Revitalizing Manufacturing

Policies, Incentives, and a Path Forward

Anyone who has tracked political, social, and manufacturing trends since the 1970s, has seen a profound transformation in where and how goods are made.

What began as a robust industrial base in developed nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia has, over decades, migrated to less developed countries offering tax breaks and low wages. This wasn’t a sudden conspiracy but a gradual outcome of government policies, economic pressures, and corporate pragmatism.

Before we can offer solutions, we need to understand how this shift occurred, its consequences, and practical steps any government can take to revitalize manufacturing today, with a focus on leveraging local materials.

How Government Policies Pushed Manufacturers Offshore

In the 1970s, manufacturing was a cornerstone of Western economies, employing millions and driving prosperity. But as the decade progressed, governments in developed nations began layering on regulations and taxes that, while often well-intentioned, made domestic production costlier.

Corporate tax rates in the U.S., for instance, hovered around 46% before the 1980s reforms, and when combined with rising labor costs, spurred by strong unions and living wage demands, manufacturers felt squeezed. Environmental regulations, like the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, added compliance costs, nudging dirtier industries toward places with looser rules.

Meanwhile, less developed countries saw an opportunity. Starting in the 1980s, nations like Thailand, Taiwan, China, India, and Mexico rolled out aggressive incentives: tax holidays, duty-free imports for machinery, and wages a fraction of those in the West.

China’s Special Economic Zones, launched in 1980, offered foreign firms near-zero tax rates for the first few years and a cheap, abundant workforce. By 1990, a factory worker in Shenzhen earned about $0.50 an hour, compared to $10 or more in Detroit.

Governments in these countries didn’t just wait for business—they courted it, promising stability and infrastructure tailored to industrial needs.

Developed nations didn’t explicitly aim to drive manufacturers away, but their policies created a push-pull dynamic. Tax codes often penalized domestic investment, U.S. firms couldn’t fully deduct capital expenditures until reforms decades later, while trade agreements like NAFTA (1994) eased the flow of goods from low-cost regions back to Western markets.

The result was predictable; companies like Ford and General Electric began shifting production to Mexico and Asia. By the early 2000s, the U.S. had lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs since its 1979 peak, a trend mirrored across Europe and Australia.

This wasn’t wealth redistribution by design, but it functioned that way in practice. Poor nations gained jobs and infrastructure; China’s GDP per capita jumped from $194 in 1980 to over $1,000 by 2000. Yet it hollowed out industrial heartlands in places like Ohio and northern England, leaving behind rust belts and social strain.

The Consequences: Gains and Gaps

Leveraging Technology and Retraining for a Human-Centered Manufacturing Revival

Governments and private businesses can revitalize manufacturing by embracing cutting-edge technologies while ensuring workers remain at the heart of the transition.

Technologies like automation, artificial intelligence, and additive manufacturing (3D printing) can streamline production, reduce waste, and enhance precision.

For instance, AI-driven predictive maintenance can minimize downtime by anticipating equipment failures, while 3D printing allows for rapid prototyping and the use of local materials, cutting transport costs and emissions.

Governments can support this shift by offering grants or tax incentives for firms adopting these tools, particularly those that prioritize sustainability and local sourcing.

At the same time, public-private partnerships can fund innovation hubs, similar to  Australia’s CSIRO model, where businesses can test new methods without bearing the full financial risk.

However, technology must not come at the expense of workers. Retraining programs are essential to maintain employment and dignity for those whose roles evolve.

Governments should subsidize vocational training in digital skills, robotics, and sustainable practices, ensuring workers transition into higher-skilled, better-paying jobs.

For example, a factory worker in the 1980s might have operated manual machinery; today, they could be retrained to oversee automated systems or manage quality control with AI tools.

Businesses should partner with local colleges to design these programs, tailoring them to community needs and guaranteeing jobs for graduates. People should not have to suffer the despair of layoffs like we saw in the 1990s. Retraining can prevent that, preserving livelihoods while modernizing industry.

Beyond profits, businesses have a profound responsibility to their workers and communities. Efficiency through technology should serve human needs, not just investor returns. This means using the most advanced tools to produce goods sustainably and affordably, ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions, and community investment.

A manufacturer in Ohio, for instance, might adopt automation to stay competitive but should also fund local schools or infrastructure, reinforcing the social fabric while creating conditions for the business to grow and continue benefitting the community is it is a part of.

Prioritizing profits over people, as some did during the offshoring wave of the 2000s, erodes trust and stability. By balancing innovation with empathy, businesses can fulfill their broader role as community stewards, proving that progress doesn’t have to leave anyone behind.

The shift started in the 1980’s lifted millions out of poverty in developing countries; China alone reduced its poverty rate from 88% in 1981 to under 1% by 2015. But it also concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a privileged few. In recipient nations, urban elites and factory owners prospered while rural areas lagged, and lax labor laws left workers vulnerable. Governments need to be aware of possible consequences of policies and seek ways to provide the best benefits for the people.

