If the results of our annual salary survey are any indication, the economy is indeed bouncing back—and bringing logistics professionals' compensation along with it.
We may be in a "jobless recovery" and the 2013 holiday shopping season may have been a disappointing one for many retailers, but with the housing market gaining traction, industrial production on the upswing, and the U.S. economy improving in many other respects, it's not surprising that U.S. consumer confidence is up—way up. In fact, the monthly average for the Reuters/University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index for 2013 was the highest since 2007.
Readers of DC Velocity have their own reason to feel upbeat about their economic circumstances: In 2013, the average compensation for respondents to our annual salary survey was $119,538—up 10 percent over last year's average. The median, or the midpoint of all salaries reported, was $102,000, up from $90,000 the previous year. While the mix of respondents who participate in the survey in any particular year will have a big impact on the average numbers, there's no question that the majority of survey takers are better off than they were a year ago. Well over two-thirds (69 percent) of the 443 qualified respondents said their annual compensation increased last year. In terms of size, those raises remained flat, though—a little above 6 percent on average, slightly higher than the previous year. Meanwhile, about one-fourth (26 percent) said their salaries had stayed the same. And just 5 percent said they were making less money in 2013 than they did the year before, the smallest percentage since before the Great Recession.
All of those numbers are an improvement over the previous survey's responses. Last year, 62 percent of respondents said they had received raises in 2012, 31 percent said their salaries had stayed the same, and 7 percent took pay cuts. That continues a pattern we've seen since 2010: more respondents reporting raises, and fewer and fewer reporting stagnant or declining salaries. The steady drop in respondents who suffered pay cuts suggests that fewer readers are out of work or are being forced to take lower-paying jobs these days.
PUTTING IN THE TIME
Their compensation may be on the way up, but readers certainly are not sitting back and enjoying their raises. In fact, they seem to be working harder than ever. Only 20 percent of those who took part in the survey said they worked 45 hours or less during the average week. Another 70 percent said they typically worked 46 to 60 hours a week (including time spent working outside the office). A no-doubt-exhausted 10 percent said they're devoting more than 60 hours a week to their jobs. And it doesn't seem to matter much what your title, industry, or location may be—with 92 percent of respondents reporting that their work hours had increased or stayed the same over the previous three years, it's clear that almost everyone is putting in their time, and then some.
One possible reason for the long hours is that most of the respondents have more responsibilities than they did in the past. Sixty-four percent of the survey participants reported that the number of functions they manage has increased over the past three years. Another 32 percent said their responsibilities had stayed the same, and just 4 percent reported a decrease. It's rare, moreover, for a reader to be responsible for a single function. Fewer than two-dozen of the survey takers said they have one functional responsibility, and more than half said they are responsible for three or more of the six functions mentioned in the survey. The greater the number of functions you oversee, of course, the more people to manage. No surprise, then, that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the survey respondents said they had five or more direct reports.
Another reason why DCV readers work so hard is that on average, 18 percent of their compensation is based on their performance. Vice presidents, directors, and managers in the third-party logistics, wholesale, and transportation businesses are most likely to have 50 percent or more of their pay based on performance.
With respondents reporting a wide range of titles and responsibilities, it's inevitable that our survey would show a significant range in salaries. Which titles pay the most on average? Corporate officers were at the top of the salary ladder. The average salary for C-level respondents was $250,364—considerably higher than the average salary of vice presidents, who at $181,077 were better paid than presidents and directors. They reported average salaries of $146,892 and $124,630, respectively.
From there, it's a big drop down to the lower levels. Managers made over $37,000 less than directors, and supervisors earned approximately $23,000 less than managers. Exhibit 1 shows the average salary for each title.
EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION COUNT
Job title may carry the most weight, but many other factors influence how much an individual logistics or supply chain professional makes. The region where you work, which industry you work in, your level of education, and how long you've been in the business will typically play a big role in determining your salary.
Let's start with education. Did your parents advise you to go to college so you'd make more money? They knew what they were talking about. Exhibit 2 illustrates the strong correlation between earnings and education. The average salary for respondents with only a high school diploma was $97,450. It was a big step up from there to a bachelor's degree—the highest level of education for nearly half of the survey respondents; those respondents took home an average salary of $121,113. A master's degree (either in the field or in business) was worth an additional $24,000.
Experience in the field also influences earnings (see Exhibit 3). The average salary of newcomers to the profession (those with five or fewer years of experience in logistics) was $85,620, while the median for that group was a respectable $77,000. Once you get up in the range of 16 years or more of logistics experience, both the average and the median salaries climb to well above $100,000. With an average salary of $148,675 and a median of $120,000, those who have been in the business longest (respondents with more than 25 years' experience) command a hefty premium for their expertise.
