Printer Friendly

Lean manufacturing: The production employment and wages connection.

The manufacturing sector of the economy is increasingly characterized by complexity and rapid change. The inherent volatility of manufacturing is often the source of workforce apprehension, which produces a reluctance to adapt to the changing environment.

To make (or manufacture) things, it costs money--facilities, materials and labor are just three of the many "inputs" necessary--and it makes sense to add as much value to a product as possible. Lean manufacturing has long been one of the ways to add value by improving the processes involved in the making of the product and eliminate waste.

Workplace efficiency initiatives can sometimes be misinterpreted as attempts to disrupt the workplace or undermine the social contract between the employer and employees. Within this context, the workforce can resist the adoption of lean manufacturing or other manufacturing efficiency programs. The lack of direct research to counteract this viewpoint only re-enforces its legitimacy. This article is a step toward understanding the relationship between value-adding (or lean) manufacturing and employment and wages.

This analysis is in the same line as well-established research in the area of efficiency wage hypothesis. Efficiency wage hypothesis (EWH) research examines the potential for wage premiums over market-clearing wages to attract better talent. The goal is to acquire better talent that produces productivity gains and reductions in turnover costs in excess of the increased wages. (1) This analysis differs in that it does not assess the performance impacts of wage premiums of individual companies, but rather uses statewide wage averages. Using statewide averages, we examine the directional link between productivity and market-clearing wages, rather than the premium wages of individual actors within industry.
Figure 1: Comparison of value added per hour

                                       Indiana  U.S.

325 Chsmicals                          $796.16  $432.60
324 petoleum and coal products         $732.75  $646.75
317 Beverage and tobacco products      $375.36  $534.62
334 Computers/electronic products      $211.17  $240.47
331 Primary metals                     $167.37  $137.32
311 Food                               $162.91  $123.10
339 Micellaneous                       $162.03  $158.97
336 Transportation equipment           $126.99  $157.19
333 Machinery                          $126.73  $146.77
32? Paper                              $107.39  $155.49
327 Nonmetallic minerals                $98.35  $113.58
332 Fabricated metals                   $96.74   $91.41
33& Electrical Equipment/Components     $92.69  $135.27
326 Plastics and rubber                 $77.12   $94.51
337 Furniture                           $75.61   $73.97
323 Printing                            $73.02   $82.03
3?1 Wood products                       $56.64   $69.25
314 Textile product mills               $43.07   $65.46

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures

Note: Table made from bar graph.


Our sources include data from the U.S. Census Bureaus Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM). It includes statewide, industry-level data for the 50 states and the District of Columbia beginning in 1998 through 2013. (2) These data include total number of employees, total number of production employees, total wages for production employees, total production hours for production employees, value added by the company, and capital expenditures by the company. Calculated variables were also added. Summary statistics are provided in Table 2. (Editors note: Table 2 is for readers who want to see the statistical results of the number crunching. Others may want to skip this part).

The analysis used an ordinary least squares (OLS) model. Yearly binaries were created to account for yearly influences, such as the general economic climate and inflation. State binaries were created to account for state-specific influences and cost of living differences. Industry binaries were created to designate the type of manufacturing and account for the differing wage scales that exist in manufacturing due to job variation. The manufacturing designations are based on three-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. This analysis assumes that different manufacturing jobs require differing levels of employee skill. The more skills required for specific jobs or sectors within manufacturing, the higher the wage. (3)

This article attempts to determine the impact of lean manufacturing on employment and wages. Lean refers to "manufacturing that focuses on reducing or eliminating waste in all facets of the system." (4) The study uses value added per production employee hour as a proxy for lean.

As a manufacturer becomes lean, it should increase the value added it provides per production employee per hour.

Gross value added per employee has been used in prior studies. (5) The variable, value added per production employee, is used as explanatory in this analysis.

Investment was a possible explanatory variable since capital investment can influence the level of value added in the manufacturing process. The ratio of total employees to production employees was also added as an explanatory variable. This variable ascertains the influence of differing employee structures.

The non-binary data was transformed to natural log form to help account for exponential effects and to aid in the interpretation of the data. As both the independent and explanatory variables of note are in natural log form, the magnitudes of the result coefficients will be elasticities. Increases in value added per employee hour (or becoming lean) have a lingering effect on wages (existence of autocorrelation). A lagged term was added to the model in order to accommodate this influence. The lagged variable is the value added per production employee term.