In developed nations, the loss of manufacturing eroded middle-class stability, fueling inequality and political discontent.

Globally, supply chains grew fragile, as 2020’s pandemic revealed, and environmental costs mounted as production moved to less regulated zones. The policy mix of the late 20th century didn’t just relocate factories — it reshaped societies, often with unintended fallout.

Revitalizing Manufacturing with Local Materials

Governments today can reverse this tide, not by punishing corporations but by making domestic production competitive again. Drawing on decades of observation, here are actionable steps any nation can take, prioritizing local materials to boost resilience and sustainability:

1. Tax Incentives Tied to Local Sourcing: Offer tax credits or deductions for manufacturers using domestically sourced materials — say, 20% off corporate taxes for firms where 50% or more of inputs are local. This would enable governments to provide targeted financial support, and it would also add a material focus. In addition, it cuts transport costs and emissions while supporting local suppliers.
2. Subsidies for Regional Supply Chains: Fund grants or low-interest loans to build supply networks within a country’s borders. For example, subsidize a steel mill in Pennsylvania or a textile hub in Victoria if it supplies nearby factories. This mirrors 1980s-style incentives but keeps the benefits at home.
3. Workforce Training with a Local Twist: Invest in technical education — apprenticeships, trade schools — focused on skills for industries using native resources, like timber in Canada or wool in New Zealand. Pair this with tax breaks for firms hiring locally trained workers. We’ve seen how skill gaps widened in the 1990s; closing them now is critical.
4. Tariffs on Non-Essential Imports: Impose moderate tariffs on goods that could be made locally with available materials, as President Trump has started doing. A 10-15% tariff on imported furniture, for instance, could nudge firms to use domestic timber instead. Exempt essentials to avoid consumer backlash.
5. R&D for Local Innovation: Channel public funds into research that adapts local materials for modern manufacturing; encourage bamboo composites in Asia or recycled plastics in Europe. Restore bodies like Australia’s CSIRO to their original R&D glory, but tie projects to native resources for additional incentives.
6. Public Procurement Power: Mandate that government contracts — vehicles, uniforms, infrastructure — prioritize manufacturers using local inputs. In the 1970s public spending buoyed industry; it can again, with a local-material lens.
7. Sustainability Standards: Reward firms that use local, renewable materials with faster permit or grants processing, while reducing red tape to the absolute minimum. A strict accounting system could be imposed on bureaucrats to ensure they perform their duties efficiently and without waste. Repairability and recycling would also pair naturally with this; countries could encourage furniture manufacturers to use homegrown hardwood designed to last. The possibilities are open. It’s up to responsible governments to start the ball rolling.

Why Local Materials Matter

Prioritizing local resources cuts reliance on volatile global supply chains, a lesson hammered home by shortages in the 2020s. It also leverages what’s at hand — iron ore in Australia, cotton in India — reducing costs and boosting regional economies.

In the 1970s, manufacturers thrived on proximity; today’s tech makes that viable again, with shorter loops from raw material to finished product. Governments need to employ new technology, and encourage new ideas to boost productivity, use local resources, and boost startups.

A Balanced Approach

These steps don’t demand isolationism. Nations can still trade, importing what’s truly unavailable while exporting surpluses.

The goal is resilience, not retreat, and ensuring manufacturing serves citizens, not just shareholders. We’ve seen policies tilt too far toward globalism; now’s the time to rebalance to make manufacturing locally viable, with common sense support from government.

The shift of manufacturing to low-wage nations wasn’t random; it stemmed from heavy taxes, stifling regulations, and tempting foreign incentives, all worsened by the World Economic Forum’s top-down model.

This elitist group, including figures like Klaus Schwab, Ursula von der Leyen, George Soros, and Christine Lagarde, pushes Agenda 21/30, a blueprint for world domination that strips people of our inalienable rights and aims to enslave them under a one-world government led by these self-proclaimed superiors.

Their policies, bordering on economic and political terrorism, prioritize control over sovereignty.

Rebuilding with local materials isn’t just practical—it’s a rejection of their vision, proving nations can thrive independently.

After 50 years of watching the gradual destruction of our rights and our sovereignty, isn’t it time to break free of the tyrannical policies of the past?

Suggestions for any government to implement:

Sectors	Policies to pursue
Policy Overview	Initiate a referendum to restore capability, revitalize the sector, and encourage startups with low-interest loans.
Import Policy	1) Import only items not manufacturable locally or needed in specific quantities. 2) Impose tariffs on competing imports for competitive pricing.
Manufacturing Process	3) Emphasize repairability and recycling to promote sustainability.
Financial Support	4) Central Bank of the Australian Commonwealth (CBAC) to provide seed finance for R&D and new products. 5) CBAC and/or private investment to fund research facilities.
Research and Development	6) Restore organizations like Australia’s CSIRO to its original R&D function to drive innovation, and set up an R&D organization if your country lacks one.
Education and Training	7) Encourage excellence in education. Reduce or eliminate the cost of university or trade education. 8) Encourage businesses to train apprentices for skilled labor.