Buy American Campaign

Tag: Manufacturing

  • AI Does Not Run on Software Alone. Tulsa Is Building the Hardware.

    AI Does Not Run on Software Alone. Tulsa Is Building the Hardware.

    Crusoe manufacturing floor in Tulsa with details about American AI infrastructure production

    AI infrastructure manufacturing may sound like a contradiction because artificial intelligence feels like software, but it does not run in the air. Every model, search and automated task depends on physical buildings filled with servers, power equipment, cooling systems and miles of electrical connections. A new factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is a reminder that the AI economy is also a manufacturing story.

    On September 14, Crusoe announced the opening of its second Tulsa manufacturing facility. The new operation adds 400,000 square feet and produces electrical equipment for high-density data centers, including medium-voltage switchgear, low-voltage switchboards, enclosures, industrial controls and custom copper busbar.

    AI Infrastructure Manufacturing Is Physical Work

    The phrase “AI infrastructure” can obscure the work behind it. Power has to be brought into a site, controlled, distributed and protected before computing equipment can operate. That takes fabricated metal, copper conductors, electrical assemblies, coatings, controls and people who can build and test them safely.

    Crusoe says its Tulsa workforce includes engineers as well as workers in welding, powder coating, fabrication and electrical assembly. Those are practical industrial skills, not abstract technology jobs. They connect the growth of computing demand to factory floors and skilled trades in an American city.

    Tulsa’s Manufacturing Footprint Has Grown Quickly

    When Crusoe announced its first Tulsa manufacturing facility in 2024, the company described a $10 million investment in a 120,000-square-foot building and expected to create 100 jobs. The company now says more than 300 local craft workers are employed across its Tulsa facilities, while its nationwide manufacturing footprint has reached approximately one million square feet.

    Those figures come from company and state announcements, so the most important test will be what the facilities continue to produce and how the workforce develops over time. Still, moving from an initial 100-job plan to a reported workforce of more than 300 shows how quickly demand for the physical side of data infrastructure has expanded.

    The location matters, too. Tulsa has an established base of aerospace, energy and industrial employers, along with workers accustomed to demanding production environments. A growing electrical-equipment operation can draw on that experience while creating new paths for people entering the trades. The benefit is not limited to one payroll: sustained factory activity can also support nearby metal suppliers, maintenance contractors, transportation providers and training programs, provided that orders remain strong enough to keep the capacity in use.

    Browse American-Made Products

    Electricity Demand Has Become an Industrial Question

    Whether people are enthusiastic about AI or skeptical of it, electricity demand from data centers is rising. The same grid must also support homes, hospitals, established factories, new industrial projects and a growing number of electric vehicles. Meeting that demand will require more generation, stronger transmission and distribution systems, and far more electrical equipment.

    That makes domestic capacity strategically important. A country that expects rapid growth in electricity use should not assume every critical switchboard, transformer component or control system will always be available from somewhere else. Building more of the equipment here can shorten supply chains, strengthen technical knowledge and give American workers a larger role in the infrastructure boom.

    One Tulsa Factory Is Already Feeding a Major Project

    Crusoe reports that its Tulsa operation has delivered more than 2,500 switchboards for the Stargate data-center campus in Abilene, Texas. That is a concrete example of the connection between a nationally discussed technology project and the manufacturing work required to make it function.

    The long-term outcome of any individual data-center project will depend on economics, customers and energy availability. But the equipment is real, the production work is real and the demand for reliable power distribution is not limited to AI. The same industrial capabilities can serve factories, utilities and other large facilities that need dependable electrical systems.

    Join the Buy American Movement

    Growth Should Build Durable American Capability

    A construction surge can create a temporary rush of orders. The larger opportunity is to turn that demand into durable American capability: trained workers, proven production systems, qualified suppliers and factories that can compete for the next generation of electrical infrastructure.

    That requires customers to look beyond the lowest quoted price and consider lead times, reliability, domestic service and the value of keeping critical know-how close to home. It also requires manufacturers to be clear about what they build in America and which components still depend on overseas supply chains.