The results establish a strong correlation between value added and wages. Higher levels of worker productivity coincide with higher worker wages. The results of the non-binary variables are provided in Table 3. (Download the appendix for the full results.) The value added and its lag are both highly significant and positive in all four models.

Higher levels of value-added production are positively correlated with more production employees, more total hours for production employees, higher production employee wages per hour and higher total wages per production employee. Increasing the value added per employee is correlated with increasing levels of production employment and higher production wages. However, this study lacks the explanatory variables necessary to claim a causal link, so the focus is correlation.

The capital expenditure per production employee variable is highly significant and positive in all four models. Capital expenditures are positively correlated with more production employees, more total hours for production employees, higher production employee wages per hours and higher total wages per production employee.

Efforts in lean manufacturing are often coupled with capital expenditures. These capital expenditures, rather than diminishing the need for workers, are correlated with increasing levels of production employment and higher production wages.

The ratio of total employees to production employees is highly significant and negative in all four models. Manufacturing companies that are increasingly top heavy are correlated with fewer production employees, fewer total hours for production employees, lower production employee wages per hour and lower total wages per production employee.

The results generally suggest a positive relationship between lean manufacturing and its impact on worker welfare. Value-added enhancement is associated with higher levels of production employment and wages.

However, the advances in employment and wage growth are less than proportional to the increase in value added. A 1 percent increase in value added only results in a 0.16 percent increase in production employment, a 0.13 percent increase in total hours for production employees, a 0.14 percent increase in production employee wages per hour and a 0.11 percent increase in total production employee wages. This indicates that a smaller portion of the benefits of value-added enhancement activities are allocated to production employees.

This information is important for policy planning in the areas of business development and education. Economic developers should focus on bringing high value-added manufacturing to the state if they want long-term increases in wage and employment growth. A state with low-skill manufacturing will likely languish with slow wage growth and lower rates of employment growth. If a state wishes to bring in higher value-added manufacturing, they will also need a workforce with the required skills, so having adequate educational services to provide for this demand is important.

Notes

(1.) J.E. Stiglitz, "The Efficiency Wage Hypothesis, Surplus Labour, and the Distribution of Income in L.D.C.s," Oxford Economic Papers 28, no. 2 (1976): 185-207.

(2.) U.S. Census Bureau Annual Survey of Manufactures data obtained from STATS Indiana (www.stats.indiana.edu/asm/) on November 12, 2015.

(3.) S. Snell and J. Dean, "Integrated Manufacturing and Human Resource Management: A Human Capital Perspective," Academy of Management Journal 35, no. 3 (1992): 467-504.

(4.) "APICS Operations Management Body of Knowledge Framework, Third Edition." APICS Magazine, 2015, www.apics.org/industry-content-research/publications/ombok/apics-ombok-framework-table-of-contents/apics-ombok-framework-3.11.

(5.) T. Kochan, R. Lansbury, and J. P. MacDuffie, After Lean Production: Evolving Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

TIMOTHY E. ZIMMER, PH.D.

Assistant Professor, University of Indianapolis, School of Business

KARL KNAPP, DBA

Associate Professor, University of Indianapolis
Table 1: Production by the numbers

        In order by highest    Value     added    Average  wage
        value                  per hour  of work  per      hour
        added per hour         Indiana   U.S      Indiana  U.S

        Manufacturing          $149.99   $151.50  $22.28   $22.15
        325 Chemicals          $796.16   $432.60  $27.49   $29.08
        324 Petroleum and      $732.75   $646.41  $41.53   $38.32
        coal products
Top 5   312 Beverage and       $375.36   $534.62  $25.11   $26.91
        tobacco products
        334
        Computers/electronic   $211.17   $240.47  $22.22   $26.29
        products
        331 Primary metals     $168.37   $138.32  $31.00   $25.99
        311 Food               $162.91   $123.10  $19.31   $17.65
        339 Miscellaneous      $162.03   $158.97  $20.02   $19.52
        336 Transportation     $126.99   $157.19  $23.23   $26.82
        equipment
        333 Machinery          $126.73   $146.77  $21.83   $23.39
        322 Paper              $107.39   $155.49  $21.71   $25.44
        327 Nonmetallic         $98.35   $113.58  $22.22   $21.53
        minerals
        332 Fabricated metals   $96.74    $91.41  $20.29   $21.29
        335 Electrical          $92.69   $135.27  $20.23   $21.39
        equipment/components
        326 Plastics and        $77.12    $94.51  $17.55   $18.75
        rubber
        337 Furniture           $75.61    $73.97  $17.15   $17.05
Bottom  323 Printing            $73.02    $82.03  $19.42   $20.29
5
        321 Wood products       $56.64    $69.25  $17.23   $17.25
        314 Textile product     $43.07    $65.48  $13.06   $15.15
        mills

