Opportunities in American Manufacturing

I like the idea of American manufacturing as much as the next gal. In theory, domestic manufacturing creates fair jobs, easier supply chain transparency, a reduced shipping carbon footprint, and less reliance on the state of global trade. Outside of LIVSN, I work on a sheep shearing crew, I spin and weave yarn, and I make textile products all within a 6 mile radius. I host classes to teach others these skills and I’ve co-founded a non-profit affiliate program to support the revitalization of Ozark fiber systems.

At LIVSN, we’ve been working for years to find US-based manufacturers that can meet our quality and ethical standards, as well as our capacity needs. We have products in the pipeline that are specifically designed to fit within the limitations of US manufacturing.

Despite my proven desire to see domestic manufacturing revitalized, I’m proud to make all LIVSN cut-and-sew products with our partners in Vietnam, partners who took a risk on us years ago to make our company possible. These suppliers have access to a wide variety of materials, equipment, a skilled workforce paid a living wage, and the ability to scale. The truth is that in many cases these things are not currently true of American manufacturing. However, with careful planning and investment they could be. Below I’ll break down where we’re at currently and some ways we could overcome current limitations of domestic manufacturing.

Many parts needed to make finished products - especially in apparel - are not made in the US. Because of this, even many products that are assembled in the US and labeled “Made in USA” will see a drastic increase in cost as a result of recently announced tariffs. Developing a wide variety of raw material suppliers, fabric mills, and trim suppliers in the USA would take years and be extremely expensive. This startup period would likely outlast the current administration and its rapidly-changing policies, making it a tough sell for private investment.

In addition to material needs, apparel manufacturing – especially technical apparel – requires a wide variety of machines resulting in a high startup cost for a supplier. In the US, there are some great micro manufacturers with limited capacity and a handful of larger (some Chinese-owned) factories primarily making basics like tees and sweats. At present, most technical apparel cannot be effectively produced in the USA, especially at scale.

According to Forbes, “revitalizing American manufacturing will require a multi-pronged approach, including making investment capital available to U.S. manufacturers; recognizing that small and medium-sized manufacturers are the majority of manufacturing and should be a key focus; using government purchasing to provide a base of support for U.S. manufacturers; and investing in the supply chain, research and development and commercialization of new ideas.”

Simply put, domestic manufacturing at scale is not a switch that can quickly be flipped on in response to fabricated friction in international supply chains. A strong example of the multi-pronged approach recommended by Forbes is the Biden-Harris administration’s revival of the American semiconductor industry as part of the Investing in America agenda. To jumpstart revival of a lost industry, the administration invested heavily in facilities and equipment, a robust domestic R&D ecosystem, a national security microelectronics program, workforce development, tax credit incentives for private investment, and set-asides for supply chain vulnerabilities. As a result, US production of leading-edge logic chips are increasing from 0% of the world’s production to a projection of more than 20% by 2030. US production of leading-edge memory DRAM chips are increasing from 0% of the world’s production to a projection of more than 10% by 2035. Through policies like these, we can make American manufacturing superior to alternatives and encourage domestic innovation. By eliminating competition from other countries, we discourage innovation and create a system reliant on long-term government intervention.

On top of the cost for equipment, the cost to train people to work in theoretical factories would be astronomical due to the lack of manufacturing experience in the US – especially apparel manufacturing which is extremely specialized. Attracting people in the first place – even people without manufacturing skills – would be a challenge in our society which has neglected manual labor jobs since the embracing of trickle down economics in the 1980s. The current worker shortage would make this even more challenging. According to the  US Chamber of Commerce , “If every unemployed worker took an open job in their industry, there would still be millions of open jobs.” According to the US Census Bureau , in 2023, 20.2% of the people working in American manufacturing were foreign-born, making immigrants a critical piece of the domestic manufacturing puzzle.

When we think of, for example, Chinese manufacturing, we often imagine terrible conditions and unfair wages. In many (though not all) cases, this is accurate of Chinese manufacturing. What we sometimes fail to realize is that American-made does not guarantee fair wages or working conditions. According to a UCLA sectoral analysis done in partnership with the Garment Worker Center, “There are multiple factors exacerbating the prevalence of wage theft within the garment industry, but two significant components are the existence of piece rate pay and the demographics of the workforce.”

Piece rate pay is a system that pays workers according to the number of garments made or seams sewn as opposed to the number of hours worked. Although this system sometimes has advantages, it ultimately allows an employer to subvert the minimum wage. “A 2008 study of workers in low wage industries in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles found that the garment and textile industry had the highest violation rate [as compared to other industries] across all three cities, at 42.6%”

In 2022, the Garment Worker Protection Act (SB62) was passed in California to eliminate the piece rate system and hold brands accountable for workplace violations. According to Remake , “Prior to SB62’s passage in 2022, the average garment worker wage in Los Angeles was $5.85 an hour and as little as $2.68, all while garment workers were sewing clothes for profitable brands like Forever 21, Ross Dress for Less, Urban Outfitters, and Fashion Nova.” Although SB62 was a huge win for California’s garment industry, the piece rate system persists throughout the rest of the US.

The domestic garment industry relies heavily on women and immigrant workers for its labor force – groups that are at higher likelihood of having overtime violations. “A 2010 study of wage theft and workplace violations in Los Angeles found that women were almost 70% more likely to experience minimum wage violations than men (36.3% vs. 21.4%), and that Latinx respondents were almost four times more likely to experience violations compared to white respondents (38.3% vs 10.3%). Foreign born workers were more than twice as likely to experience violations compared to US-born workers. While this study did not specifically track violation rates among undocumented immgirants, it did find that almost 30% of LA respondents were unaware that undocumented workers have the same rights and protections with regard to minimum wage laws as other workers,” according to the aforementioned UCLA sectoral analysis report.

Organizations like the Garment Worker Center and Remake are working diligently to change these norms. SB62 was a huge success of these organizations and their supporters. These organizations are now pushing for The Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change Act (FABRIC Act) , which would enforce minimum wage standards, end wage theft, combat factory violations with workplace protections, increase transparency of brand practices, and revitalize domestic manufacturing with a multi-million dollar grant program.

Although there are certainly brands and manufacturers already operating at a high standard of ethics in the US, this type of legislation is critical to ensure ethical practices throughout the domestic garment industry.

Recently proposed tariffs, along with a weakening economy, will be detrimental to our efforts to support domestic manufacturing as our customers and we are forced to tighten our belts to make it through. Is our current system of widespread globalization across every product category the best solution to production? We don’t think so. Is working to revitalize American manufacturing a worthy cause? Absolutely. However, attempting to destroy the current solution without an alternative will ultimately hurt American businesses and consumers.

Additionally, I fear that the politicization of “made is USA” will ultimately hurt those working toward responsible redevelopment of American manufacturing. I fear that MIUSA will become polarizing and that there will be a push against American manufacturing due to its association with a destructive administration - an association out of the industry’s control.

If I look really hard for a silver lining, I think that perhaps the many dissolving brands and rapid increase in prices will slow the rate of production and consumption, which is desperately needed to preserve our environment. However, I believe environmental efforts are only truly sustainable when they make economic sense, and these tariffs simply do not.

As for me, I plan to continue supporting policies and organizations that align with my understanding of responsible manufacturing and revitalization of strong domestic systems. If your perspective is different than mine, I find hope in knowing that resilient solutions come as a result of diversity.