    The Digital Future Needs American Factories

    America cannot build a stronger digital economy with software alone. It needs the power equipment, metal fabrication, electrical assembly and skilled people that allow modern facilities to operate. Tulsa’s expanding manufacturing base shows what can happen when fast-growing infrastructure demand is connected to domestic production.

    The next time a new AI project is announced, look past the computing chips and ask where the switchgear, enclosures and power-distribution equipment will be made. If this investment boom is going to reshape the economy, American factories and American workers should help build it.

    Whenever possible, choose Made in USA.

    If you like what you see and think this post would be of interest to someone, please share
  • America’s Rare-Earth Supply Starts Closer to Home

    America’s Rare-Earth Supply Starts Closer to Home

    Rare-earth recycling strengthens American manufacturing and domestic supply chains

    America’s rare-earth supply is essential to a durable manufacturing base. Dependence on distant suppliers for the materials inside modern products leaves that base vulnerable. That is why a new factory in Mesa, Arizona, matters well beyond its walls. Cyclic Materials has opened what the company and the Arizona Commerce Authority describe as America’s first commercial-scale facility dedicated to automated rare-earth magnet recycling.

    The 144,000-square-foot plant represents an investment of more than $30 million and is expected to create more than 25 jobs initially. Its larger importance is capacity: the facility is designed to process up to 25,000 metric tons of magnet-bearing end-of-life products every year. Those products can include electric motors, hard drives and other equipment whose useful materials too often leave the country or disappear into ordinary scrap streams.

    Rare Earths Are Hidden Inside Everyday Technology

    The phrase “rare earths” sounds remote, but the materials are embedded in technologies Americans use and manufacture every day. Permanent magnets containing rare-earth elements help power vehicles, robotics, electronics, medical equipment, wind turbines, data-center hardware and defense systems. They make compact motors stronger and more efficient.

    The supply chain, however, remains concentrated outside the United States. That creates a vulnerability for manufacturers even when final assembly happens here. A company can have workers, tooling and customers ready, yet still face delays or price shocks if a critical material is unavailable. Domestic mining and refining are part of the answer, but recovering material already circulating inside used products can add supply faster while reducing waste.

    The Mesa Plant Turns Old Products Into New Inputs

    Cyclic’s Mesa operation uses its MagCycle technology to mechanically separate magnets from end-of-life products. The process also recovers copper, aluminum and steel. Its rare-earth magnet concentrate, sold as Mag-Xtract, becomes a feedstock for the company’s broader recovery system rather than the end of the process.

    That distinction matters. Recycling only strengthens manufacturing when recovered material reaches a usable specification and returns to production. Cyclic says more than 7,000 metric tons of feedstock had already arrived in Mesa before the grand opening, processing is underway, and the first commercial shipments to U.S. customers are expected later in September.

    Browse American-Made Products

    Recycling Can Strengthen America’s Rare-Earth Supply

    Recycling is often discussed only as an environmental practice. For critical materials, it is also an industrial strategy. Every motor or hard drive processed domestically is a potential source of material that does not have to be purchased from a geographically concentrated overseas market. It gives American manufacturers another pathway to the inputs they need.

    It can also create a network effect. Electronics recyclers and manufacturers need dependable destinations for scrap. Recovery facilities need reliable volumes of feedstock. Refiners and magnet makers need consistent material. When those links operate in the same country, each investment makes the next one more practical. Cyclic has already announced a South Carolina campus intended to combine magnet recovery with rare-earth refining on one site.

    The Speed of the Build Is Part of the Story

    The Mesa facility was completed 17 months after it was announced. Large industrial projects often take years to permit, finance, equip and commission. Bringing commercial processing online in less than a year and a half shows that domestic capacity can move quickly when a proven need, available site, financing and local support align.

    One plant will not solve America’s rare-earth dependence. Its initial job count is modest, and mechanical separation is only one stage in a long supply chain. The honest measure is whether Mesa operates reliably, ships material that customers can use, attracts more feedstock and helps downstream recovery and manufacturing expand. Those results matter more than the ribbon cutting.

    Join the Buy American Movement

    American Manufacturing Needs the Materials Behind the Label

    Consumers usually see a finished product and a country-of-origin label. Behind that label is a deeper chain of materials, components, machinery and specialized knowledge. A product assembled in America is more secure when more of that chain also exists here. Critical-material recycling helps move the country in that direction.

    Buying American-made products remains part of the equation because factories need customers. But demand alone is not enough. America must also invest in the industrial systems that recover valuable materials, refine them and return them to manufacturers. Mesa is a practical example of what that work looks like: used products arrive, useful materials are separated, and a domestic supply begins again.

    Keep the Material—and the Capability—Here

    The best supply chain is not always a straight line from a new mine to a new product. Sometimes it is a circle that keeps yesterday’s equipment from becoming tomorrow’s shortage. America’s rare-earth challenge is large, but the Mesa facility adds something concrete: commercial capacity operating now, with room to scale.

    If the United States wants to lead in advanced manufacturing, it must secure the materials those industries require. Recovering rare-earth magnets already inside the country is one of the fastest, most practical places to start.

    Sources: Cyclic Materials facility announcement; Arizona Commerce Authority; and U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

    Whenever possible, choose Made in USA.

    If you like what you see and think this post would be of interest to someone, please share
  • Stop Telling Young People to Learn a Trade—Show Them a Future

    Stop Telling Young People to Learn a Trade—Show Them a Future

    Young American manufacturing apprentice learning CNC machining from an experienced mentor

    Whenever the manufacturing workforce shortage comes up, someone offers the same solution: young people should learn a trade. The advice is usually delivered as though millions of teenagers simply forgot that factories exist. But if America wants more manufacturing careers for young people, it must do more than lecture them. It must show them a future worth choosing.

    Young Americans did not eliminate high-school shop programs, replace apprenticeships with online applications demanding three years of experience, or allow entry-level wages to fall behind local housing costs. Adults, institutions and employers built that system. Blaming the generation asked to navigate it is convenient, but it does not produce a single machinist.

    The Jobs Are Real, but the Path Is Hard to See

    The need is not imaginary. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects about 30,400 openings for machinists and tool-and-die makers every year through 2035, largely as experienced workers retire or change occupations. Median 2025 pay was $58,750 for machinists and $64,050 for tool-and-die makers.

    Those occupations make the precision parts, molds and tools behind nearly everything else America hopes to manufacture. Yet ask a typical high-school student how to become a tool-and-die maker, and the answer is far less obvious than the path to a four-year college.

    We Removed the First Rung of the Ladder

    A career becomes believable when a young person can see where it begins. That used to mean a shop class, a summer job, a plant tour, a neighbor who worked at the factory or an employer willing to train a beginner. In too many communities, those points of contact disappeared.

    Then employers began describing a “skills gap” while advertising supposedly entry-level positions that required experience newcomers had no way to acquire. You cannot demand finished workers from a training system nobody is willing to fund.

    Browse American-Made Products

    Manufacturing Careers for Young People Need Proof

    A poster saying “great careers are waiting” is not proof. A paid apprentice standing beside a skilled mentor is proof. A wage schedule showing how competency leads to higher pay is proof. So is a former operator who became a programmer, supervisor or production engineer.

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology describes manufacturing apprenticeships as paid on-the-job learning combined with technical instruction. Its Manufacturing Extension Partnership reports that 91 percent of apprentices remain with the employer that trained them. That is not charity; it is a practical way to build and retain talent.

    Modern Manufacturing Is Not the Career Adults Remember

    Many parents still picture manufacturing as repetitive, dirty work inside a fading plant. Some jobs do remain physically demanding, and employers should be honest about that. But modern machinists also read digital models, program CNC equipment, use computerized measuring systems and work with tolerances smaller than a human hair.

    Automation does not eliminate the need for skill; it changes the skill. Somebody must install the equipment, understand the process, diagnose failures, improve production and decide whether the finished part is right. These careers combine judgment, mathematics, technology and physical results in a way many young people would find deeply satisfying—if they ever saw the work.

    Join the Buy American Movement

    Employers Must Make the Offer Worth Believing

    Respect cannot exist only in recruiting slogans. A manufacturer asking a nineteen-year-old to commit to a difficult craft should offer predictable advancement, useful training, competent supervision and wages that make adult life possible. Loyalty is earned in both directions.

    Companies also need to open their doors. Invite students and parents into clean, operating facilities. Let apprentices explain their work without a public-relations script. Publish the starting wage, the training sequence and what a capable worker can earn after three or five years. Specificity makes a career real.

    Schools Should Restore More Than a Shop Class

    Putting a lathe in a classroom is useful, but the larger goal is to reconnect education with local production. Schools, community colleges and manufacturers should share equipment, instructors and work-based learning opportunities. Students should be able to earn credit, industry credentials and a paycheck along the same path.

    College should remain available to anyone who wants it. But treating every alternative as a consolation prize has harmed students and the country. A young adult who can make a precision aerospace component is not someone who “failed to go to college.” That person possesses a valuable capability America cannot purchase from a motivational speech.

    Stop Scolding and Start Building

    Young people are constantly told to make practical choices. They are watching costs, wages, working conditions and whether an employer appears willing to invest in them. That is practical.

    If America wants the next generation to build aircraft, medical devices, machine tools and energy systems, the invitation must include a visible starting point and a credible destination. Restore the ladder. Pay people while they learn. Show them the technology, the mentors and the lives these careers can support.

    Then we can stop telling young people to learn a trade. They will be able to see the future for themselves.

    Whenever possible, choose Made in USA.

    If you like what you see and think this post would be of interest to someone, please share
  • The Statistics Game

    The Statistics Game

    american jobsWe’ve already touched on the idea that having more focused education in technical vocations and tailored degrees for manufacturing are the ways to save American jobs in the American manufacturing industry. Per the many employers of US manufacturing industries who say that finding American workers who are qualified for the positions is next to impossible, it’s hard to figure out why people are not going into the manufacturing industry at the same rate of their predecessors. Part of the reason for this wide gap between the need in manufacturing and the steady supply of qualified graduates is the effective marketing campaign that has been pushing vocational studies and bachelor degrees that lead to manufacturing professions into a less desirable category for degree-seeking individuals.

    Statistics to support the supposition that manufacturing professional degrees are needed are relatively hard to find since higher education, a multi-billion dollar industry in and off itself, has every incentive not to conduct or encourage any sort of polling process to find out how higher education stacks up to most vocational fields. They do, however, have many interesting infographics and graphs on how people with the broad term “bachelor’s degree” stacked up against people with “some college or associate degree.” Again, both of these terms are incredibly broad and would include every major field of study against college dropouts, associates degrees without a focus, as well as, those who hold degrees which are tailored to the manufacturing industry. Common sense will tell you that most college graduates have a higher rate of success in finding American jobs than those who have a high school degree and have not finished any other program of study.

    This logical assumption is somewhat misleading however, since these terms does not separate out those who are underemployed, employed in a field which was not their major field of study, for example you now need a bachelor’s degree to become management in most major retailers, and those who attained degrees which have no correlation between the job field industry and academic study, degrees such as philosophy, Latin studies, history, etc. Furthermore, since these statistics are essentially tailor-made to make bachelors degrees, regardless of field of study, more appealing to the masses due to lower unemployment rates, it’s no wonder that when a recession hits people flock to their local universities to seek degrees.

    In March, 2017, according to a Gallup poll, the underemployment rate for bachelor’s degree holding individuals was roughly 6.5%. This did not take into account the offset of the term “underemployed” due to the nearly astronomical amount of student debt incurred by bachelor’s degree holding individuals.

