BEIJING — Workers demanding higher wages rallied outside a Honda plant in southern China on Friday, part of a rash of industrial action at Chinese factories highlighting growing restiveness among migrant workers.
Several hundred workers gathered at the front gates of parts supplier Honda Lock (Guangdong) Co. in the city of Zhongshan, where staff walked off the job on Wednesday.
A policeman reached by phone at the city's Xiaolan precinct confirmed the action, but said he was unable to release details without permission.
"We're keeping our eyes on this strike," said the officer, who refused to give his name because he was not authorized to speak to the press.
An official from the Zhongshan branch of the Communist Party controlled All-China Federation of Trade Unions said representatives had been sent to the scene to "handle it." She also refused to give details or her name.
About 85 percent of plant's 1,400 workers had joined the action to demand raises, said Hirotoshi Sato, a spokesman for Honda Lock based in the southwestern Japanese city of Miyazaki.
Sato said it was the first time there had been a strike at the plant, but he declined to give details of the workers' demands. Operations were shut down while daily negotiations were ongoing, but it wasn't clear when the action would end, he said.
China's official Xinhua News Agency said workers were seeking a boost in their monthly salaries from 1,700 yuan ($250) to 2,040 yuan ($300). An offer to raise monthly pay by 100 yuan ($15) had apparently been rejected, it said.
Friday's rally came as Honda was resuming production at two other car assembly plants after resolving a three-day strike at parts supplier Foshan Fengfu Autoparts Co.
Honda said the Foshan factory employees agreed to a pay raise of 366 yuan ($53.60) per month for each full-time worker. That would increase pay for a new employee to 1,910 yuan ($280) per month.
Some workers held out for more and about 30 people brawled with ACFTU union officials on Monday.
Japan's Brother Industries Ltd. also said it had ended a weeklong strike that had stalled production at its industrial sewing machine factory in the central city of Xi'an. Another strike, at a Taiwan-run rubber products plant west of Shanghai, also ended earlier this week after workers took to the streets demanding wage hikes.
Such incidents are an unsettling development for foreign manufacturers and a privileged communist leadership now far removed from its roots in labor movements a century ago.
Younger Chinese now seeking work in factories were raised in an era of relative plenty and have higher expectations and less tolerance for highly regimented factory living — underscored by a recent spate of worker suicides at the mammoth factory complex operated by iPhone maker Foxconn.
Geoffrey Crothall, spokesman for the Hong Kong based China Labor Bulletin, said workers had largely been willing to bide their time and accept their wages during the recent economic slowdown.
But since the economy began to boom again last year, they've found themselves working longer hours with no appreciable improvement in income, prompting some to take action, Crothall said.
"They see strikes have been successful elsewhere and decide to try their luck," he said.
Crothall said the strikes also revealed deep disdain for official ACFTU union representatives, who are appointed by management and the Communist Party rather than elected by the workers themselves.
However, he questioned media reports saying the Honda Lock workers wanted to form their own independent union, saying it was more likely a desire simply to elect their own leaders who represented their own, and not management's, interests.
Sato, the Honda Lock spokesman, said he had no word on any worker organizations outside the official union.
Fearing challenges to their hold on power, China's communist leaders ban unauthorized labor organizations and public dissent. Those who violate those bans face harassment and prosecution.
But the authorities have long tolerated limited, local protests by workers unhappy over wages or other issues, perhaps recognizing the need for an outlet for such frustrations.
Associated Press writers Christopher Bodeen in Beijing and Yuri Kageyama in Tokyo and researchers Ji Chen in Shanghai, Xi Yue, Zhao Liang, and Bonnie Cao contributed to this report.
Oct 15th 2009 | SHANGHAI From The Economist print edition
Despite widespread hope that China will help pull the world out of recession, foreigners are finding it as arduous as ever to do business there
Reuters
EVERY year, says Paul French, head of Access Asia, a research firm based in Shanghai, the same company buys the same report from him on the market for a particular product in China. That is because each year the company in question sends a new executive to China with instructions to break into the local market, who soon departs in despair—having failed to find an opening given the (brief) time and (insufficient) resources allotted.
Mr French’s customer is not alone. China accounts for less than 2% of the global sales of drugs giants such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Bayer, estimates IMS, another research firm. Procter & Gamble (P&G), a consumer-goods giant, is reckoned to generate only a bit over $3 billion annually in China, less than 5% of its overall sales. Unilever is thought to sell less than half as much; its local operations are barely profitable. AIG, an American insurance firm, was founded in Shanghai and has won greater access to China than many of its competitors. But its operations are still restricted to just eight cities. Analysts suspect its revenues in China are less than in Taiwan, a country with 2% of the population and stiffer competition.The promise—and frequent disappointment—of doing business in China has been a common theme since at least the 19th century, when weavers in Manchester were said to dream of adding a few inches to every shirttail in China. Thanks to recession at home, foreign firms are keener than ever to capitalise on China’s growth. But Europe and America’s exports to China have remained broadly flat over the past year and amount to less than 7% of the total, even though shrinking exports to other countries flatter the figure. Even if the Chinese economy grows by the official target of 8% this year, the impact on Western firms’ total sales would be little more than a rounding error, says Ronald Schramm, a visiting professor at the Chinese European International Business School.
Many foreign firms, of course, are doing well in China, especially at the two extremes of the value chain: things like luxury goods, fibre-optic cable and big aeroplanes on the one hand, and oil, ores and recyclable waste on the other. But in between, both explicit legal impediments and hidden obstacles continue to hamper access to Chinese customers, despite China’s promises of reform when it joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001. Publishing, telecommunications, oil exploration, marketing, pharmaceuticals, banking and insurance all remain either fiercely protected or off-limits to foreigners altogether. Corruption, protectionism and red tape hamper foreigners in all fields.
Recent reports from three lobbies for foreign businesses, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, the European Chamber of Commerce in China and the US-China Business Council, bear out this gloomy view. Their biggest gripes have nothing to do with typical business concerns, such as the availability of good staff or high costs. Instead, they complain about subsidised competition, restricted access, conflicting regulations, a lack of protection for intellectual property and opaque and arbitrary bureaucracy.
To operate in China, the Council itself must provide documents from America’s State Department, the Chinese Embassy in America, the cities of Washington and Shanghai, the local tax authorities and the local branch of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. It takes six months to obtain a one-year licence. At least there is an established procedure, albeit a costly and cumbersome one. Others are not so lucky: upon joining the WTO, China agreed to allow foreign firms to compete to offer booking systems to local airlines, but according to the European Chamber it has not yet produced the necessary regulations.
Local officials go to great lengths to protect companies on their patch, often by giving them preferential access to land or credit, or by easing bureaucratic constraints for them. All the red tape would at least provide plenty of work for multinational law firms, were they permitted to employ Chinese lawyers—which they are not. The government, by dint of its control of the media, also controls advertising rates. That makes the cost of reaching a consumer in China higher than in many Western countries, although the potential rewards are much lower since most Chinese are so much poorer, says Tom Doctoroff, the boss of JWT, an advertising firm. There is little reliable business news (see article).
Firms that have managed to overcome these obstacles tend to produce locally in China; their products are perceived to be of high quality (few foreigners succeed by undercutting prices) and they have invested tremendous amounts of time and effort building distribution networks and raising awareness of their brands. Take Goodyear, an American tyremaker. It has had to find local partners for all of its 760 dealerships in China, who in turn had to obtain permits from the authorities. It has got around the state monopoly on advertising by deploying its trademark blimps, and pre-empted objections to that by using them to advocate a worthy cause: safe driving.
As always, there are local tastes to consider too. Chinese consumers seem to have even more of a taste for variety than most. P&G produces its Crest brand of toothpaste in a mouth-watering array of flavours, including lemon, tea, strawberry, salt and honey. A similar proliferation of offerings has served Nokia, the world’s biggest handset-maker, well too.