As Exhibit 4 shows, which industry you work in can have an enormous impact on your salary. Since nearly half of respondents are at the director level or above, it's not surprising that most of the industry averages exceed $100,000. The highest-paying industries include such high-growth sectors as third-party logistics ($160,357), pharmaceutical and health care ($136,526), and apparel and footwear ($136,569). On the opposite end of the scale are the perennially lower-paying industries like furniture and fixtures, at $87,222, and government and military, at $69,605.
There have always been significant differences in pay scales among the various geographic regions, and that continues to be true, as Exhibit 5 makes clear. The highest average pay, $141,981, was in the Southeast, home to some of the fastest-growing manufacturing and distribution areas in the country. The Midwest—still America's industrial heartland, with 38 percent of survey respondents—was next, at $123,846. New England reported the lowest average salary, the only region that came in at less than $100,000.
AGE HAS ITS REWARDS
A potpourri of other factors can have an influence on salaries. Our survey found that a respondent's age and gender, and the size of the company he or she works for can also make a difference.
Take age, for example. It's logical that salaries should increase with age, and that's exactly what the survey results showed. Younger folks—those in the 26-35 age range—averaged a respectable $88,730. Middle age has its rewards, though. Respondents aged 36 to 45 reported average salaries of $103,022, and the next bracket (46-55) made about $16,000 more. Those who stick with this profession for the long haul will be rewarded: Elder statesmen (and women) age 56 and older, the majority of whom have higher-level positions, earned average salaries of $133,650.
For as long as logistics industry salary surveys have been around, women have lagged behind men in terms of their compensation, and this year was no different. Female respondents earned an average of $84,601, while male respondents reported an average salary of $123,489—a difference of nearly $40,000, or 32 percent. That difference can be attributed in large part to less education, lower positions, and fewer years of experience than their male counterparts. One-third of female respondents had a high school education only, and just five of the women survey takers held vice president titles. Sixty-one percent of the women who responded to this year's survey had 15 years' experience or less, compared with 28 percent of the men.
The size of the company you work for makes a difference in your salary. As you might expect, small businesses—those with fewer than 100 employees—pay the least, an average salary of $92,277. Working for a larger company will get you a larger salary—at least $20,000 more for this year's respondents. Working for the largest corporations (those with more than 5,000 employees) does not guarantee the highest salaries, though. Respondents who worked for companies with between 500 and 1,000 employees did best, with an average salary of $157,350.
UPWARD BOUND?
As anyone who's ever undergone a salary review well knows, there are countless variables that might influence a person's compensation—not just the many factors mentioned above, but also such considerations as job performance, departmental budget, internal politics, and perks and benefits, to name a few.
But it's also clear that salaries reflect overall economic conditions. As orders and shipping volumes continue to climb, e-commerce expands, and more manufacturing returns to North America, demand for capable, knowledgeable logistics and supply chain talent will also continue to grow. And that means the size of their paychecks is likely to stay on an upward trajectory for some time to come.
What makes you happy ... or not?
As part of this year's annual salary survey, we asked respondents how they feel about their profession: Are they satisfied with their choice? Would they recommend it to others? What do they like most about their jobs? What do they like least? Here's a quick look at what they had to say.
The vast majority of respondents—88 percent—are satisfied with their career in logistics. Just 12 percent regret their choice. The same percentages said they would recommend the profession to a young person (or not).
Respondents like the logistics profession's fast pace; the variety of responsibilities, projects, and challenges; and its dynamic and flexible nature. "There's always a new challenge, and what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow," said one survey taker. Another likes "the ability to effect change, set strategy, and impact decision making."
There were plenty of complaints, too. Compliance with constantly changing regulations, being stretched too thin with inadequate resources, bureaucracy and politics, corporate roadblocks to efficiency and productivity, and the failure to understand logistics' contributions were among the things respondents like least about their jobs.
What would make survey takers happier in their work (besides a raise)? Some responses were specific to the individual, such as more vacation time, less travel, and more reasonable work hours. "Either give me additional headcount or put me and my team on fewer projects," said one respondent. But many focused on broader concerns, such as having clear and achievable key performance indicators (KPIs); having access to more training—not just on functional responsibilities but also to enable upward mobility; improving internal teamwork and collaboration; and having upper management understand and value logistics and its contributions. One respondent would like to see his employer "focus more on long-term improvements and less on hitting quarterly numbers," while another wants "transparency as to strategy, vision, and communications."
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."