Bill Overview
Title: ONSHORE Manufacturing Act
Description: Act This bill sets forth provisions to support secure supply chains of rare earth elements. A rare earth element means a natural element associated with (1) the metallic element scandium, with atomic number 21; (2) the metallic element yttrium, with atomic number 39; or (3) any of the series of 15 metallic elements between lanthanum, with atomic number 57, and lutetium, with atomic number 71, on the periodic table.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals dependent on industries utilizing rare earth elements
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill affects industries that use rare earth elements in manufacturing processes, such as electronics, renewable energy, defense, and automotive sectors.
- Rare earth elements are critical for modern technologies, including smartphones, electric vehicles, and military equipment.
- Securing a supply chain for rare earth elements impacts global technological and industrial development.
- Countries with significant rare earth element production or processing will be directly affected by changes in demand and supply driven by the US market.
- The US is likely to increase domestic production and processing of rare earth elements, potentially affecting international trade dynamics.
Reasoning
- The individuals included represent various demographics and industries that would be affected by the ONSHORE Manufacturing Act.
- Given the budget, the policy can materially impact industries closely tied to rare earth elements in the domestic market, such as technology and defense, but only some people in related sectors will notice significant changes in the short term.
- Those working in industries directly related to rare earth element processing and manufacturing are likely to be most directly impacted with job stability or creation, potentially increasing their wellbeing.
- Residents working in sectors indirectly linked might see modest impacts, such as slightly better job security or economic conditions, although these would typically manifest over a more extended period.
- People not engaged in the affected industries or residing in regions where the policy's effects concentrate will likely see negligible change in their wellbeing, though they might still express opinions related to economic nationalism or job growth.
- The overall distribution reflects a blend of high, medium, low, and none impacts, based on the proximity of people's work and life experiences to the areas directly influencing or influenced by the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Materials Scientist (Boulder, CO)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is crucial for securing domestic supply chains in technology.
- I feel secure and optimistic about job stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports our move towards more sustainable and secure resources.
- Domestic production could lower costs and increase innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Defense Contractor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful the policy will stabilize resource costs and supply predictability.
- Increased domestic mining might reduce international dependencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Mining Safety Supervisor (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a boon for mining jobs.
- If managed well, it could benefit local economies heavily reliant on this industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Developer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with broader energy independence goals.
- Developing local resources could spur innovation in solar technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
High School Teacher (Boise, ID)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies seem beneficial from a national perspective.
- I'm unsure how it impacts my immediate community, thus personally feel low impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt my industry will see direct impact, but there's potential for cross-industry benefits.
- Seems a solid step for national resilience but indirect for my line of work.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Tech Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy fuels potential for innovation within tech components.
- Ensuring consistent supply could reduce production risks, making projects more stable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Manufacturing Line Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act could bring more job security and possibly better wages in the future.
- I'm aware competitiveness might spur my plant to grow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see no direct personal effect, but I hope it fortifies the economy for future generations.
- Most policies overpromise and underdeliver; I'm cautiously optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $900000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 5: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $950000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The initiative aims to mitigate risks associated with foreign dependence for critical materials.
- It sustainably aligns with national security objectives.
- The act may face challenges from environmental regulations impacting mining practices.
- Global market dynamics may affect cost estimates due to fluctuating prices of rare earth elements.