    Likewise, those holding associate’s degrees in vocational fields, technical fields, and other qualifying certificates for manufacturing employment were not separated out from the statistic concerning those in that degree range, making the number for that category at a 9.6%. Universities and colleges love using these types of statistical analysis to further their agenda: to increase enrollment rates in US manufacturing industries.

    [bctt tweet=”Ever wonder why statistics seem too good to be true? – American jobs” ]

    They put their comparisons onto billboards, in paid articles perpetuated in the media both online and on television, in large marketing campaigns that produce commercials, paid paper advertisements, school visits to high schools, and literature mailed directly to individual homes. All of these campaigns have the same message: enroll in our university or college and you will be successful in life.

     

    If you like what you see and think
    this post would be of interest to someone,
    please share

     

    To be frank, that is simply untrue.

    A bachelor’s degree in philosophy stacked up against a manufacturing certificate will show a higher payout and a lower debt for the certificate holder 99% of the time. A campaign for the re-education and rebranding of the US manufacturing industries is desperately needed if we are to encourage our young people into the manufacturing workforce. The question is always, who is going to pay for it?

    Until that complicated question finds a suitable answer, the first place starts at the most local level imaginable: with those young people in your life who are preparing to take the next step into adulthood. Educating them will at least start a conversation on the benefits of American manufacturing. If enough people have the conversation on a grassroots basis, it may lead to some interesting changes in the world of higher education where at least we can get some real answers when it comes to statistics regarding manufacturing employment.

  • What’s Up With “Made In America?”

    What’s Up With “Made In America?”

    Many political debates have revolved around whether products sold in the United States should be manufactured in the United States and whether or not imported products from other countries harm the US economy. Both history and current economic models show that in-country manufacturing creates jobs, boosts local economies, and enhances the lives of millions of Americans. So, what’s the debate really about?

    In recent years, the United States trade arrangements and tax laws have come under scrutiny as the proposed alteration of many of the tax laws and trade arrangements could result in a shift from the way the current domestic production and imported production is carried out.

    Lobbying efforts and consumer interest has been the driving force behind this shift toward positive association with American manufacturing. Businesses who host the majority of their manufacturing processes overseas have in turn panicked over the implications of increased manufacturing costs since it is almost impossible to pay the same rate to both skilled and unskilled US workers.  Protecting their interests becomes largely about convincing the politicians to push through laws that serve those interests.

    One of those proposed changes has to do with informing consumers of their products origins. Specifically, lobbying efforts are proposing that companies will no longer have to place country of origin on their merchandise, leaving the consumer to guess whether they’re assisting local economies or ones abroad.

    This is largely thought to be a failing measure by most due to the FTC’s (Federal Trade Commission) stance on the labeling of goods sold in the USA, AKA all goods have to display country of origin. However, this check is far from foolproof.

    The Federal Trade Commission’s policy is based more on the origin of the product content than on the final location of the manufacturers of the product, meaning “made in America” can actually mean “made in Taiwan” so long as the materials which the goods are manufactured with originate in the USA.

    This is something that directly contradicts what most American consumers have come to associate with the “made in America” product advertisement. Even though the policy itself has undergone periods of relative dormancy, the policy is now, and has been for several years, the subject of active and continued reinforcement efforts of the Federal Trade Commission.

    The Federal Trade Commission’s policy on defining the “made in America” label for products and goods sold within the United States falls within the Federal Trade Commission’s broad jurisdiction responsible for regulating deceptive advertising. The regulation of deceptive advertising applies to claims in advertising, labeling, and other claims regarding promotional materials. This extends to digital and other electronic formats.

    [bctt tweet=”What’s Up With “Made In America?”” ]

    Once the “made in America” claim is an objective claim, the Federal Trade Commission requires that the claim be supported and must be substantiated through truthful findings and evidence. The Federal Trade Commission’s policy on defining the “made in America” label encompasses two types of origin claims for products and goods sold within the United States. Those two types are qualified and unqualified origin claims.

