In the summer of 2000 U.S. factories employed 17.3 million workers. Now, a little more than a decade later, over 5 million more manufacturing jobs have been lost, a disappearance that has devastated cities, towns and families across America.
I was born in a GM town and had uncles and family friends that worked at the car plant. Since most of them were recent immigrants from Holland, these jobs allowed them to start raising families, buy houses, and secure the American dream. For immigrants and young people today, such opportunities have evaporated as outsourcing and the rise of China have taken hold.
Earlier this year, Boston Consulting Group released a study that said that the U.S. should experience a "manufacturing renaissance" in the next 5 years as the wage gap with China shrinks. They cite factors such as annual wage increases in China that have averaged 15% to 20% per year and a rising yuan contrasted with flexible work rules and state government incentives here in the U.S.
Reshoring is the term that is now being used to describe bringing manufacturing jobs back home. Proponents of reshoring point to the need to use a total cost of ownership model when making decisions about where to build products and locate factories. They cite such advantages as improved quality, reducing inventory pipeline, clustering manufacturing near R&D centers, reducing IP risk, and strengthening a companies ability to respond to customer demands. The business case for bringing these jobs back to America is improving. The hollowed-out economy we suffer from today which has helped to create a shrinking middle class can be filled in to revitalize not only our manufacturing sector, but the broader economy as well.
With the upcoming Presidential election, there has been renewed discussion on jobs and manufacturing. Rick Santorum has been notable with his plan to cut the income tax on manufacturing companies from a maximum of 35% to 0%. Momentum is gaining on both political and economic fronts that could pave the way for an eventual resurgence in America's manufacturing base. The tide of jobs, factories and the products they produce is starting to trickle back towards American shores where hope and opportunity await.
In my opinion, an aoctuncing M.A. serves two main purposes: (1) it helps you pass the CPA exam and (2) in some states, it substitutes for the experience requirement to receive the CPA license. In other words, I've never heard a great argument for getting one.* I have yet to see a job posting that requires an M.A. You learn the principles in undergrad, so it SEEMS like most of the knowledge acquired in a master's program would be obsolete after a few years I don't see an MBA as being very useful, either (it doesn't teach you how to DO anything). A master's in taxation is really useful if you want to go into tax, but it doesn't seem like that's part of your career goal.A second major in finance is not the way that I'd go; a second major in MIS is, I think, more likely to get you hired at a big 4 firm. Working at one of these firms will probably do more than anything else for your particular career goals.Also, your aoctuncing profs are the best resource that you have; ask them.*That is, UNLESS your undergrad program isn't very good and you want to get an M.A. at a better school, like in one of the top 25-30 programs, in order to increase your chances of getting hired at one of the big 4 firms. These firms don't recruit at every school.
Posted by: Isalam | May 05, 2012 at 04:14 PM