Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7579

Bill Overview

Title: Western Hemisphere Nearshoring Act

Description: This bill provides assistance for corporations to move operations from China to countries in Latin America or the Caribbean and addresses related issues. For example, the bill requires the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to provide financing and other assistance to eligible corporations for costs associated with such a move. Tariffs collected for goods manufactured in China shall be used to pay for such assistance. The President may provide preferential treatment, including duty-free treatment, for goods produced in a Latin American or Caribbean country by a corporation that received relocation assistance under this bill.

Sponsors: Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7]

Target Audience

Population: People/Individuals globally involved in manufacturing, logistics, and related sectors affected by corporate relocation from China to Latin America or the Caribbean

Estimated Size: 200000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Auto Industry Executive (Detroit, MI)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the Act will help reduce dependency on Chinese manufacturing, which has strategic benefits.
  • Relocating to Latin America could streamline our supply chain and reduce costs in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Logistics Coordinator (Houston, TX)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If our company shifts suppliers to Latin America, it could mean more job stability for me.
  • I'm concerned about possible inefficiencies during the transition period.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Retail Assistant Manager (Miami, FL)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our products might become more affordable if manufacturing moves closer, which would be great for business.
  • I'm worried about the unpredictability of transition periods. Could cause supply chain hiccups.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Finance Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This seems like a smart geopolitical move and could be a nice boost for our investments in Latin America.
  • There's always risk in such policy moves, but the rewards could outweigh it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The shift of manufacturing could mean less travel to Asia and more to Latin America, something that I would personally welcome.
  • However, some clients might face uncertainty during the transition, which could temporarily increase my workload.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Retired Logistics Manager (Dallas, TX)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Nearshoring will bring some predictability and potentially reduce shipping times and costs.
  • Retired, but interested to see how these changes will play out in the logistics industry.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 7 8

Warehouse Supervisor (Chicago, IL)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Potential reshoring of segments of our supply chain could lead to more jobs and workload here.
  • It might affect the cost structures negatively if not managed well, but overall, I see it as a positive move.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This might increase demand for automation technology in new Latin American facilities, which is exciting.
  • I am not directly affected immediately but see potential future projects.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Consumer Advocate (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Moving production closer can help in ensuring better quality control for consumer products.
  • There's always a concern over standards adherence during transitions, which needs oversight.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Sourcing goods from Latin America instead of China can cut down on carbon emissions which aligns with our company values.
  • There's concern about supply chain stability during the shift.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)

Year 2: $2100000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2600000000)

Year 3: $2200000000 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2700000000)

Year 5: $2400000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2900000000)

Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $1900000000, High: $3000000000)

Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3500000000)

Key Considerations