Can Manufacturing Jobs Come Back? 2025 Update: What We’ve Learned Since Foxconn

The Manufacturing Paradox of 2025

Thirteen years have passed since Apple’s Foxconn scandal shook American consumers. Back in February 2012, revelations about factory conditions in China sparked heated debates about whether manufacturing could—or should—return home. The answer seemed clear then: it wouldn’t. Economists argued the decline was irreversible. Globalization was the future. The game was over.

Today, the answer has fundamentally shifted. Manufacturing isn’t just making a comeback—it’s undergoing a historic realignment. According to the Reshoring Initiative’s 2024 Annual Report, 244,000 reshoring and foreign direct investment (FDI) manufacturing jobs were announced in 2024 alone, continuing one of the strongest years on record for domestic manufacturing investment. Even more significantly, the Reshoring Initiative reports that since 2010, over 2 million jobs have been announced as U.S. companies and foreign investors bring manufacturing closer to U.S. customers, with an estimated 1.7 million of those jobs already filled.

What’s changed? Why are manufacturers rethinking decades-old supply chain decisions? And what does this mean for young people, small manufacturers, policymakers, and consumers? This updated exploration reveals why the 2012 prediction that manufacturing couldn’t come back was incomplete—and what’s happening now.

The Original Problem: A 2012 Perspective

In 2012, the story seemed one-directional. Manufacturing employment had plummeted from 19.5 million jobs in 1970 to 12.1 million by the early 2010s. Forty years of decline. The trade deficit in manufactured goods was exploding: Americans imported roughly 60% of the goods they consumed, compared to just 10% in the 1960s.

The conventional wisdom blamed this on inevitability. Economics demanded it. Globalization was the natural order. Companies needed to chase the lowest labor costs. Consumers wanted the cheapest prices. Economists like Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz compared the shift to earlier economic transitions—from agriculture to manufacturing—and argued these changes were permanent and irreversible.

But there was a logical problem embedded in that analysis. When farm productivity soared, America didn’t stop feeding itself. Fewer farmers, more food produced domestically. Manufacturing was different. The U.S. didn’t lose manufacturing jobs because productivity skyrocketed. We lost them because we decided to import what we used to make at home. The trade deficit in manufactured goods translated into approximately 3.5 million “lost” jobs—a direct result of purchasing decisions, not technological inevitability.

The Apple-Foxconn story illustrated this perfectly. Foxconn’s ability to mobilize 8,000 workers in 30 minutes for a last-minute design change seemed impossible in America. But the real lesson wasn’t about Foxconn’s capability. It was about Apple’s demands. Steve Jobs wanted what he wanted, when he wanted it. The supply chain adapted. Nothing was inevitable—it was a choice.

Thirteen Years Later: The Manufacturing Landscape in 2025

The 2012 narrative has cracked. Manufacturing employment in August 2025 stood at approximately 12.7 million workers, down slightly from a peak of 13.1 million in 2022, but the story is no longer about decline—it’s about transformation and strategic redeployment. The Reshoring Initiative emphasizes that the direction matters more than the absolute numbers. For decades, manufacturing employment and output moved in opposing directions—productivity gains meant fewer workers. Today, both investment and employment announcements are moving upward simultaneously, signaling a structural shift rather than temporary fluctuation.

Here’s what’s different:

The Trade Reality Check

The U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods reached approximately $1.2 trillion in 2024. That’s larger than the entire deficit in 2012, in nominal terms. However, the composition has changed. The Reshoring Initiative notes in their 2025 analysis that the manufactured goods trade deficit was 24% higher in the first half of 2025 than the same period in 2024.

But here’s the critical insight: this deficit would be significantly larger if companies hadn’t begun reshoring. By one estimate, if Americans continued to purchase the same quantities of goods but sourced them domestically instead of importing, manufacturing employment would be 21.5% larger, equating to approximately 2.8 million additional production worker jobs. That gap represents opportunity. It also represents why reshoring is no longer theoretical.

Manufacturing’s Contribution to the Economy

In 2025, manufacturers contributed $2.90 trillion annually to the U.S. economy, with every dollar spent in manufacturing generating $2.64 in total economic impact. For every private-sector worker in manufacturing, the ripple effects extend to suppliers, logistics, retail, and services. Manufacturing still matters—deeply—to American prosperity.

The shortage of manufacturing workers further proves the point. As of August 2025, 409,000 manufacturing job openings remained unfilled, with manufacturers earning an average of $106,691 annually in pay and benefits. These aren’t low-wage jobs. They’re middle-class careers that don’t require a four-year college degree.

The Reshoring Revolution: Real Movement, Real Jobs

This is where 2025 diverges most sharply from 2012. The reshoring movement is no longer a fringe discussion among policymakers. According to the Reshoring Initiative’s 2024 Annual Report and 2025 Survey Report, the movement has reached institutional scale. Harry Moser, President of the Reshoring Initiative, emphasizes that “Reindustrializing America is impossible without reshoring, FDI, and strong industrial policy.”

Key data from the Reshoring Initiative shows:

Reshoring Activity:

• According to them, 244,000 reshoring and FDI jobs were announced in 2024, representing the sustained strength in domestic manufacturing investment.
• Reports that of the 244,940 job announcements in 2024, 64% were due to reshoring and 36% from FDI, marking the largest margin by which reshoring has outpaced FDI since tracking began in 2010.
• The initial million jobs took 10 years to come back (2010-2020) and were driven by a gradual recognition that numerous costs and assorted risks often outweighed the substantial differences in manufacturing costs. However, the accelerated rate of 1 million jobs in the last four years (2020-2024) was due to the added impact of massive government funding, such as IRA and CHIPS, and corporate recognition of the dramatically increasing levels of geopolitical risk in the global supply chain.

Top Industries for Reshoring (by Reshoring Initiative data):

• Computer & electronic products – 35%
• Electrical equipment, appliances & components – 31%
• Transportation equipment – 9%
• Chemicals – 9%
• Machinery – 4%

Top States and Countries of Origin (per Reshoring Initiative):

• Top three states: Texas, Kentucky, and North Carolina
• Top three countries of origin: South Korea, Germany, and Canada

Why Now? Four Convergent Factors

According to the Reshoring Initiative’s research, the top cited factor for reshoring and FDI in 2024 was government incentives, followed by skilled workforce and proximity to market. More broadly:

1. Supply Chain Risk Has a Price Tag: COVID-19 exposed the fragility of long supply chains. The Reshoring Initiative emphasizes that “Senior business leaders see reshoring as a form of insurance, like flood or fire insurance, that protects the company against supply chain disruptions that threaten the company’s existence.” Port congestion, shipping delays, and inventory shortages cost companies billions. Risk management now factors prominently into sourcing decisions.
2. Geopolitical Uncertainty: Tensions between the U.S. and China, trade policy volatility, and the desire to avoid tariff exposure push companies toward domestic or allied production. The Reshoring Initiative’s data shows that “China-based supply chains have been the source of 44% of reshoring and supply chains there are especially vulnerable today due to the perceived risk of decoupling and the rise in Chinese wages.”
3. Labor Cost Convergence: China’s competitive labor advantage has eroded significantly. Average wages in China have more than doubled over the past decade. Shanghai’s monthly minimum wage reached 2,740 yuan ($378) as of August 2025. Meanwhile, labor costs in Vietnam remain 50% lower than in China, and Mexico offers proximity advantages for North American businesses. Automation has narrowed the per-unit cost difference between locations, making proximity, speed, and control increasingly valuable.
4. Policy Incentives: The CHIPS and Science Act invested $53 billion in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and R&D, with $6.72 billion awarded to companies and $36 billion more allocated across 20 states. The Inflation Reduction Act offered domestic content tax credits up to 10%, with additional bonuses for critical minerals and battery components. These incentives materially improve the business case for domestic production.

What Does Reshoring Actually Look Like?

Reshoring takes multiple forms. Few companies are moving 100% of production back to the U.S. Instead, sophisticated strategies dominate:

Apple’s Supply Chain Realignment: By late 2024, 15% of iPhones were produced in India, up from 5% two years prior, with plans to reach 25% by 2027. Premium iPhone 16 Pro models—the most profitable units—began production in India for the first time. Simultaneously, Apple expanded component manufacturing in Vietnam. This isn’t reshoring to America; it’s “nearshoring” and diversifying away from China dependency. It’s a practical solution to tariff risk and supply chain resilience.

Dual-Sourcing and Regionalization: Between 30-35% of companies are implementing “China Plus One” strategies, maintaining some sourcing in China while adding backup suppliers in alternative regions. This flexibility allows companies to respond quickly if tariffs spike or geopolitical tensions escalate.

True Reshoring to the U.S.: Some sectors are bringing production home entirely. Semiconductor manufacturing, clean energy equipment, electric vehicle batteries, and advanced industrial goods increasingly involve U.S.-based production. These tend to be higher-value, technology-intensive products where automation and proximity-to-market outweigh labor costs.

Nearshoring & Diversification: Beyond China

While reshoring to the U.S. captures headlines, nearshoring to Mexico and Vietnam represents equally significant structural shifts. Understanding these moves reveals why manufacturing geography is being redrawn.

Vietnam’s emergence is striking. Over 35% of Vietnamese firms reported increased demand from multinational manufacturers in the past year, compared to just 15% in Mexico. Vietnam ranks 9th among 60 nations in workforce capability according to ManpowerGroup, and Samsung, Nike, Adidas, and Intel have all significantly expanded Vietnamese operations.

Mexico’s nearshoring advantage is different—proximity. Development lead times are 30-40% shorter than Asian alternatives. For products requiring frequent design iterations or just-in-time delivery, Mexico’s ability to enable in-person visits, quick communication, and flexible order adjustments is invaluable. Mexico’s participation in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) further simplifies tariff and rules-of-origin compliance.

The strategic implication: Companies aren’t making binary choices between U.S. and offshore production. They’re building resilient networks with multiple regional hubs—some production in the U.S. for speed and control, some in Mexico for North American logistics, some in Vietnam or India for labor-intensive assembly or Asian market access. This distributed model reduces vulnerability to any single country’s policy changes, geopolitical events, or labor disruptions.

The Technology Factor: Automation vs. Labor

Here’s a reality that complicates the reshoring narrative: automation is simultaneously driving reshoring and eliminating manufacturing jobs.

Since 2000, automation has displaced approximately 1.7 million U.S. manufacturing jobs. Yet reshoring announcements include job creation figures. How does that work?

The answer: automation changes where manufacturing happens, not whether it happens. An automated factory in Texas might employ 500 workers instead of 5,000, but those 500 jobs pay significantly more than the offshore alternative, require different skills, and generate supply chain activity in the surrounding region.

Additionally, automation narrows the labor cost advantage of low-wage countries. If a factory operation is 80% automated, the difference between $3/hour labor in Vietnam and $15/hour labor in the U.S. becomes much less material to total unit cost. Proximity, supply chain reliability, and advanced technical skills become the differentiators.

By 2030, McKinsey estimates that up to 30% of biopharma manufacturing jobs could become automated. Yet those jobs will be replaced by higher-skilled roles—digital trial leads, bioinformatics specialists, robotics technicians—that require advanced training.

This creates a paradox: Reshoring brings manufacturing back, but the jobs are different. They require skills in robotics, programming, advanced mechanics, and systems thinking—not the repetitive assembly work of decades past. That skills gap is the movement’s biggest vulnerability.

The Consumer Appetite: Made in USA Does Matter

One assumption the 2012 article questioned was whether consumers would pay more for American-made products. The answer in 2025 is increasingly yes.

A Gartner survey conducted in March 2025 found that 47% of U.S. consumers expect to buy more American-made products in 2025, reflecting a deliberate shift driven by economic uncertainty and values alignment. The Vision Council’s 2024 research showed that 52% of consumers consider “Made in the USA” an important purchasing factor, with 45% willing to pay a 5% premium for American-made eyewear.

This preference isn’t uniform across demographics. However, it’s consistent across age groups, income levels, and regions. Younger consumers (Gen Z) show particular enthusiasm for supporting domestic manufacturing, sustainability, and ethical sourcing. For these generations, buying American-made products represents alignment with values around supporting local jobs, reducing carbon footprints from long supply chains, and ensuring fair labor practices.

The challenge is visibility. Most consumers can’t easily determine where products are made. A simple step—transparent labeling and easy-to-find country-of-origin information—could amplify this trend substantially. Companies willing to display “Made in USA” and explain the domestic supply chain gain competitive differentiation, particularly among values-driven consumers.

What’s clear: the consumer base for American-made products exists and is growing. The constraint isn’t demand; it’s supply and information. As more products become available with clear Made in USA labeling, consumer spending patterns can shift more dramatically. (sources: Vision Council,

Policy & Incentives: CHIPS Act, IRA, and Beyond

Policy has fundamentally reshaped the reshoring calculus. Two laws deserve particular attention:

The CHIPS and Science Act (2022)

The CHIPS Act dedicated $53 billion to U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, research, and workforce development. The program invested approximately $6.72 billion directly with companies and allocated over $36 billion across 20 states, with expectations to create over 125,000 jobs.

The business logic is clear: semiconductors are foundational to every advanced technology, from consumer electronics to defense systems to artificial intelligence. Depending on Taiwan for chips creates single-point-of-failure vulnerability. The CHIPS Act turned semiconductor reshoring from a business option into an economic security imperative.

Companies like TSMC, Intel, Samsung, and dozens of component suppliers responded by committing hundreds of billions to U.S. facility expansion. These aren’t small operations—they’re world-class manufacturing facilities anchoring regional economies.

The Inflation Reduction Act (2022)

The Inflation Reduction Act allocated $900 billion to clean energy and manufacturing investments, with over $265 billion deployed since enactment. The program uses tax credits and domestic content requirements to incentivize onshoring of electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, and related components.

Preliminary impact: over 100,000 manufacturing jobs announced, with $123 billion in private capital investment across 305 projects in 40 states and Puerto Rico. The program specifically targets economically distressed areas, creating opportunities for communities historically dependent on manufacturing that had experienced decades of decline.

Domestic content requirements matter. The law specifies that companies can only claim the full tax credit if they source sufficient components from the U.S. This creates an incentive for companies to establish or expand U.S. supplier networks—not just final assembly, but the entire supply chain.

Impact on Small Manufacturers and Makers

For small manufacturers and makers, these policies create opportunities in supplier networks. A small metalworking company in Ohio, for instance, can now bid for contracts from large reshoring manufacturers or clean energy companies—contracts that wouldn’t have been available when those manufacturers sourced primarily from China. Aggregator platforms and industry associations help small suppliers connect with large contractors, reducing the historical barrier of limited visibility.

The Skills Gap: The Missing Piece

If reshoring has one fundamental vulnerability, it’s the massive skills gap in the U.S. manufacturing workforce. This is the critical factor least discussed in 2012, yet it’s the binding constraint on reshoring success in 2025.

The Reshoring Initiative’s 2025 Survey Report emphasizes that “The success or failure of training millions of workers could skew the outcome of the U.S. reindustrialization momentum in either direction.” Even without a surge in reshoring, 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are forecast to go unfilled by 2030, with an estimated loss to GDP of $1 trillion. Continued success of reshoring would increase that shortfall to 3 million or more.

Key workforce challenges include:

1. Retiring Baby Boomers: Nearly a quarter of manufacturing workers are 55 or older, creating a massive generational transition. For decades, young people were discouraged from manufacturing careers in favor of college degrees. Now, the supply of experienced workers is drying up just as demand is spiking.
2. Perception Problem: Manufacturing still carries outdated associations—dirty, dangerous, low-skilled, no future. This couldn’t be further from the truth for advanced manufacturing roles, but the perception persists. Young people don’t see manufacturing as a path to middle-class prosperity.
3. Mismatch in Skill Development: The education system hasn’t kept pace with manufacturing’s evolution. Traditional trade schools exist, but they’re not uniformly available or accessible. Community colleges offer programs, but capacity is limited. Meanwhile, younger cohorts are smaller than Baby Boomers—there simply aren’t as many people to fill slots.
4. Required Skills Are Advanced: Modern manufacturing requires proficiency with CNC machines, robotics, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), computer-aided design (CAD), and systems thinking. These aren’t entry-level skills that can be picked up on the job. They require structured training and ongoing education.

Apprenticeships and Workforce Development

The manufacturing industry is responding through registered apprenticeship programs. The Manufacturing Institute released a 2025 workforce blueprint recommending federal policy changes to expand employer-led apprenticeships, simplify access to training funding, and increase incumbent worker upskilling.

Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana demonstrates the model working. The college partners with over 450 high schools to offer 100 free manufacturing courses, including 20 advanced manufacturing courses with industry-recognized certifications (American Welding Society, National Institute for Metalworking Skills, Smart Automation Certification Alliance). Students earn college credits while gaining workplace credentials. Direct partnerships with manufacturers create job pipelines.

Success stories show this works. Ivy Tech students placed at StarPlus Energy receive on-the-job training, career coaching, and full college credit, transitioning directly into skilled employment or apprenticeships after high school.

Yet this model hasn’t scaled nationally. High schools and community colleges in many regions lack funding, industry partnerships, or curriculum development to replicate it. Federal support for workforce development infrastructure—not just company-specific training, but community-based pathways—is essential.

Youth & Future Builders: Manufacturing as a Path Forward

For Gen Z, Gen Alpha, and the broader generation of young people, manufacturing presents a compelling alternative to the traditional college-debt pathway. Here’s why:

1. Immediate Income & Upward Mobility: Manufacturing jobs start at livable wages—$40,000-$60,000 for entry-level skilled positions, with progression to $70,000-$100,000+ with experience and specialization. No four-year degree debt required. Earning while learning through apprenticeships is a genuine path to middle-class stability.
2. Job Security & Recession Resistance: Manufacturing employment is more stable than many service sector jobs. When economic downturns occur, manufacturing recovers faster than hospitality or retail. Skilled trades are geographically distributed—opportunities exist in most communities, not just major metros.
3. Entrepreneurial Opportunity: Skilled trades create pathways to business ownership. A talented welder or machinist can eventually start their own shop, serve niche markets, and build local brands. Several of the American-made manufacturers The Made in America Movement highlights began as skilled craftspeople who scaled operations.
4. Alignment with Values: For younger generations prioritizing sustainability, local economic development, and meaningful work, manufacturing can deliver. Building physical goods that last, maintaining local supply chains, and supporting domestic workers align with stated values.
5. Maker Culture Intersection: The DIY, maker, craftsmanship ethos is strong among younger generations. That same mindset—creativity, problem-solving, building tangible value—is exactly what advanced manufacturing demands. The gap is in messaging and visibility.

What Messaging Matters

Trades recruitment targeting Gen Z and younger Gen Alpha should emphasize:

• Blue-collar pride and respect for skilled craftsmanship
• Clear career pathways and earning potential (specific numbers matter)
• Stability and security in an uncertain economic environment
• Alignment with values—supporting local workers, reducing the environmental impact of long supply chains
• Respect for the technology—advanced manufacturing is tech work with tangible output
• Community and belonging—skilled trades offer tight-knit professional networks

Current recruitment often fails to land these messages. Military recruiting understands this audience better than most manufacturing outreach. The challenge is translating that effective communication to manufacturing careers.

What Needs to Happen Next

Reshoring has momentum, but several gaps must be addressed for it to fulfill its potential:

1. Workforce Development at Scale: Federal and state governments need to fund apprenticeship infrastructure, community college program expansion, and high school career pathways. The CHIPS Act created manufacturing jobs; similar investment in workforce development is needed to fill them.
2. Support for Small Manufacturers: Large corporations get headlines, but supply chains run through thousands of small manufacturers. Targeted support—technical assistance, access to capital, help navigating CHIPS and IRA requirements—helps small makers participate in reshoring value chains.
3. Made in USA Transparency: Companies should voluntarily adopt clear, verifiable labeling indicating country of origin and percentage of domestic content. This requires minimal regulatory burden but enables consumer choice. As competition increases on this dimension, market forces amplify the signal.
4. Trade Policy Stability: Tariff uncertainty creates planning challenges for manufacturers. Whether tariff policy is protectionist or liberalizing matters less than whether it’s predictable. Multi-year stability allows companies to commit capital to factory builds.
5. Regional Ecosystem Development: Reshoring clusters create economies of scale. A semiconductor fab attracts suppliers, logistics companies, skilled workers, and complementary businesses. Investment in regional infrastructure—education, broadband, transportation—is necessary for clusters to thrive. Some regions have advantages; others need support developing manufacturing ecosystems.
6. Integration with Automation: Manufacturing’s future is human workers plus robots, not robots instead of workers. Curriculum and policy should prepare workers for human-robot collaboration, predictive maintenance, and continuous learning. The technology evolution is accelerating; workforce preparation must keep pace.

The Future of American Manufacturing

Thirteen years ago, when Foxconn scandals dominated headlines, the narrative was clear: manufacturing had left America, and it wasn’t coming back. The economic forces seemed deterministic. Globalization was the future.

In 2025, the narrative has shifted. Reshoring is real. According to the Reshoring Initiative, over 2 million jobs have been announced since 2010, with more than 1.7 million already filled. Supply chain diversification is accelerating. Consumer demand for American-made products is growing. Policy is supporting manufacturing investment. And young people are beginning to reconsider manufacturing as a viable, honorable career path.

Yet this isn’t a complete return to 1970s-style manufacturing. The industry looks different. Factories are smaller, more automated, and more technologically sophisticated. They operate in distributed networks rather than concentrated regions. They require different skills—less raw assembly, more technical expertise. They pay better but demand more from workers.

The answer to “Can manufacturing jobs come back?” is yes—they’re coming back. The more relevant question is: Will we build the workforce, policy infrastructure, and consumer awareness to capture that opportunity? The economic conditions favor reshoring. The policy tailwinds exist. Consumer appetite is growing. The missing ingredient is workforce development at scale and a consistent, visible celebration of Made in America goods.

For young builders and makers, for small manufacturers, for policymakers, and for consumers: this moment represents a genuine opportunity. The reshoring movement is neither inevitable nor guaranteed to succeed. It requires sustained effort, investment, and choices—choices by companies, by workers, by policymakers, and by consumers.

The future of American manufacturing isn’t determined by global forces alone. It’s determined by whether we build the systems, support the people, and make the choices to bring manufacturing home and keep it here.