What will Section 232 Action on Steel do to US Manufacturing?

“Steel prices make up only a fraction of the retail cost of a car or truck.  In other industries, such as canned beverages and food, “it’s even more trivial… a fraction of 1 cent,” stated Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to address the Section 232 report for Steel and Aluminum.

That’s great; rising steel prices will have a limited effect on the cost basis for the end manufacturer of complex products like automobiles (or appliances), but what about the fabricators and manufacturers who provide the components to those end products? Manufacturing suppliers will most certainly get squeezed as they buy more expensive raw material and are unable to pass on that increased cost to the automakers.

16 times more employed in manufacturing than the steel industryAnd why does that matter? The manufacturers of metal components employ 16 times more people than the 140,000 American steelworkers.  Notwithstanding Section 232 action triggering a trade ware on the international stage, close to home it is difficult to disconnect such a move from having a negative effect on small and medium manufacturers.

An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal recently, put a thoughtful perspective on the concern threat of 232 action costing American jobs.  As a point of reference, if we look to the Section 201 action taken during the second Bush administration, the temporary import relief to steel industry through tariffs, had a negative impact, raising costs and resulting in job losses.  At that time, I recall a Tier 1 automotive supplier telling me they lost a long-term contract, at a Big 3 automaker, for a steel dashboard support component. The Big 3 buyer’s new source, overseas, had a price for the complete part that was less than the domestic supplier’s raw material cost.  Due to situations like this across the country, it is estimated that roughly 200,000 jobs were lost in American steel-consuming industries due to that section 201 relief.  For comparison, there were roughly 187,500 people employed in the US steel industries.  Sadly, many were sacrificed to protect jobs of the few.

More manufacturing jobs

Why overreach and protect the primary industries like steel and aluminum?  Its hard to set aside the deep pockets to lobby for those two industries, compared to the much larger and less organized small and medium business manufacturers.  And perception? Fortunately, steel is a defined, census tracked industry.  So let us look at a little Q&A to debunk some populist fodder of our threats and benefits.

Diverse sources of Steel that is used in the United States

Question 1:  How much steel is China sending to the US?

Answer:  Not much. 2.2% of total steel imports are from China, which is less than 1% of total US consumption. Surprisingly, Russia, which the US has numerous sanctions against, supplies 3x more steel to the US than China.

Question 2:  What percentage of steel used in the US is domestic or foreign made?

Answer:  Roughly 70% is domestic and 30% is imported.

Question 3:  What is the current capacity utilization rate of the US steelmaking industry?

Answer:  75.9% as of February 19, 2018, up 0.8%-points from the previous week.

The US is at roughly 76% capacity utilization of steel

It is easy to look at the statistics and think, “Oh, we are at 75% utilization capacity and 70% of the steel we consume is domestic, so if we increase to 100% capacity, then we will only need to import 5% of our needs. Math!”

Nooooooooooooooooo…It is not that simple.  Steel is a catch-all term, of which there are many types: carbon, alloy, electrical, among others. On top of that, those types come in many forms: ingots, bar, plate, and coil.  The capacity available in the US is not being utilized for various reasons, particularly efficiency and need.  There are other mills that produce those same products as the idled facilities, but much more productively, so those mills are profitable at a lower steel price.  Once steel prices rise, through tariffs or supply-demand dynamics, then the less productive mills can get in the game.  That would displace some imports, but not all.  At idled mills, there are some products and grades of steel that are not in demand.  As higher grades of materials are specified in industries, such as the latest generation of ultra-high strength steels (UHSS) in automotive applications, or Grade 80 material for metal roofing and construction, it has left mild or commercial quality (CQ) steel capacity less needed. There is not enough capacity of the sophisticated alloys available domestically, and there is too much capacity of common materials. Thus, effectively utilizing 100% of domestic steel capacity is not possible.  We could not build enough ‘bridges to nowhere’ to utilize some of the idled capacity.

What is happening now?  This week, a metals buyer told me their primary steel supplier informed 15% price increases were coming. This announcement was four days after the section 232 report’s release. How much does 15% matter?  In high volume, competitive industries like construction or tubing, material costs make up 70-90% of the selling price of the product.  Will those manufacturers pass on the material cost?  To make money they will have to raise prices and they may lose some orders in the short term while cheaper inventory at competitors gets absorbed in the market.

And what else will happen?  Imports of finished products will go up, which will hurt the manufacturers of value-added products.  Like the automotive example with the dashboard support component, supply chain experts will resource overseas as they will be able to find finished products that are less expensive than their domestic vendors raw material cost. It took the Commerce Department 10 months to submit their Section 232 report on the steel and aluminum industry.  How long would it take them to identify all the industries that consume these materials, who will be hurt by finished goods imports displacing their products in the market?

With history as an indication, we would be foolish to ignore the effects of Section 201 action to protect the steel industry in the early 2000s. A move by the government to proceed with Section 232 protection, whether it is through tariffs, quotas or minim prices, will be a detriment to competitiveness and employment in the broader American manufacturing landscape.

 

Sources:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2017pr/02/steel/index.html

http://www.steel.org/about-aisi/statistics.aspx

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-punish-american-workers-1519078840

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *