financial and production plans. But the treasury department frequently changes the rules defying Mexico’s competitiveness to attract foreign investment. This time around, the resilience of maquiladoras may be pushed over the cliff.

In a nutshell, the new tax reform proposal includes the elimination of the preferential tax treatment that the maquiladoras currently have, taking them from a preferential corporate income tax rate of 17.5% to a rate of 30%.

In addition, the proposal will also impose a new 10% tax on corporate dividends and it will also expand the taxable income base by eliminating deductions and changing the “price-transfer” rules between parent company and maquiladora subsidiaries.

Also, the tax proposal practically eliminates the highly successful maquiladora regime that grants a tax free treatment on temporary importations of industrial inputs, by charging IVA in such imports. Although this IVA is subject to a drawback, it would take a huge amount of funds to finance its 6-month cycle from the time of payment until the eventual reimbursement.

Also, under the new rules, maquiladoras’ parent companies would be required to pay 16% IVA tax on the value of buy/sell transactions on the production supply chain or maquila to maquila transfers.

Unless they make profound changes to their global corporate structure, the IVA would directly impact the cost of doing business, because they would not be able to recover it. This would directly affect many Mexican businesses that are involved in the supply chain structure.

Carlos Angulo, PAN Congressman and member of the Maquiladora Committee and Secretary of the Constitutional Reform Committee of the lower house said: “We can summarize the effects of the proposed tax reform on the maquiladora industry in one word: Catastrophic.”

“For example, under the new rules, if implemented, the annual income tax bill of a typical 500-workers maquiladora operation would go from a current level of about $24 Million Pesos to over $230 Million”, explained Angulo, “..and the maquiladora industry as a whole would need to increase its working capital by US$17.5 Billion at an annual financial cost of about US$750 Million just to keep up with the IVA requirements on temporary imports.”

“Supply chain operations between maquiladoras, a current common practice, would be interrupted if faced with cascading IVA impositions. The tax reform proposal would be like a catastrophic knock-out blow to the maquiladora industry global competitiveness” said Angulo.

Luis Aguirre Lang, President of the Maquiladora National Council (INDEX) expressed his frustration as follows: “The tax reform has created panic among the international firms operating in Mexico. We could lose up to two million, three hundred thousand manufacturing jobs if this reform is approved as proposed.”

THE EFFECT ON THE BORDER ECONOMY

The tax reform includes a generalized consumption increase of the IVA rate within the border region from 11% to 16%.

Any housewife living in Ciudad Juarez knows what this means: More trips to El Paso to buy clothing, house items, school supplies, etc., anything that will be taxed in Mexico at 16%, she can get in El Paso at a sales tax rate of 8.25%, which with a little effort she can get refunded.

And the flow of visitors from El Paso to Juarez, which had recently started to pick-up as the security improved, will certainly suffer as restaurants, bars and other IVA taxed purchases will automatically increase their prices by 5% if the tax reform gets approved by Congress.

The reduction of consumer purchases in Juarez as a result of the IVA increase, will weigh in to increase the closing of commercial businesses, unemployment and violence.

The combination of reduced consumption and pulling the rug from under the maquiladoras will have a multiplying, significant negative effect on Mexican border cities’ economies and their quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Carlos Angulo summed it up as follows: “The tax reform proposal appears to be designed by a freshman student with a total ignorance of border commerce and international production sharing practices.”

It is expected that industry associations, state and city governments and everybody else with a stake in the maquiladora industry and the border economy will lobby heavily in the weeks to come to mitigate the negative effects of the tax reform on the 43 year-old successful maquiladora program.

Article PDF download link

Juarez-El Paso NOW Staff report

 

Mexican Manufacturing Benefits U.S. Industry

July 26th, 2013

TECMA

When NAFTA was first implemented in the early 1990s, the fear was that Mexican manufacturing would cost the U.S. jobs and wreak havoc upon U.S. industry. Mexico was viewed largely as an economic competitor that would pilfer U.S. employment opportunities, businesses, and bring about the demise of national economic prosperity. This set of assumptions was merely the result of a misconception of the nature of the U.S.-Mexico industrial alliance.