        Indiana
        production
        workers

        349,425
         11,826
          2,685

Top 5     1,482


          8,449

         34,935
         24,357
         17,347
         90,981

         24,137
          6,989
         10,592

         42,549
          4,971

         31,166

         14,011
Bottom   10,071
5
         10,433
          1,504


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures

Table 2: Summary statistics

                 Number of                    Standard
Variable         Observations  Mean           deviation      Minimum

Total            13,767              1,551.5       23,126.7  0
employees
Production       13,728             10,957.0       15,907.4  0
employees
Total wages      13,698          365,000,000    620,000,000  0
for production
employees
Total hours for  13,748           20,900,000     32,000,000  0
production
employees
Production
employee         13,587                17.27            5.3  0
wages per
hour (1)
Wage per         13,569               31,993       13,825.8  0
production
employee (2)
Value added      13,428        2,320,000,000  4,370,000,000  0
Value added      13,310                118.0          141.2  0
per production
hour (3)
Capital          12,313          154,000,000    335,000,000  0
expenditures
Capital
expenditures     12,168             14,812.0       31,205.5  0
per production
employees (4)
Ratio of total
employees to     13,620                  1.4            0.3  0
production
employees (5)


Variable         Maximum

Total                   395,2
employees
Production              220,4
employees
Total wages      12,000,000,0
for production
employees
Total hours for     482,000,0
production
employees
Production
employee                 50
wages per
hour (1)
Wage per                114,8
production
employee (2)
Value added      80,600,000,0
Value added               2,67
per production
hour (3)
Capital           6,830,000,0
expenditures
Capital
expenditures         1,279,89
per production
employees (4)
Ratio of total
employees to
production
employees (5)

(1) Calculated as: Total Wages for Production Employees / Total Hours
for Production Employees
(2) Calculated as: Total Wages for Production Employees / Production
Employees
(3) Calculated as: Value Added / Total Hours for Production Employees
(4) Calculated as: Capital Expenditures / Production Employees
(5) Calculated as: Total Employees / Production Employees
Source: Authors' calculations, using U.S. Census Bureau Annual Survey
of Manufactures data

Table 3: Regression results (non-binary variables)

                      1                       2
                                              Total hours for
                      Production              production
                      employees               employees

Adjusted R-square      0.747                   0.919

                                   Standard                Standard
                      Coefficient  error      Coefficient  error

Value added per        0.161       0.031 (*)   0.131       0.031 (*)
production employee
Value added per        0.320       0.031 (*)   0.334       0.031 (*)
production employee
lagged (one year)
Capital expenditures   0.250       0.012 (*)   0.270       0.012 (*)
per production
employees
Ratio of total
employees             -0.641       0.059 (*)  -0.590       0.059 (*)
to production
employees

                      3

                      Production em
                      wages per

Adjusted R-square      0.850

                                   S
                      Coefficient

Value added per        0.139
production employee
Value added per        0.051
production employee
lagged (one year)
Capital expenditures   0.055
per production
employees
Ratio of total
employees             -0.080
to production
employees

(*) Statistically significant at the 1 percent level.
Source: Authors' calculations, using U.S. Census Bureau Annual Survey
of Manufactures data
COPYRIGHT 2017 Indiana University, Indiana Business Research Center
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Zimmer, Timothy E.; Knapp, Karl
Publication:Indiana Business Review
Date:Mar 22, 2017
Words:2194
Previous Article:Reflections on the Carrier deal.
Next Article:County-level aggregate costs arising from Indiana's opioid crisis.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters