The long-awaited and hard-earned return to profitability at the country's largest auto suppliers, reported by the Wall Street Journal last week, reflects deep structural shifts underway in the nature and organization of advanced production in the United States.
Because of rising labor costs in China and elsewhere, the mathematics supporting offshoring of former American jobs has drastically changed for the worse, according to Harold Sirkin, senior partner at Boston Consulting Group.
Employees at Roper Corp. in LaFayette, Ga., blasted patriotic country music and waved red, white and blue pompoms while they waited for Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal to arrive Friday to recognize the plant's expansion.
U.S. auto sales continue to accelerate, posting the best July performance since 2006 as consumers flocked to dealerships to replace aging vehicles with new models at low interest rates.
By 2008, Detroit's "Big 3"—Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Chrysler—were teetering, and two required federal government assistance to stay afloat. Within three years, remarkably, the Big 3 had turned around by improving competitiveness in quality, design, and cost, as well as through strong, decisive leadership on multiple fronts and improved union relations.
Harvard Business School Professors Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin lay out policy steps for the president and Congress to follow in order to make American companies more competitive and their employees more prosperous.
After decades of sending work across the world, companies are rethinking their offshoring strategies.
Why are firms placing a huge bet on what some analysts are now calling "re-shoring"? And what factors should global managers take into consideration when they decide whether or not to bring manufacturing lines back to the U.S.?
The Chinese and Indians can plan all they want, but market forces have a way of crushing state-supported optimism. Because of its stronger social cohesion, economic flexibility and educational strength, the United States will remain the most popular haven for foreign investment.
Daniel Cunningham has a billion-dollar idea for Apple: Start building the iPhone intended for American markets in the United States. The result? A billion dollars in additional profit for the company.
How can America possibly sustain its culture of innovation when assets are so vulnerable to cherry picking by cash-rich Chinese companies? This issue — not last month's unemployment rate — should be the central issue as the U.S. tries to decide who will be its president for the next four years.
The migration of Japanese auto manufacturing to the United States over the last 30 years offers a case study in how the unlikeliest of transformations can unfold.
U.S. growth will increasingly depend on selling goods and services to foreign consumers who do not necessarily speak English. Yet American students are woefully unprepared to do that.
As we celebrate the success of the National Export Initiative and its positive impact on our economy, we must also commit to ensuring that its momentum continues. Providing more opportunities and support for U.S. companies to export their goods and services makes good economic sense--and American workers deserve nothing less.
Why are big companies not investing more in the United States? Findings from Harvard Business School's U.S. Competitiveness Project were discussed at a fascinating meeting of business leaders in New York Monday evening.
When a business school solicits alumni, it's usually to ask for donations. Last night, though, the school hit them up for something they may find harder to give: a commitment to use whatever influence they have to get their companies to invest in the local workforce, raise U.S. median wages, and support local suppliers.
Wages in China and other parts of the developing world are rising, reducing the incentive to send jobs overseas. Add in concern about quality control and shipping costs, and the result will be more manufacturing jobs created in the United States, says W. James McNerney, president and CEO of Boeing.
Professors Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin frame the HBS project on U.S. competitiveness by defining "competitiveness," assessing the state of U.S. competitiveness, and pinpointing dynamics that threaten America's competitiveness.