    The Federal Trade Commission’s requirements for qualified origin claims for products and goods sold within the United States allow for substantial flexibility. This is beneficial for companies because it helps with marketing and branding of their product. If it is mildly deceptive, it’s thought to be well worth the potential risk since polls show that majority of people would prefer to buy Made in America products. For example, the manufacturer may state that the product or good is made in the United States with imported parts.

    This policy also allows the manufacturer the freedom to specify the country of origins if they choose to do so or not disclose it if they feel it would hinder their efforts to sell and make a profit off of the product they are distributing. Meaning, so long as the product’s origins is disclosed to the FTC, they may or may not, at their discretion, disclose that information to their consumers.

    Confused yet? The policy is extremely vague and parts have been tacked on over time to try and accommodate various problems that have come up in an effort to clarify. Unfortunately, this has made the policies ever more murky over time.

    “The question becomes: how do consumers encourage companies to move or keep manufacturing processes in America?”

    Also, the Federal Trade Commission’s policy for qualified origin claims on goods and products within the United States doesn’t require the manufacturer to disclose the source country for specific parts or the percentage of foreign parts so long as the United States content or processing is significant.

    This is good news for manufacturing plants that may be based in the United States but have to outsource certain materials from other countries due to the limitations within the United States for such materials. This is one instance where the FTC’s policies aid rather than hinder the advancement of American manufacturers.

    Unqualified origin claims for goods or products sold within the United States are a lot more restrictive. The Federal Trade Commission views an unqualified claim of origin as all, or virtually all, of the good or product has been made in the United States.

    These products have no more than a negligible amount of foreign content. The restrictions go even further by stating that the manufacturer must meet three criteria before claiming “made in America” for their product: The last significant manufacturing process has been done in the United States, the product must have a high proportion of United States content in comparison to foreign content, and the product or good must not have foreign components that consumers would reasonably view as significant to the final product.

    This is where some manufacturers run into problems and where many Americans view products that have been labeled as made in a foreign country as having major sources of off-shore manufacturing involved in their process. This simply isn’t true for some manufacturers and it becomes increasingly difficult to really figure out which are truly American manufactured products and which are not.

    A common misconception is Americans tend to view items labeled as “made in America” as being good for the economy and supporting local manufacturing jobs when this label can be very misleading. Larger corporations tend to be able to find ways around the FTC’s labeling system that smaller manufacturers simply do not have the resources to subvert.

    The question becomes: how do consumers encourage companies to move or keep manufacturing processes in America?

    It is important to discuss the distinction between “made in America” and the regulations on American manufacturing companies. Just because there are different laws or regulations passed to limit manufacturing efforts abroad, doesn’t necessarily mean that people will see an increase in the “made in America” origin label. There is a lot more involved for a manufacturer to label their product or good as “made in America”.

    In an ideal world, it would be nice to see 100% of all products and goods sold in the United States appropriately labeled as “made in the USA”. Many of today’s goods that are labeled as “made in America”, however, are partially made in the USA and partially made overseas.

    If you like what you see and think
    this post would be of interest to someone,
    please share

    Defining the acceptable percentage for what is allowed to be foreign content and what needs to be genuinely made in the United States is where it becomes difficult to narrow down. Obviously, 0% is unacceptable, but what about something that is 40%? That percentage might be below 50% but suppose the company uses all the resources available to manufacture the product or good within the United States.

    They are still employing Americans through as much of the process as is possible and that might be the best they can do right now on some products. That doesn’t mean that their efforts should go unnoticed. Hopefully, their attempts will be supported and encouraged and lead to a future where that percentage is more closer to the ideal 100%.

    There is no short answer for how to encourage “Made in America” to 100% overall saturation in the American market. A few things will help though: clearer, easier to follow policies in government, tax breaks that encourage manufacturing to stay within in the US, and educating the general public in how to select American manufacturers from the pool of less-reputable companies masquerading as Made-in-the-USA.