american giant was launched in 2011 with an ambitious yet focused plan to create the best hooded sweatshirt known to man. Everything from growing the cotton to final cutting and sewing is done in the United States.
Almost 15 years later, founder Bayard Winthrop’s gamble appears to have paid off. great review Signs like, “I’ve been wearing this hoodie to work for 10 years.” Success comes with expansion. The San Francisco-based apparel maker currently offers everything from polo shirts and jeans to outerwear and socks.
But for Winthrop, the mission to revitalize American manufacturing was always bigger than any one company. As the downsides of globalization become increasingly apparent, Winthrop’s message has found receptive listeners on both sides of the partisan divide. That includes U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, who sent two senior advisers last March. Tour American Giant’s supply chain In the Carolinas.
Mr. Winthrop recently spoke with Align about competition with China, the need for manufacturing jobs, and the wisdom of the American people. (This interview has been edited and condensed for brevity and clarity.)
Learn why customers aren’t always right
The question is not, “Will globalization continue?” that’s right. But what form will it take? Our competitors are asking this. For example, China has clearly stated that manufacturing will be the core of Japan’s policies. And we’re going to have a relatively protectionist system that allows us to build things really well. We’re going to protect that ability because we believe it’s a competitive advantage and we think it’s important to our community that people have jobs.
The US did the opposite. The US says it is not that important. The important thing is that there are things you can buy really, really cheaply.
In my judgment, when production, or manufacturing, is placed at the center of policy, truly good things begin to emerge.
We have placed the neoliberal worldview that everything should be for consumption at the heart of our economic and trade policies. In other words, we should manage trade policy in a way that has the primary goal of ensuring consumers have more and more choices at lower prices.
I may be naive about this, but I think that in its original form, this kind of neoliberal view was fairly widely shared. It was as much Bush as it was Clinton. The bet was that if we did this, we would not only benefit consumers, but we could open up markets in places like China and bring those people into the First World Order. And they will become our trading partners, our strategic partners, and no longer our enemies.
I think that bet was one of the worst bets in U.S. foreign policy in the last 40 years. China today is a far more intractable adversary than it was 40 years ago, and clearly not aligned with our nation’s foreign policy goals. But I think that bet comes from a genuine place. I think the people who were pushing that policy really thought they were doing the right thing.
About putting production first
I support increasingly protectionist and pro-production industrial policies. I think that’s important for a variety of reasons. I think it’s important from a national defense perspective, I think it’s important from an economic perspective, all these things.
In my judgment, when production, or manufacturing, is placed at the center of policy, truly good things begin to emerge. The minimum wage will increase. We can put work back into communities that really need it. You are aligned with our values, with the production of the goods we consume, with all these things.
And the other thing that I think is overlooked is that innovation, automation, and investment will start to rekindle.
Because if you’re operating within the constraints of the United States, you quickly realize that it’s more expensive. So how do we find ways to innovate to become more competitive? An unintended consequence of offshoring in the textile industry is that it really slows down investment in innovation and automation.
On the need for quality and dignified work
It’s not enough to sit on a porch in San Francisco and say the solution to this country’s ills is to train a bunch of people in South Carolina how to be engineers or programmers at Google. That’s a stupid reaction for people who want to feel good but aren’t paying attention. And the reality is that we have to accept and face the fact that we need to create good, viable, and dignified jobs across the economic spectrum, across skill levels, and across education levels.
Then we can create an incredibly dynamic, vibrant, vibrant ecosystem economy that heals communities, brings people together, and has people committed to a common purpose. .
You go to work every day, you meet a lot of people, some of whom you agree with, many of whom you don’t, and you find ways to work together. Then we’ll have lunch together or have coffee together. You’re going to vote for so-and-so and she’s going to vote for so-and-so, but it’s not going to ruin your world. You just move on with your day.
And the more we undermine those things and strip them away, the less there will be a stable middle class. And our country’s industrial, manufacturing, and economic policies do not adequately address this problem. For me, it’s almost a crisis.