In reality, China has been a much more formidable concern in terms of low wages and competition for industry stateside. The past decade, however, has amply shown that the best way for U.S. industry to meet this challenge is partnership – not competition – with Mexico through production sharing, or vertical specialization, which occurs when two or more countries bilaterally produce a product. In other words, Mexican manufacturing firms rely upon materials produced by U.S. suppliers. The geographic proximity of Mexico and the U.S. has actually led to greater opportunities for U.S. suppliers vs. China. This is demonstrated by the fact that Mexican imports contain ten times more U.S. content than similar items manufactured by the Chinese. In fact, 40% of the United States’ imports from Mexico contain material inputs that originated in the United States.

Thus we see that “near-sourcing” manufacturing jobs to Mexico is, in a palpable way, beneficial to U.S. industry, fostering a partnership that keeps high paying jobs in the U.S. and sustains a demand for suppliers to feed the manufacturing done in Mexico that will then be exported, in most instances, back to the U.S.. This partnership results in products that, when sitting on shelves next to those produced in China and other developing countries such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia, are price competitive.

With the aforementioned in mind, it is no surprise that one in twenty-four U.S. jobs is dependent on the Mexican maquiladora industry. Over 6 million U.S. jobs are dedicated to supplying manufacturing operations in Mexico, which means there is significant opportunity for U.S. suppliers to expand to meet the demand created by Mexican manufacturing activities.

Four segments in particular presently stand out as unique growth opportunities for U.S. industry:

In 2011, the Mexican automotive industry achieved a growth rate of thirteen percent. As a result, the demand for U.S. made parts and supplies is on the rise – these include items such as spare and replacement parts for gasoline and diesel engines, electrical parts, collision repair parts, gear boxes, drive axles, catalytic converters, and steering wheel assemblies, for example.

In 2010 alone, Mexico imported approximately $3.5 billion worth of products for the manufacturing of medical devices, $2 billion of which were from U.S. suppliers. Key opportunities for medical products suppliers include anesthesia equipment, defibrillators, electrocardiographs, electro surgery equipment, incubators, lasers for surgery, etc.

Total Mexican packaging production reached 9.1 million tons of containers and materials in 2010 for a value of $10.1 billion, of which $2.5 billion came from U.S. industry. There is significant growth potential for U.S. suppliers of metal, plastics, glass, wood, and cardboard packaging materials.

$1.4 billion was invested in plastics manufacturing in Mexico in 2011, revealing a steady rise in the demand for plastic materials and resins. Additionally, Mexico exports Ethylene and imports Polyethylene, which shows the opportunity for U.S. industry to supply polymerization technology.

Mexican manufacturing, although this may be counter intuitive to some, should be viewed as a partner to the U.S., rather than exclusively as a competitor.

K. Alan Russell
President and C.E.O.

The Tecma Group of Companies
2000 Wyoming Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79903
Phone: 915 . 534.4252
Fax: 915 . 534.0205
E-Mail: Alan@Tecma.com
www.Tecma.com

Our Mission: “To create an environment where our clients and employees never want to leave us.”

Four Reasons Mexico Is Becoming a Global Manufacturing Power

July 1st, 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-27/four-reasons-mexico-is-becoming-a-global-manufacturing-power

Mexico is beginning to beat China as a manufacturing base for many companies despite its higher crime rate, according to a new report from Boston Consulting Group. Mexico’s gain is a plus for the U.S. because Mexican factories use four times as many American-made components as Chinese factories do, says the consulting firm. Here are Mexico’s four key advantages:

1. Manufacturing wages, adjusted for Mexico’s superior worker productivity, are likely to be 30 percent lower than in China by 2015. China’s wages have soared. They were about one-quarter as high as Mexico’s in 2000 but are catching up rapidly and will be slightly higher by 2015. And labor productivity remains higher in Mexico, even though the gap is narrowing. The crossover point was 2012, when unit labor costs in China (i.e., wages adjusted for productivity) grew to equal those in Mexico. By 2015, Mexico will be around 29 percent less expensive.

2. Mexico has more free-trade agreements than any other country. The North American Free Trade Agreement gives Mexican goods easy access to the world’s largest market, the U.S., as well as to Canada. But that’s not all. Mexico has free-trade agreements covering 44 countries. That’s more than the U.S. (20 partners) and China (18) combined.

3. Mexican manufacturing has a significant advantage in energy costs. Natural gas prices in Mexico are tied to those of the U.S., which are exceptionally low because of a glut of supply on the market. China pays from 50 percent to 170 percent more for industrial natural gas. Mexico also has an edge over China in electricity costs, although power isn’t as cheap in Mexico as in the U.S.

4. Industry clusters, especially in autos and appliances, are growing. Mexico has developed a national expertise in certain industries, which makes it more attractive for companies to locate or expand plants there. Because Mexico is a major auto manufacturer, 89 of the world’s top 100 auto parts makers have production in the country. The companies are concentrated in five Mexican states, reducing transportation costs. In appliances, more than 70 manufacturers are in the country, ranging from components makers to assemblers of both small and large appliances.

Mexico’s progress relative to China is major good news for the country because manufacturing accounts for 35 percent of Mexico’s gross domestic product (vs. 12 percent of U.S. GDP), Harold Sirkin, the report’s lead author, says in an interview. The U.S. benefits in two ways, he says. First, by selling more components to Mexican manufacturers. Second, by selling more consumer products, such as American-made beef, to Mexicans, who will have more money for imported products if their living standards rise.

How Mexico Is Becoming More Attractive To U.S. Manufacturers

March 29th, 2013
Mexico’s economy boomed when the country signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nearly two decades ago. The manufacturing sector especially thrived as U.S. firms shifted their operations to Mexico to take advantage of the cheap labor costs. As a result, Mexico’s share of U.S. manufactured goods import rose from slightly about 4% in 1994 to about 13% in 2001, according to a report in the latest issue of IMF’s Finance & Development magazine.

Then the party almost came to a halt when communist China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. China’s entry into the WTO gave the country a strong edge over over Mexico since China could freely export its goods to the U.S. without any import restrictions. Hence China’s goods exports to the U.S. rose significantly while Mexico’s exports suffered.

From the report:

Between 2001 and 2005, Chinese manufacturing exports to the United States expanded at an average annual rate of 24%, while Mexico’s export growth decelerated sharply from about 20% a year to 3% on average each year over the same period. As a result, China’s share of U.S. manufacturing imports almost doubled by 2005, eroding the previous gains in market share by Mexico (see Chart 1).

In recent years, Mexico has been slowly regaining its lost manufacturing capacity as U.S. firms shift production to the country from China and other countries. This shift can be attributed to two reasons: labor cost and transportation cost.

(click to enlarge)

The above chart shows that wages in China are rising yearly and is getting closer to Mexican wages. Wages in the manufacturing sector in Mexico has remained fairly stable over the years while wages in China have been increasing. So China is becoming less competitive for U.S. firms.

Another factor that makes Mexico more attractive to U.S. companies is transportation costs. Since Mexico is much closer to the U.S. than China, and a stable rail and road network exists between the two countries, costs of shipping goods from Mexico to the U.S. is lower. Shorter distance also means that goods can reach U.S. destinations faster from Mexico than those transported by ships from China. Unless wage inflation in China stabilizes, manufacturing firms may continue to move out to other countries including Mexico, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. From an investment perspective, it is wise to keep an eye on the Mexican economy and equities.

(click to enlarge)

Source: The Comeback by Herman Kamil and Jeremy Zook, Finance & Development, march 2013, IMF