Is The U.S. Workforce Prepared to Reindustrialize?

Political leadership now seems committed to tinkering with industrial policy for the foreseeable future. Opponents will continue scoffing at politicians and policy groups willing to do the tinkering. Pragmatism and dynamism expressed through industrial policy is—in the eyes of the scoffers—uncool, frivolous, and economically sacrilegious. The scoffers might have a point if the only measure of an economy’s orthodoxy is devotion to free-market fundamentalism. But a nation’s economy is also measured by its ability to bolster national security, ensure global competitiveness, and secure general prosperity for its people. For this reason, industrial policy must exist within a nation aiming to be secure, competitive, and civic-minded.

But that necessity begs the question: Are American workforce levels prepared to deliver industrial expansion? If policymakers deliver prudent industrial policy and business leaders answer the call for meaningful investment, is America prepared to produce? If the American industrial workforce isn’t large enough, properly trained and compensated, or encouraged to view themselves as essential to the common good, we take the risk of that answer being “no.” This likely won’t mean missing the train of opportunity all together. But in order to avoid boarding the train clumsily and slowly, we need to take steps now to ensure our answer to the productivity question will be “yes.”

Early this year, a center-left think tank, Third Way, released a memo titled: “America’s Apprenticeship Gap in Two Charts,” looking at U.S. apprenticeship numbers compared with other developed countries. The figures outlined in the memo are stunning: “In 2022, there were 600,000 Americans in registered apprenticeship programs—a miniscule 0.3% of the US working-age population.” The author explains that this number is five times higher in Canada, seven times higher in Germany, and twelve times higher in Switzerland. The memo also reveals that in the United States, only 2% of young adults (defined between the ages of 18-24) are enrolled in apprenticeship programs. For the U.S. to be on par with other countries being examined, we need to bring our 600,000 registered apprentices “to over 2.8 million.” If we want to competitive with the top ten countries examined, “we need to boost that number to 4.3 million”

These numbers should be viewed with concern in the context of what industrial opportunity will demand. We don’t need half of Americans enrolled in vocational schools or registered in apprenticeships, but adequate investment in these training programs will grow the workforce needed to reindustrialize domestically; to build and man the factories, to develop and operate the machinery, to do the things industrial policy demands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics paints a clear picture of the colossal task ahead to adequately grow our industrial and construction workforce. Every year, for the next ten years, we would need to hire 80,200 electricians, 43,300 plumbers, 42,500 HVAC technicians, 76,500 carpenters, 53,000 industrial mechanics, and 154,900 construction laborers and helpers America’s skilled and general labor recruitment levels aren’t remotely competitive with other nations whose industrial ambitions are not as bold as ours are becoming. They also don’t reflect a nation serious about its already thin industrial and construction workforce.

This fact should encourage the growth of the kind of workforce necessary to fill the jobs reindustrialization will require. There are three areas of concern regarding the question of productivity preparedness: education, wage and opportunity outlook, and cultural disposition.

Education

By 2034, an estimated 1.9 million of America’s 3.8 million manufacturing jobs risk going unfilled, a possibility that risks becoming a reality due to stigmas in our education system’s attitude toward, and lack of investment in, our industrial workforce. One of my high school teachers warned our class that if we didn’t jump through the proper hoops we’d, “all end up working in some God-forsaken factory somewhere.” This sounded horrible. The teacher making it sound so remote and isolated made it even worse. Somewhere. It sounded a bit like hell. Only those who strayed from the path would end up in this sad, unfortunate place. The God-forsaken factory is in southwest Ohio. It’s a pigment factory. I worked there for several years before eventually entering the skilled trades and becoming an electrician. My life turned out quite alright despite this teacher’s warnings.

But his sentiment is indicative of the “college or bust” fatalism which has held residency for decades in the minds of many Americans. From general laborers to highly skilled tradesmen, these positions are often viewed as last resorts of those for whom “college didn’t work out.” To see this prioritization playing out in economic terms, look at the Department of Education’s FY 2025 budget’s glaring disparity of investment between CTE (Career, Technical and Adult Education) programs and traditional college and university pathways. For FY 2025, the federal government has earmarked “$1.5 billion to support… workforce development and build the capacity of the existing CTE programs” compared to “$12 billion in mandatory funding for the new Reducing the Costs of College Fund.” That investment is separate from the “$135 billion in new Federal student aid” or the “$3.3 billion in discretionary funds for Higher Education programs aimed at increasing access to a high-quality education,” both of which are largely allocated toward supporting traditional college and university pathways. In all, this allocation makes available $150 billion in institutional support for college and university pathways compared to the $1.5 billion for CTE programs. Without proper institutional support, we risk failing to meet necessary replacement rates for skilled workers, furthering our industrial decay.

Conservatives have the opportunity and responsibility to show some foresight. America needs to increase the number of skilled tradesmen and workforce-ready individuals to maintain proper replacement rates of those retiring in the manufacturing and construction sectors, as well as grow this working demographic to the levels necessary to shoulder incoming industrial opportunities. Increased investment will be necessary to recruit and train these individuals. This can be achieved with a sensible reallocation of the Department of Education’s budget. Prioritizing CTE program investment could boost recruitment numbers and training quality, making America a safer bet for companies to invest in.  Allocating proper institutional support to educate and train our industrial workforce will encourage business leaders to bet on American reindustrialization.

Wage and Opportunity Outlook

Another problem in growing our industrial workforce is that these workers aren’t being paid commensurate with what they produce. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, wrote earlier this year about the emerging consensus around wage stagnation for the median worker in, “Surprising Consensus on the Productivity Problem.” Cass explains that wages have stagnated for the median worker by comparing production and nonsupervisory wage growth with productivity. Upon doing so, it’s clear that wage growth for the median worker doesn’t trend with productivity: “Thus,” Cass explains, “increasing inequality and leaving the typical American worker behind.” An AEI report that Cass examines in the article ends up at the same conclusion stating that, “this has been the case for nearly 50 years.”

What happens when the typical American worker is left behind? They leave. Either in pursuit of industries with better pay and advancement opportunities, or for industries that avoid some of the unattractive aspects of industrial sector work: hot and dirty work environments, off-shift or swing-shift work, and high intensity, monotonous labor. It’s not exciting to Americans to sacrifice their bodies, work-life balance and ambitions for careers that don’t seem to offer them much in return.

I left the God-forsaken factory for three reasons: stagnated pay, lack of career advancement opportunities and boredom. The frustration of pay stagnation woke my ambitions. But I couldn’t be considered for management positions because I lacked a college degree. That accelerated the boredom.  This cycle is standard fare for many working-class Americans. I felt a little God-forsaken. So, I left for the trades.

Leadership at the electrical contracting company I work for is largely staffed by those who started as apprentices and advanced into higher positions. In order for firms to be in a position to do this, they have to invest a lot in their workforce. They must regularly assess pay rates to retain and motivate employees. They must regularly communicate with their employees and find out what their personal goals are. Do they want to move up into management? If so, counsel them on how to achieve that. Do they want to expand their expertise and learn a more specialized aspect of the trade? Offer to pay for their certification courses or classes. But this isn’t the status quo at many firms. If policymakers and business leaders hope to see Americans flock to the careers necessary to shoulder the load of industrial expansion, wage stagnation and lack of advancement opportunities cannot be part and parcel of the experience. You will attract few people. And likely none of the best people.

Cultural Disposition

As American industrial power declined over the past half-century, so did our interest in the working-class careers that supported it. With the heavy push for all young Americans to attend college and earn a four-year degree, we watched an entire generation of millennials pursue college at all costs—graduating college on average with nearly $40,000 in debt. But the promise of a good-paying, white-collar job made it all worth it.

But all that shining glory cast a shadow on the traditional working-class careers that were often deemed a “last resort.” While a college education is a wonderful thing, an entire generation of Americans being predisposed to dismiss the opportunities of blue-collar work because of total devotion to the “college for all” narrative is not conducive to a generation’s overall prosperity—or our nation’s industrial capabilities.

There is reason for encouragement, though. We’re starting to see the stigma around apprenticeships and blue-color work dissipate. An article from Axios Cleveland outlines that in Ohio, apprenticeships are up 69% since 2014. Enrollment in vocational programs jumped 16% in the last year. That’s particularly true for younger people: 54% of Gen Z respondents say that a college degree is not necessary to get a well-paying, stable job, and 46% of parents say they would prefer their child pursue alternatives to traditional four-year colleges. It’s worth noting that Ohio has been a huge beneficiary of the CHIPS Act, which is helping spur investment and new jobs already.

But the cultural disposition about blue-collar careers is only one side of the coin. What about those in these careers?

Amber Lapp, a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, wrote about some of the attendant problems with current manufacturing jobs in “Industrial Policy Must Account for Worker Attitudes.” Lapp recounts a conversation with her then 17-year-old brother-in-law who worked in a wheelbarrow factory: “He loves the paycheck, but finds the work monotonous (he once caught his coworker singing ‘The Wheels on the Bus’ to pass the time) and he sees the job as temporary.” In another exchange, Lapp writes of a woman who “stood there repeating the same motion over and over, an eight-hour day broken by two fifteen-minute breaks and a thirty-minute lunch break. ‘It wasn’t a very fascinating job.’ She prefers her work today at a burrito chain, despite the pay potential being less.”

Anecdotes can be easy to dismiss, but they point to the daily reality of many manufacturing jobs. Given low unemployment, manufacturers and those crafting industrial policy must consider the reality of active worker dispositions just as much as the wider cultural disposition. To better attract workers, firms will need to work to innovate and create working processes that a human being would choose to do as a career.

These three areas—education, wage growth, and opportunity outlook—are all spokes on the wheel contributing to the stabilization of a broad, national workforce movement that can support industrial expansion. Institutional investment will ensure the recruitment and training necessary to staff industrial jobs. Correcting wage stagnation and lifting arbitrary college requirements for career advancement will encourage individuals to give industrial careers a closer look. This can improve the cultural disposition toward the kinds of working-class careers required to carry industrial expansion forward.

If we hope to achieve American reindustrialization, proper consideration will need to be given to the workers whom we will rely on to make the change possible. Pragmatism and economic responsibility demands it. Otherwise, we risk watching industrial policy and investment flounder—giving the scoffers the last laugh.