Welcome to Manufacturing Minute!

I'm glad you're here.

Let's get to it.

🚨In the News

This week, Whirlpool dropped an announcement that they were investing $300 million into their Ohio plants, where, by the way, they crank out the washing machines and dryers probably sitting in half the basements in America.

I also didn’t know that about 80% of the appliances Whirlpool sells in the US are made right here (none of this “assembled in Alabama, but everything else shipped in from who-knows-where” stuff).

Pretty cool.

🏭 Manufacturing Minute

Was chatting with Michael Carroll of LNS yesterday, and we got into Ron Hetrick's (of Lightcast fame) recent take on AI and layoffs. The numbers are wild: AI spend is up 67% this year. So are layoffs.

Everyone's assuming the obvious connection… AI replaced workers, therefore layoffs.

Case closed.

But what if we've got the story backwards?

Here's the thing that keeps bugging me: AI isn't free. Not even close. You need AI engineers (expensive). Cloud compute (really expensive). Integration work (surprisingly expensive). Training, infrastructure, consulting fees—the bill adds up fast.

So where does that money come from?

Maybe companies aren't cutting jobs because AI replaced them. Maybe they're cutting jobs to pay for AI.

It's a budget shuffle. The CFO looks at the P&L, sees a massive new line item called "AI Transformation," and asks the uncomfortable question: "Where are we getting this money?"

The answer? Headcount. Always headcount.

Think about it from the manufacturing side. How many times have we seen plants delay necessary automation upgrades because "we can't afford it"? Then suddenly they're buying million-dollar machines. Where'd the money come from? Usually some combination of deferred maintenance, reduced staffing, and creative accounting.

This feels similar, just at a corporate scale.

I'm not saying AI can't replace jobs—it absolutely can and will. But right now, in 2025, with companies scrambling to not get left behind? I'd bet a lot of these "AI-driven layoffs" are really "we need to fund our AI strategy somehow" layoffs.

The irony is brutal. We're letting people go to pay for technology that might (eventually) do their jobs. But in the meantime, we're just understaffed and over-invested in systems that aren't quite ready.

What's your take? Am I overthinking this, or are we watching the biggest budget reshuffling in corporate history disguised as technological progress?

Hit reply and let me know what you're seeing in your world.

—Ryan

P.S., Whether you're trying to make sense of Industry 4.0, struggling with legacy systems, or just need a sounding board from someone who's navigated similar waters, let's talk. Book Your 30-Minute Strategy Call