Made in USA often comes with a high price
In his first address after his victory speech â€" a two-and-a-half minute YouTube video posted Nov. 21 â€" President-elect Donald Trump dove right into the issue of trade.On his first day in office, Trump said, he plans to “issue a notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a disaster for our country.â€Free trade teals like the TPP and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) played a prominent role in Trump’s campaign message. Though the TPP is not yet in effect, Trump has consistently blamed NAFTA and other trade deals for shipping too many jobs overseas and hurting the U.S. economy.Although there is broad support for increasing U.S. manufacturing power overall, goods made in the U.S. are inevitably more expensive than those created in countries where labor is cheaper, such as China, Vietnam, and Mexico.
IPHONES (Apple)
During his campaign, Trump suggested that his administration could potentially get Apple to build their computers and devices in the U.S. instead of other countries. Nikkei Asian Review reported last month that Apple assembler Foxconn has actually been studying the possibility of moving iPhone production to the U.S. But a source told Nikkei that the cost of an iPhone would "more than double" if that were to happen. An evaluation by Marketplace looked into the hypothetical cost of an American-made iPhone, and came up with a similar estimate. If all the components were made in the U.S., they suggest, that could push the cost up to $600, which would mean the phone could retail for as much as $2000.According to a different analysis published in the MIT Technology Review, if iPhone assembly were done in the U.S. but the components were still sourced globally, the cost of making phones (currently estimated at about $230) would rise about 5%. However, if the components were made in the U.S. (with raw materials bought on the global market), that would add an additional $30 or $40 to the cost of making the device, an increase that would then be reflected in retail markups.Dan Panzica, chief analyst at IHS Markit Technology's Outsourced Manufacturing Intelligence Service, suggests these estimates all overlook a bigger problem.
JEANS
Panzica suggests that clothing costs could increase even more than that of electronics if they were manufactured in the U.S. For a device like the iPhone, he says, the majority of the cost is in the materials that go into it. But materials for shirts and pants are cheap - the labor makes up a higher portion of the cost of production.That's why apparel companies have shipped manufacturing overseas, he says."If you look at labor rates around some of the really cheap areas, Vietnam is like $2.50, and Bangladesh is like $1.80 an hour," he says. By comparison, IHS' analysts calculate the labor rate in the U.S. at $25-$30 per hour (a number that takes into account costs beyond an employee's wages). "So even if there's an hour worth of labor in a blouse or a men's shirt, now you're talking about a $25 buck difference per piece," he says of the manufacturing cost.That logic is reflected in "Made in the USA" lines sold by various U.S. clothing companies.Levi's "Original fit selvedge jeans" cost around $128. But the selvedge jeans of the same fit from the company's "Made in the USA" collection, which uses premium denim from Cone Mills of North Carolina, were listed online for $348. (As of writing they're on sale for $104.90, however.)JCrew's Wallace Barnes raw indigo selvedge jean, which is constructed in the U.S. using denim from Japan's Nihon Menu mill, are listed at $248. Other raw selvedge pairs for men cost $175.
Something to think about before we make Crony Deals to keep jobs in America that should have never existed here with the free market in the first place. Lower prices, ship manufacturing to poor 3rd world countries.SNEAKERS
A large percentage of footwear is made in Asian countries included in the TPP, and about 97 to 99% of sports footwear that's sold in the U.S. is made in other countries, according to the pro-trade group Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.The TPP would have reduced or eliminated tariffs for shoes imported from Vietnam and other countries, which might have reduced the overall cost of sneakers in the U.S. Companies like Adidas and Nike, which has 26 footwear factories in Vietnam, supported the trade partnership.New Balance, however, opposed the deal. On its website, the company boasts that it makes or assembles 4 million pairs of athletic footwear per year in the USA. New Balance labels its domestically made pairs for consumers, which also makes apparent the difference in price between those shoes and the ones made offshore.New Balance shoes range in price from $65 to $399, but the American-made pairs start at $165 and get as expensive as $399. (The most expensive pair on the New Balance website is indeed made in the U.S.) That means none of the lowest-priced pairs are manufactured domestically.A similar contrast is also visible in Reebok's shoes. The company makes a Postal Express line, which is made in the U.S. and designed specifically to meet the needs of postal workers. But the shoes range from $167-$230, whereas Reebok's regular athletic footwear costs between $80 and $165.
you said you didn't support marxism, where the public owns the means of production, followed by saying that the public should own the means of production. that's the contradiction.Not in the slightest. I'm starting to get the impression that it is you who lacks the capability to understand. How the government taking everything produced and "handing it out" has absolutely nothing to do with providing an advantage to domestic companies.
I'm not trying to be insulting here but honestly, your post was so far reaching that my head has not yet stopped spinning.
Excellent post :righton:you said you didn't support marxism, where the public owns the means of production, followed by saying that the public should own the means of production. that's the contradiction.
you don't realize it, because you think saying that a nation's companies have a duty to the public is somehow different. it's not. a nation's companies are the means of production. saying that they have a duty to the public, that they owe them something, is the logical equivalent of the public owning them.
First off, let me apologize for leaving out one statement. I know that you are not a pr*ck you're just coming off as one because of your constant high and mighty responses which you keep high fiveing yourself for.That was completely uncalled for, I have been extremely nice to you.
The reason you feel the need to call me a name is because you're feeling a stress, its called cognitive dissonance. Its your conscious screaming out to you because you're holding two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time.
It will make you hate me unfortunately. Usually the person who speaks the truth is generally hated when there is mass lying and indoctrination of false beliefs.
I was hoping you could handle it.
I've done 10 years worth of red-pilling daily, and I know what I'm talking about up to 4 hours of red-pilling every day for 10 years. I do research everyday.
I've earned it. I put in the work.
God Bless and I'll pray for you. I love you man. You may not know this, but I'm sharing this out of love. God Bless. Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and all that.
Please do not continue to personally attack me.
No, it's not. I'm not saying that the public should own the companies. Private property rights are paramount and should be protected. What I am saying is that as a wealthy owner of a large company the duty to the nation is to provide jobs for your people, to keep money within the economy of your nation by not outsourcing. Nothing more. Advocating that the people own everything is communism and I am opposed to it. However a private owner benefitting his own country is not.you said you didn't support marxism, where the public owns the means of production, followed by saying that the public should own the means of production. that's the contradiction.
you don't realize it, because you think saying that a nation's companies have a duty to the public is somehow different. it's not. a nation's companies are the means of production. saying that they have a duty to the public, that they owe them something, is the logical equivalent of the public owning them.
no, we're not going to see eye to eye on this, that's a given. but i'm pointing out you don't even see eye to eye with yourself. you cannot say that private property rights are paramount, and in the same breath talk about what companies owe others. i know you want to have it both ways, but you can't. those companies are the private property of an individual or individuals. they don't owe you @#$%.No, it's not. I'm not saying that the public should own the companies. Private property rights are paramount and should be protected. What I am saying is that as a wealthy owner of a large company the duty to the nation is to provide jobs for your people, to keep money within the economy of your nation by not outsourcing. Nothing more. Advocating that the people own everything is communism and I am opposed to it. However a private owner benefitting his own country is not.
I believe that having to type this into a forum is diluting my point. I realize what you're saying. Your belief is that the only obligation that an owner has is to himself and his shareholders, I disagree. He has an obligation (in my mind) to his nation.
Again, were on different sides of the coin here. Your beliefs are capitalist and mine are nationalist. We're never going to see eye to eye on this, never.
Again, you're taking things the wrong way. Private property rights meaning the owner is the owner. It's not nationalized, it's not property of the employees, etc.no, we're not going to see eye to eye on this, that's a given. but i'm pointing out you don't even see eye to eye with yourself. you cannot say that private property rights are paramount, and in the same breath talk about what companies owe others. i know you want to have it both ways, but you can't. those companies are the private property of an individual or individuals. they don't owe you @#$%.
property...either the individual owns it (private), or the nation/countrymen/collective does (public). they are mutually exclusive options. you've just contradicted yourself, again, using different words.Again, you're taking things the wrong way. Private property rights meaning the owner is the owner. It's not nationalized, it's not property of the employees, etc.
National responsibility is what I mean. The companies have an obligation to their nation, their countrymen...
these are strawmen. i sense that you're more capable than that, and i'm not dumb enough to be distracted by them. save us both the time.How can people be of a mindset where they're willing to fight and die for their country but feel that businesses benefiting the country is bad or that domestic production having an advantage in the market is bad?
you're trying to make both logical and moral cases for your position. however, you're ignoring the hidden cost...slavery. to "save a job", as you would put it, you would necessarily enslave another, the owner of the company. that's not moral.Honestly, what is it that makes saving a few bucks on cheap crap worth putting Americans out of work?
He's talking about some abstract idea that has no bearing in reality. It has no actual physical presence or meaning in this world. Its just some abstract idea to try to justify and rationalize theft.property...either the individual owns it (private), or the nation/countrymen/collective does (public). they are mutually exclusive options. you've just contradicted yourself, again, using different words.
He's most certainly capable of a lot.these are strawmen. i sense that you're more capable than that, and i'm not dumb enough to be distracted by them. save us both the time.
Wow, that truth just hit home really heavy right now. Well said man. The logic is undeniable.you're trying to make both logical and moral cases for your position. however, you're ignoring the hidden cost...slavery. to "save a job", as you would put it, you would necessarily enslave another, the owner of the company. that's not moral.
I think its just been so ingrained in our American culture from a young age, this US v. THEM mentality of "Well if my guy wins, we get to tell the other guys what they have to do for 4 years." Or whatever. Its a joke.what authority do you have to tell people what they can or cannot buy; do or cannot do? who exactly do you think you are to determine that for others? would you allow me the same authority over you? if not, why not? if so, it's a wash. so, your position isn't logical, either.
And there you have it.A government and/or a private business owner has NO, none, ZERO "National Responsibility" to do anything or not do anything for the country in which is corporation is registered and resides. None.
Its a collectivist idea.
He may have shareholders and responsibilities to them.
He may have a wife and kid and responsibility to them to be moral and make money and not flake out on them.
No National Responsibility to do anything or not do anything.
That's not true and clearly a lie. You cannot do anything unethical or immoral.And there you have it.
You're for personal gain no matter the cost and I'm for the benefit of the nation.
Very clearly outlines your capitalist and my nationalist views.
A fictional character in an Objectivist fantasy.Read Henry Rearden
Rand:Read Henry Rearden, then you've got some idea about my feelings on capitalism.
So what is your "productive career," the "fullest and most purposeful use of [your] mind?""Productive work" does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man's ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.
Yet he nails the ideas how I feel about capitalism. So does Ayn Rand, a real person, who wrote non fiction logic books about Objectivism.A fictional character in an Objectivist fantasy.
Economic education from a fictional character?Read Henry Rearden, then you've got some idea about my feelings on capitalism. Also, my feelings on any government force applied to our economy.
Thinly veiled ad hominem is thinly veiled. :rotfl:Rand:
So what is your "productive career," the "fullest and most purposeful use of [your] mind?"
From Ayn Rand and her non fiction books on objectivism.Economic education from a fictional character?
Since you ask I have a finance degree from a great department at a great university. Studied under the renowned Jurgen Brauer.Economic education from a fictional character?