One strategy that has brought success to several foreign firms has been to charge high prices—a surprise, given that earnings in China remain quite low. A survey by the Nielsen Company concludes that Chinese believe that foreign brands are more expensive, even when they are not. That suggests that they should aim to compete on quality rather than cost. At any rate, Apple, General Motors and Levi Strauss all sell certain products at higher prices in China than elsewhere. So do many luxury brands. But relatively few foreign firms have managed to reap such rewards.
White House Official’s Praise for Mao--Whose Policies Led to Death of 65 Million--Was ‘Pathetic,’ Says China Expert Monday, October 19, 2009 By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse Tung, the Communist dictator responsible for the death of millions of people, and she explained why his philosophy was important for achieving personal and political goals.
When questioned last week after a video of her speech surfaced, however, Dunn said she was using “irony” in reference to Mao. A leading expert on China told CNSNews.com that Dunn’s remarks were “pathetic,” given the human rights atrocities committed under Mao’s reign.
As first shown on Fox News Channel’s “Glenn Beck” show on Thursday, Oct. 15, in the video Dunn told graduating high school students that Mao and Mother Teresa, the Catholic nun known for aiding the poor, were examples of people who did not give up, and did their own thing to make a difference in the world.
Though Dunn acknowledged that Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa are “not often coupled together,” she did not preface or qualify her remarks about Mao at all. In the video, Dunn said: “[T]he third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa – not often coupled with each other -- but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is you’re going to make choices, you’re going to challenge, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices, they are no one else’s.”
Dunn continued: “In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, ‘How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?’ And Mao Tse Tung said, ‘You know, you fight your war, and I'll fight mine.’”
“And think about that for a second,” Dunn told the students. “You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, Okay? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.”
Mao Tse Tung, former Communist dictator of China.
Policies implemented under Mao Tse Tung, including the civil war, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and persecution in Tibet, among other policies, led to death of an estimated 65 million people, according to The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press), which is considered by scholars as one of the best sources on communist atrocities.
Mao also outlawed religion and sent at least 2.5 million people to “re-education camps,” called “laogai,” which were similar to the slave-labor camps in the Gulag of the Soviet Union. An estimated 1,000 laogai reportedly are still in operation today.
While Dunn now says she was using “irony” when she called Mao one of her favorite political philosophers, an expert on Mao’s three-decade rule in China thinks the remarks she made in May 2009 to the students were “pathetic.”
William Ratliff, an expert on China with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said he found Dunn’s comments astonishing regardless of her larger point, and wondered whether Dunn is aware of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, or if Dunn was trying to look at Mao’s positive accomplishments.
“He did unify the country. He did implement some policies in the very early years that were constructive,” Ratliff told CNSNews.com. “But his policies, basically, were terribly, terribly destructive and I think that just makes it impossible for any serious person in the Western world, and I think an awful lot of serious people in China, to regard him as one of the great political philosophers.”
“It’s outrageous and pathetic that a person, anyone in this country frankly, would still believe that,” said Ratliff.
In the 1930s, Mao led the Chinese Communists to overthrow the Chinese Nationalists and unify the country. From 1930 through 1949, the Communists killed about 4 million people, mostly “rich” peasants and the bourgeoisie, according to The Black Book of Communism.
Further, the book reports, Mao had executed 1 million “counter revolutionaries” by 1951. The “democratic terror” led to about 700,000 suicides, while 2.5 million were sent to re-education (labor) camps, and a campaign against “hidden counter-revolutionaries” launched in 1955 led to 770,000 deaths. The state policies that caused widespread famine, along with the labor camps and direct killing of political opponents, among other Communist actions, led to the death of approximately 65 million people in China, according to The Black Book of Communism.
That number exceeds the estimate of people directly killed for political or racial reasons by the Nazis, as well as the estimated number of people killed by the Soviet Communists under Lenin and Stalin. The genocidal policies of Hitler are estimated to have killed 21 million people, which included at least 1 million children under the age of 18. In the Soviet Union, an estimated 25 million died as a result of policies implemented under Lenin and Stalin.
In a statement to The New York Times on Friday, Dunn said former Republican political consultant Lee Atwater inspired the Mao comment.
“My source for the Mao quote was actually the late Lee Atwater, either in an article or bio I read after the 1988 election. Now that I’ve revealed this, I hope I don’t get Keith Olbermann angry with me,” Dunn told The Times. “Let it be noted that I also quoted Mother Teresa, but no one is accusing me of being a saint.”
In a separate statement to CNN, Dunn said, “The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don't get my progressive friends mad at me. The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.”
Meanwhile, responding to a question aboard Air Force One Friday, White House spokesman Bill Burton was dismissive.
“I caught some of that from the ‘Glenn Beck’ show yesterday, but I don't think anybody takes it, takes his attacks very seriously,” Burton said. “We're just, you know, we go day to day in this White House trying to ensure that people know the truth about the policies and programs and positions that the president holds, and we're going to continue to do that.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, commented on Dunn’s remarks about Mao on the National Review blog site, “the corner.” On Oct. 16, he wrote: “Imagine what would happen if a White House communications director cited Adolf Hitler as one of her favorite political philosophers. Not only would it be an above-the-fold, front-page story in every major newspaper in the country, but there would also be outraged howls in the editorial pages."
“Mao killed more people than Hitler – they were two of the three worst mass murderers in the 20th century (the third being Joseph Stalin),” wrote Spakovsky. “However, the revelation of Dunn’s comments will probably be greeted by the mainstream media with a big collective yawn.”
China Powers Ahead in Green Technologies
By Laurel Bowman Washington 08 October 2009
For many, the words "China" and "environmentalism" don't go hand in hand. Instead, visions of China might include smog-filled skylines and factories belching out clouds of smoke. But a growing green movement is underway in China's industries, and some experts are betting
Change is blowing in China - in the form of green technologies like these wind turbines. For each of the last four years, China has doubled its wind energy capacity. This year, the People's Republic is set to overtake the U.S. as the world's top manufacturer of wind turbines.
In the next decade, China believes it can match Europe by producing a fifth of its energy needs from renewable sources. China is striving to become a clean energy superpower, even as the United States moves to do the same.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "There's no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy. The only question is which country will create these jobs and these industries."
Experts say China may be positioning to take the lead, and not just in wind energy. The country now has the largest solar power manufacturing industry, with the government recently approving a plan to build the largest solar field on Earth, 65 square kilometers, generating enough energy to light three million homes.
Richard Gledhill, an analyst at Price WaterhouseCoopers, says "China is very well-positioned to become a leader in green technology. The combination of its continued economic growth, its technological and manufacturing capability and strong government commitment, driven in part by growing concerns about climate change and about other environmental threats is creating real momentum in the green tech sector."
Almost 40 percent of China's latest stimulus package has been allocated to green business, compared to 12 percent of the U.S. package.
But some say China is using protectionist policies like export subsidies to gain advantage in the renewable energy field. And that the U.S. should toughen up on trade.
"We are losing all the cutting-edge industries to China because of China's trade policies and because of the reluctance of the Obama Administration, just like the Bush Administration, to stand up to China. It's a very sad and tragic thing," said economist Peter Morici of the University of Maryland Smith School of Business.
Morici says don't be too quick to applaud China's efforts. China is the world's largest producer of carbon dioxide. Of the world's 20 most polluted cities, 16 cities are in China, most of the pollution caused by coal-fire generated power.
"China is not the good guys," he added. "If they were, they would be doing something about C02 emissions. They are certainly wealthy enough to do it, and they have a lot of money to buy the technology we have available to create a cleaner economy."
Chinese officials say they've got that covered too, with a significant share of its $590 billion economic stimulus package pegged for low-carbon investment, like energy efficient auto transport.
Meantime, every day in the village of Shui Yu, 200 tons of chicken manure are converted into biofuel to meet the energy needs of 5,000 households. A potent example of China turning trash into treasure.
China eating our lunch in solar-panel marketplace By Dean Calbreath
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
Over the past year, President Barack Obama has suggested that adopting solar power and other green technologies not only could help the United States improve the environment but also revitalize our manufacturing sector, which has been hard hit by competition from abroad.
“We can remain the world's leading importer of foreign oil or we can become the world's leading exporter of renewable energy,” Obama said in the spring. “We can hand over the jobs of the 21st century to our competitors, or we can create those jobs right here in America.”
The administration's move toward renewable energy – backed by billions of dollars in stimulus spending – was viewed as particularly good news in sunny San Diego County. Thanks to our long days of sunshine – earning us a ranking in the top 40 sunniest cities in the nation – we've been one of the country's hottest markets for solar technology.
But the idea that we can re-industrialize the country through solar panels has a hurdle that should have been foreseen: China.
With its low labor costs, relatively low environmental standards and – more recently – stimulus spending, China is shaping up to be the “world's leading exporter of renewable energy,” continuing its prowess as the globe's chief manufacturing center.
“I've seen quite a lot more Chinese manufacturers coming into the marketplace,” said Dan Sullivan, head of Sullivan Solar Panels in Mira Mesa. “It's somewhat disconcerting, since we've had a profound opportunity to capture this market and create more American manufacturing jobs.”
Although there are a number of strong solar-panel makers in the United States, Japan and Europe, China is taking center stage.
Within the past few months, China's Suntech has nearly overtaken Q-Cells of Germany as the world's second-largest producer of photovoltaic cells, putting it behind Arizona's First Solar, a partner in many of Sempra Energy's solar projects. A number of smaller Chinese companies also are taking a chunk of the solar business.
“The Chinese are flooding the market,” said Junaid Qazi, chief executive of Clary Solar in Sorrento Valley.
The speed with which China has gained a lead position in the market begs the question of whether the United States can ever regain its manufacturing edge. The moment we make a stab at producing a new technology – whether it's microchips, computers, electronic toys or, now, solar panels – it's only a matter of time before production shifts overseas.
Longtime China critic Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland and former chief economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission, pins the blame on the Obama administration, which he says has failed to push China to reform its trade practices.
“It's absolutely disgraceful that Obama is going around the world saying we will not resort to protectionist measures against China when they're stealing the solar-panel business out from under us,” Morici said.
Morici noted that China's protectionist measures include a requirement that 75 percent of the content of government-purchased solar panels be Chinese-made. The United States has no such requirement.
Of course, China has long been able to capture U.S. market share, partly because of the artificially low value of its currency, which allows it to undercut U.S. and European labor and production costs, as well as its relatively low environmental standards. Its solar-panel makers don't need to go to the same lengths to dispose of their toxic waste – and a lot of toxins are used in photovoltaic construction.
In addition to those cost advantages, the Chinese drive toward dominance in solar has recently followed the U.S. playbook. As in the United States, the Chinese economy suffered badly in the recession. Large numbers of factories closed, pushing unemployment higher. To rev up the economy, the Chinese have devoted the equivalent of 3 percent of their gross domestic product to stimulus spending, compared with 2 percent in the United States.
As with our stimulus program, much of Beijing's money has been spent on heavy-duty infrastructure projects, such as roads and dams. But a large portion is being spent on alternative energy. Like the United States, China sees solar power as a way of cutting its reliance on fossil fuels and creating a new manufacturing base.
“China has a lot of government policies to protect solar power, both through direct financing by the state as well as encouraging installation of solar panels in national and provincial government buildings,” said Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst for New Energy Finance, an international venture-capital fund.
The most lucrative market is overseas, where China's exports of solar panels are making up for recent declines in its foreign sales of other consumer goods. At Suntech, almost 98 percent of production is sold overseas.
Some San Diego County solar-power installers say there are drawbacks to buying from China.
“I've tried a few Chinese products, but I've moved away from them,” Qazi said. “Quality is one question, and they don't seem to have an emphasis on building strong customer relationships. Right now, I'm getting most of my panels from U.S. manufacturers instead.”
But Bullard said there's no difference between a major Chinese company like Suntech and its competitors abroad.
The low cost of Chinese solar panels makes it easier for Americans to buy them. That creates more business for solar installers. Sullivan estimates that around 1,000 installers are working in San Diego County.
Although the recession has cut into some solar-panel sales, business is rebounding because of federal stimulus spending. Some of the federal jobs up for bid are for solar panels at the Navy facilities in Coronado and Point Loma.
The White House and Congress have inserted some protections for the solar industry into their stimulus packages. For instance, stimulus money is barred from being used to buy certain construction materials, including solar panels, from countries that haven't signed a World Trade Organization pact requiring governments to open up their procurement procedures. China hasn't signed the pact.
That requirement has led at least two of China's solar-panel producers – Suntech and Yingli Solar – to contemplate opening U.S. assembly plants, according to The New York Times.
If they pursue that path, it would be similar to what Japanese companies such as Sony and Sanyo did in San Diego and other cities in the 1990s, establishing U.S. plants at a time when Japan was being criticized over its trade policies.
But even if Chinese factory openings in the United States assuage some ruffled feathers, it would do little to even the playing field between America and other low-cost areas, whether China, Mexico, Malaysia or the Philippines. If Obama really wants to build a 21st-century work force, he has to find ways of solving the pernicious effects of artificially low currencies, weak labor standards and lax environmental laws.
Whirlpool to close Evansville, IN plant - moving jobs to MEXICO Whirlpool Corp. announced Friday Aug. 28, 2009 that it will close its manufacturing plant in Evansville, Ind., eliminating about 1,100 full-time jobs by mid-2010.
Next year's closing is among several changes in the company’s North American manufacturing operations.
Whirlpool (NYSE: WHR), based in Benton Harbor, Mich., said in a news release that production of top freezer refrigerators made at Evansville will be transferred to one of the company's existing plants in Mexico.
Production of icemakers produced in Evansville will be relocated to a site yet to be determined.
Friday’s announcement follows a comprehensive review of alternatives for product consolidation within the refrigeration product category.
The company also said that it is currently evaluating options for the best location for the Refrigeration Product Development Center, which is also in Evansville and has about 300 employees.
“This was a difficult but necessary decision,” Al Holaday, vice president, North American Manufacturing Operations for Whirlpool, said in the release. “To reduce excess capacity and improve costs, the decision was made to consolidate production within our existing North American manufacturing facilities. This will allow us to streamline our operations, improve our capacity utilization, reduce product overlap between plants, and meet future production requirements.
“We are announcing this decision nearly one year in advance as part of our commitment to make the transition as smooth as possible.”
Home-appliance maker Whirlpool had sales of about $19 billion in 2008. It has 70,000 employees and 67 manufacturing and technology research centers around the world, and its brands include Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid and Jenn-Air.
Every state but Alaska lost manufacturing jobs during the past 12 months, according to a analysis of new federal data compiled by Buffalo Business First, a Business First sister paper.
Ohio experienced the worst drop, losing 127,000 manufacturing jobs in a year. California and Michigan also had declines in excess of 100,000 jobs. Kentucky ranked 35th, with 33,100 jobs lost, and Indiana lost 80,800, to rank 46th.
Alaska’s manufacturing sector had 22,100 jobs in July 2009, exactly the same as in July 2008. Every other state suffered a decline in manufacturing employment during that span, as did the District of Columbia, based on data complied by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The overall national loss was 1.52 million manufacturing jobs -- from 13.44 million in July 2008 to 11.92 million in July 2009.
The following is a state-by-state ranking of the change in manufacturing employment during the past year:
Alaska, no change in manufacturing jobs
Wyoming, loss of 200 manufacturing jobs
District of Columbia, loss of 300 manufacturing jobs
Hawaii, loss of 700 manufacturing jobs
Montana, loss of 900 manufacturing jobs
North Dakota, loss of 2,900 manufacturing jobs
Nevada, loss of 3,800 manufacturing jobs
Delaware, loss of 4,000 manufacturing jobs
New Mexico, loss of 4,100 manufacturing jobs
Rhode Island, loss of 4,500 manufacturing jobs
Maryland, loss of 4,800 manufacturing jobs
Vermont, loss of 4,800 manufacturing jobs
South Dakota, loss of 5,100 manufacturing jobs
West Virginia, loss of 6,600 manufacturing jobs
Maine, loss of 6,700 manufacturing jobs
New Hampshire, loss of 7,200 manufacturing jobs
Idaho, loss of 7,300 manufacturing jobs
Nebraska, loss of 9,600 manufacturing jobs
Louisiana, loss of 10,400 manufacturing jobs
Utah, loss of 13,700 manufacturing jobs
Arizona, loss of 13,800 manufacturing jobs
Mississippi, loss of 14,200 manufacturing jobs
Colorado, loss of 15,000 manufacturing jobs
Oklahoma, loss of 15,700 manufacturing jobs
Connecticut, loss of 15,800 manufacturing jobs
Massachusetts, loss of 16,300 manufacturing jobs
Arkansas, loss of 19,600 manufacturing jobs
Kansas, loss of 22,200 manufacturing jobs
New Jersey, loss of 24,300 manufacturing jobs
Washington, loss of 26,700 manufacturing jobs
Missouri, loss of 28,100 manufacturing jobs
Virginia, loss of 28,800 manufacturing jobs
Oregon, loss of 29,800 manufacturing jobs
South Carolina, loss of 29,900 manufacturing jobs
Iowa, loss of 30,400 manufacturing jobs
Kentucky, loss of 33,100 manufacturing jobs
Alabama, loss of 35,400 manufacturing jobs
Tennessee, loss of 38,500 manufacturing jobs
Minnesota, loss of 39,000 manufacturing jobs
Florida, loss of 42,300 manufacturing jobs
New York, loss of 44,400 manufacturing jobs
Georgia, loss of 52,400 manufacturing jobs
Wisconsin, loss of 57,800 manufacturing jobs
North Carolina, loss of 70,000 manufacturing jobs
Pennsylvania, loss of 73,100 manufacturing jobs
Texas, loss of 80,200 manufacturing jobs
Indiana, loss of 80,800 manufacturing jobs
Illinois, loss of 83,500 manufacturing jobs
Michigan, loss of 108,900 manufacturing jobs
California, loss of 123,400 manufacturing jobs
Ohio, loss of 127,000 manufacturing jobs
China reduces holdings in US debt
China wants to establish a new global currency regime
China reduced its holdings of US government debt by the largest margin in nearly nine years in June, according to data from the US Treasury.
China holds more US government debt than any other country and cut its holdings of US securities by more that 3% in June, said the BBC's Chris Hogg.
Japan and the UK - second and third largest holders of US debt - increased their holdings over the same period.
China's holding of US debt is about 7% higher than at the turn of the year.
Inflation fear
In recent months the US government's budget deficit has widened thanks in part to the Obama administration's costly stimulus plan.
Our correspondent in Shanghai says that China is worried about this, and fears the stimulus efforts will fuel inflation in the US, reducing the value of the dollar.
This would then erode the value of the debt China holds in the US currency.
In June, China cut its holdings of US securities by about $25bn, a fall of 3.1%.
'Dollar alternative'
The sales were made as the US treasury secretary was visiting Beijing to try to reassure the Chinese that their investment in his country's government debt is safe.
In 2008, the Chinese increased their holdings in US debt by 52% over 12 months.
"China has said it would like to establish an alternative to the US dollar as the world's favoured currency for foreign exchange reserves," said our correspondent.
"So far there is no evidence that there is a suitable alternative. But these figures suggest they are exploring ways to diversify their investments where they can."