If you ask someone in the manufacturing industry, “Are you a fan of free trade?” they will tell you, “Define free trade.”
On holding trading partners accountable
Today, many people who shop at Walmart can pick up a flat-screen TV for $99. That’s good. But the problem is that once you make that your goal, all your other decisions are sacrificed on that altar.
We have a lot of values that are absolutely important to us. We want to protect minorities, we want to protect the environment, we want to make sure working conditions are safe, and we want to make sure you earn a living wage. We feel so strongly about these that we intend to ensure that all of our businesses adhere to their standards as appropriate.
And at the same time, it means that there are basically no standards for the people that we do business with. So we ask you to compete with people who don’t have any of those burdens or the costs associated with them. That’s crazy. So when you ask people in the manufacturing industry, “Are you a supporter of free trade?” what they say is, “Define free trade.”
Friend shoring instead of offshoring
Janet Yellen uses a term she calls “friendshoring,” and I think that’s an exciting idea.
My understanding is that we should trade with countries that share our values. and define their values. It could be freedom of the press, free and fair elections, paying people a living wage, or basic environmental standards. And if you do these things, we will open the world’s largest market to your business.
Let’s take a few countries like South Korea. you are a good partner. You respect the environment. We have safe working conditions. We open the US market to you. If you’re North Korea or China, which is forcing forced labor and sterilizing women in Xinjiang, we’re sorry, but we won’t do business with you.
american giant
from a long-term perspective
The problem is that we’ve reached a point today where consumers expect a $4 T-shirt from Shein. And I’m going to say this. “No, it’ll cost $12. It’ll be a little better quality and more in line with your values.”
And she’ll say, “Well, I don’t do that. I want a $4 T-shirt.” And everyone always defaults to assuming that a consumer won’t buy a $12 T-shirt. Well, sure. But you do this all the time with environmental standards, fuel economy standards for cars, household appliances, and you say that they will gradually increase over time.
Whether you agree or disagree with it, [environmental policy] Take a long-term perspective. It says we must find a way to gradually increase fuel efficiency standards over time. I may or may not agree with that, but the car I drive here today is nothing like the car my mother drove in 1980, right?
So we do the same thing with trade. We will gradually require our trading partners to comply with basic standards, but the costs will gradually rise over the course of a decade. We just need to take a long-term view, just like we did with China. Don’t just think about this election cycle. Think about where we want to be 20 years from now.
About trust in America
If you live in Los Angeles or San Francisco, have a college degree, and work as a reporter, entrepreneur, or PR, fine. As long as you have money in the stock market, you’ll be fine. In fact, you’re better than okay. But if you don’t live in one of the cities that has his four-year degree, you’re screwed. It is unlikely that you will pass on a better life to your children. And either we can face it and say, “That movie ended badly for us,” or we can’t.
Anyone I talk to, whether it’s the person on the right or the person on the left, when I have this conversation, everyone says, “Oh, this is wrong. We have to fix this. “Is called. Everyone understands it. And people are reflecting that in the way they vote.
In the Trump administration [U.S. Trade Representative] Bob Lighthizer says:And now the Thai Trade Representative is saying the same thing. [for the Biden administration].
I think we can nudge consumers toward protecting the industries that allow rural communities to thrive. If you and I were driving around South Carolina in his 1980s, we would have gone from town to town with a lot of industry, and there were a lot of different small businesses, like hardware stores and grocery stores. It would have been. If you pass by there today, it’s a disaster. Town to town, town to town. And I would argue that a lot of the social conflicts that you see today have their roots there.
We don’t even think about wisdom anymore. It’s just a qualification and a degree. And I have deep faith in the wisdom of average Americans to be bullish on things like this. That’s why I have high hopes. I always tell my kids about Thomas Paine. There is a lot of truth to the idea that the average American understands these issues better than kings and dictators.
