What Apple would have to do to comply with Donald Trump's American-built mandate

2456710

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 191
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    bweston said:
    I'm not speaking as a Trump supporter… he's not my guy… but I can't stand media mischaracterizations, and this is just one of a litany of such…

    There was no "mandate", nor did he say anything about "forcing" Apple to do anything. Specific words spoken, in the context of Making America Great Again, were "I think we're going to get things coming. We're going to get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

    This reads as if to say "we are going to make Apple WANT to start building their damn computers in this country again"… again, you make America great, manufacturing comes back here. It is irresponsible to use the word "mandate" or to assume that he was talking about doing anything by force.
    I expect the context was taken to be Trump's "solution" for a similar issue with Ford: and that was sock Ford with a minimum 35% import tariff for any vehicle assembled outside the U.S. borders. Thus making Ford "want" to eliminate that 35% price disadvantage and manufacture cars within the U.S.....
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 22 of 191
    Does the US have to settle for sacrificing the lower middle class and below to the alter of artificially low prices just to prop up the wages of those in Washington and NYC? We could vary well support our poor by giving them jobs instead of propping up the Chinese economy. If only the 1% benefit from the current system (this has been proven economically and sociologically based on quality of life metrics), why is it worth it for the 99% to keep it the same. This is why Trump is popular... He is actually saying he will fight for the poor and not the establishment (the 1%).
    tallest skilk2kw
  • Reply 23 of 191
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    The higher labor costs in the US could be partially offset by the lowering of the corporate tax and repatriating the capital back to the US. In the long run, the profit margins of around 40-45% that Apple has been showing would likely be in the mid-30% range, but this would also apply to Apple's competitors, and thus should not cause any long-term negative effect for shareholders. Apple has been accumulating mountains of cash due to its high profitability, and the stock has been moving sideways for the last 4 years. In fact, the AAPL stock price is now lower than it was in August of 2012, so it's been 3 1/2 years of lost time for long-term AAPL investors, whereas the amount of Apple's cash reserves probably doubled since then. 

    Apple has no clear vision about what to do with the mountains of cash that it's sitting on. If Apple could repatriate the cash reserves back to the US, it could at least increase the dividend and thus compensate the shareholders for a temporary effect that the lowering of profit margins may cause. In the long run, I believe everyone would win if the US government created favorable conditions for the US companies to bring manufacturing back to the US by a combination of increased tariffs on goods manufactures overseas, by instituting a lower corporate tax rate, and by other measures. We could also lift the US inner city population out of poverty if we brought production back to US cities, and thus the tax payers would benefit because of the reduced cost of social programs that would not have to be used to support tens of millions of poor Americans who are currently unemployed due to the lack of high-tech skills required to participate in the current US labor market, which is devoid of manufacturing jobs. 
    edited January 2016 trumptmanfrankietallest skil
  • Reply 24 of 191
    frankie said:
    The poor and lower middle class who have been left out of the economy for the past two decades due to globalist elites might still be worth supporting. (note: all wealth gain has gone to the top 1% in the US since the 1970s) Because our current system (and that proposed by the dems) is that it is better to not have a job than have a job that you don't want (one reason the dems voicing support the US economy losing 2 million people in the workforce due to the affordable care act), it could be an improvement to actually raise costs and reduce taxes. Consider: walmart pays their workers next to nothing because of the tacit agreement with the elite that their workers will be subsidized an additional $18 or so from our taxes in the form of earned income tax credits (for example). tl;dr: We could raise costs and lower taxes and improve the quality of life for Americans. Is it worth propping up the anti-human right Chinese govt. with our innovative technologies and growing their economy while our 99% suffer?
    Or we could actually make multibillion dollar corps actually pay taxes, living wages, keep jobs in America, and make BUYING that allows all these illegal.
    Yeah, and you're going to sell a whole heck of a lot of them only in America....

    Also, would you also ban non-US manufacturers from selling here? If so, why stop at smartphones?
    jbdragon
  • Reply 25 of 191

    The poor and lower middle class who have been left out of the economy for the past two decades due to globalist elites might still be worth supporting. (note: all wealth gain has gone to the top 1% in the US since the 1970s) Because our current system (and that proposed by the dems) is that it is better to not have a job than have a job that you don't want (one reason the dems voicing support the US economy losing 2 million people in the workforce due to the affordable care act), it could be an improvement to actually raise costs and reduce taxes. Consider: walmart pays their workers next to nothing because of the tacit agreement with the elite that their workers will be subsidized an additional $18 or so from our taxes in the form of earned income tax credits (for example). tl;dr: We could raise costs and lower taxes and improve the quality of life for Americans. Is it worth propping up the anti-human right Chinese govt. with our innovative technologies and growing their economy while our 99% suffer?
    I am sorry, but since when is it the mandate of profit-making businesses to support "the poor and lower middle class?" What is a government for, then?

    And, are you saying that you never shop at Walmart? What is the typical demographics of the person that shops at Walmart?
    edited January 2016 jbdragonSpamSandwich
  • Reply 26 of 191
    Even with robots, how will you replicate the component supply chain, all of which is pretty much in Asia today?
    morky said:
    The robotics solution will play out eventually, regardless of mandates.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 27 of 191
    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made headlines this week with a protectionist proposal that included a vow to force Apple "to build their damn computers and things in this country" if he's elected. It's a suggestion that has been outright dismissed by most observers -- but should it be?

    Audit
    Worker prepares iPhone for final assembly. | Source: Apple Supplier Responsibility Report


    Trump's campaign promise is based in part on the imposition of a 35 percent tariff on products manufactured overseas. This would, he believes, give companies a significant economic incentive to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

    There are more than a few holes in this line of reasoning: it would be diplomatically disastrous, and there's no data to suggest that an American manufacturing sector built on a foundation of heavy industry would be nimble enough to take on this kind of challenge at a large scale. Nonetheless, the president does have the power to impose protectionist tariffs, so let's see how Apple could handle it.

    Before you read on, it's important to note that we're performing a somewhat naive analysis: we're focusing on what essentially constitutes final assembly, and ignoring the very real economies that come from having nearly the entire supply chain around the corner.

    Cheap labor gets expensive



    Employee wages are almost always the first factor cited when discussing manufacturing in the developing world. Shenzhen has one of the highest wage floors in China, and its minimum statutory wage clocks in at around ?2,000 -- about $300 per month.

    That's less than a quarter of what it would cost for an employee working a nominal 160-hour month at Wyoming's $5.15-per-hour minimum wage, the lowest in the U.S. If we assume the fully-loaded cost of a single employee is 1.5 times their salary, that works out to around $1,200 per month.
    One U.S. employee costs four times as much as a single Chinese employee.
    Of course, Apple would likely continue to contract with third parties for their hypothetical new U.S. assembly plant -- as they've done with Flextronics in the Mac Pro's Texas facility -- making them responsible for a smaller portion of employees' compensation.

    That's still a significant jump, though. So how to solve it?

    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords



    The easiest path forward would be to erase labor costs entirely by building fully-automated factories. They've certainly got the pedigree; Steve Jobs spent exorbitantly to build a robotic factory for NeXT in the company's formative days.

    Unfortunately, it's not as easy as just calling ABB and ordering a few 'bots. Each robot must be programmed -- and in many cases, designed from the ground up -- for its specific task, and there are some jobs that still require levels of dexterity that robots simply can't achieve.

    They're also expensive, with basic off-the-shelf models coming in at $10,000 to $20,000 each and more complex versions running as much as $100,000. Taiwan-based Foxconn is thought to have around 350,000 employees dedicated to iPhone assembly -- that's $12.25 billion worth of robots, assuming an average cost of $35,000.

    Of course, the richest company in the world could afford it, but it wouldn't help much when you consider that many supply chain guesstimators currently peg labor costs at no more than $5 per iPhone.

    Don't forget that they'll also have to make Macs, iPads, Apple Pencils, Magic Trackpads, and the rest of Apple's product line -- which means more robots and more infrastructure.


    Apple's manufacturing facility in Cork, Ireland


    So what then?



    No matter how creative Apple gets in restructuring its manufacturing operations, there's simply no way they could absorb a 35-percent increase in overhead. That cost will be passed on to consumers -- who'll now have less money to spend, because the massive multi-billion dollar investment in industrial robotics will likely have put at least a few more blue collar workers out of a job.

    With the $649 base-model iPhone now coming in at $876, it's no wonder Apple is working on a new low-cost 4-inch "iPhone 6c."


    Apple will have to sacrifice part of its huge margins in order to keep prices within reach of its customer base
  • Reply 28 of 191
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    Trump is a master of keeping his name in the media by saying outrageous stuff that mostly could never be implemented. 
    jbdragonfrankiewetlandermacxpresscali
  • Reply 29 of 191
    Mr_GreyMr_Grey Posts: 118member
    The people who want everything to be "Made in the USA" and at the same time "give people a decent wage" are absolute fools.  At best you are living in some deluded version of the 1950's.  

    Dear USA, the rest of the world wants to know WHY "made in America" is even something to strive for.  I have yet to hear any coherent answer to this question that isn't just some re-phrasing of "Because."  

    The time when all countries manufactured distributed and sold all the products they consumed are long since gone.  Even in the 1950's this was starting to be true.  To not see this is to not understand almost anything about the world economy. 
    jbdragonSpamSandwichpropod
  • Reply 30 of 191
    sog35 said:

    What??????????!!!!!!

    Are you nuts?
    edited November 2016 tallest skilmacxpressmwhitechristophb
  • Reply 31 of 191

    The poor and lower middle class who have been left out of the economy for the past two decades due to globalist elites might still be worth supporting. (note: all wealth gain has gone to the top 1% in the US since the 1970s) Because our current system (and that proposed by the dems) is that it is better to not have a job than have a job that you don't want (one reason the dems voicing support the US economy losing 2 million people in the workforce due to the affordable care act), it could be an improvement to actually raise costs and reduce taxes. Consider: walmart pays their workers next to nothing because of the tacit agreement with the elite that their workers will be subsidized an additional $18 or so from our taxes in the form of earned income tax credits (for example). tl;dr: We could raise costs and lower taxes and improve the quality of life for Americans. Is it worth propping up the anti-human right Chinese govt. with our innovative technologies and growing their economy while our 99% suffer?
    I am sorry, but since when is it the mandate of profit-making businesses to support "the poor and lower middle class?" What is a government for, then?

    And, are you saying that you never shop at Walmart? What is the typical demographics of the person that shops at Walmart?

    It is the mandate of a business to add wealth to society through healthy feedback of attracting customers. It is the government's mandate to create conditions that allow this to happen in a way that is healthy for the society that represents it.

    Currently, our govt. incentivizes American corporations incorrectly.

    Since when is it the mandate of profit-making businesses to support the poor by forcing society at large to support their poor business practices. This is what happens in the case of many employers now like the walmart example above. They pay people below living wages and force society to bear the cost while the executives continue to absorb all the wealth creation.

    Consider that through the technical revolution in the last 50 years, and all the accompanying productivity gains, have gone entirely towards wealth creation for the 1%. Does that seem odd to you?

    Govt. can change their policy to create an environment that doesn't incentivize companies to not share the productivity-driven wealth creation with 99% of their employees. 
    frankietallest skil
  • Reply 32 of 191
    Others have said it, we live in a world that has shrunk and there is no way we are going to, or should, try to become some isolated, protectionist, country.  It is ridiculous at best to suggest we do so, and in reality is just pandering to an un-educated populace who are "mad" about things they don't even understand.  One of my business partners complained about the ACA, yet recognizes that without it, he wouldn't be able to afford or get health insurance.  And because he feels betrayed by this fact, then he complains that it's not really affordable - because you know it's "Obama's fault that he couldn't make insurance cost less".

    Trump is selling the idea of what he thinks was a great America, one from the 1950's, where women participated in society by staying home to raise the kids, and anyone of color (read as not WASP) knew their place in the world.  American's should be embarrassed of Trump and the "ideals" he is spewing.
    frankiewetlanderchiapropod
  • Reply 33 of 191
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    morky said:
    The robotics solution will play out eventually, regardless of mandates.
    So they were saying - in the 1990's
  • Reply 34 of 191
    Others have said it, we live in a world that has shrunk and there is no way we are going to, or should, try to become some isolated, protectionist, country.  It is ridiculous at best to suggest we do so, and in reality is just pandering to an un-educated populace who are "mad" about things they don't even understand.  One of my business partners complained about the ACA, yet recognizes that without it, he wouldn't be able to afford or get health insurance.  And because he feels betrayed by this fact, then he complains that it's not really affordable - because you know it's "Obama's fault that he couldn't make insurance cost less".

    Trump is selling the idea of what he thinks was a great America, one from the 1950's, where women participated in society by staying home to raise the kids, and anyone of color (read as not WASP) knew their place in the world.  American's should be embarrassed of Trump and the "ideals" he is spewing.

    Curious, if we shouldn't try to be protectionist ("protecting those in our nation"), who should we strive to protect? In the past, typically you start by protecting your family, and then when that is taken care of you move on to community, state, nation, etc. You seem to be proposing a flipped perspective of 'help the world' at a time when most of the world still yearns to protect themselves first (i.e. at a time when it is suicide to think good intentions and sacrifice will lead to a greater good. e.g. China in regards to massive human rights abuses).

    It's interesting you bring up the 1950's, because in the US quality of life surveys indicate that women are far less satisfied with quality of life today than they were in the 50's.

    Many on the ACA are paying $1000 premiums with $10k deductibles. That's not really insurance. 

    Single payer is the economically sound solution due to economies of scale arguments. Only Sanders and Trump support single payer.
    ben20frankie
  • Reply 35 of 191
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,774member
    Mr. Trump needs to stop using any material in his hotels/casinos not made in USA. And he can't do so he is full of Shit!! He also needs to tell Walmart,Amazon,Target,all of retailers, companies to stop import and manufacturing stuff out side of USA. which he can't so so he is full of shit!!
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 36 of 191
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    Mr_Grey said:

    Dear USA, the rest of the world wants to know WHY "made in America" is even something to strive for.  I have yet to hear any coherent answer to this question that isn't just some re-phrasing of "Because."  

    I don't think people really expect everything to be made in the USA. It is probably more about fear of China's militaristic attitude and their superpower status. They temporarily cut off Japan's access to rare earth elements a while back because of a dispute and they could do the same to the US. They also recently conducted a live fire practice drill off the coast of Taiwan which is viewed as a significant provocation. China is a ticking time bomb in my opinion.

    My perspective is that the US should strategically keep a decent percent of every major industrial sector inside the US lest they find themselves unable to defend the country for lack of electronic components required for military and space technology. I have no data, but I imagine that there are numerous Chinese supplied parts used on most of the US defense hardware. Keep your powder dry.
    wetlander
  • Reply 37 of 191
    sog35 said:
    Solution: 
    I think you need to talk to a shrink.

    Your posts have become increasingly disturbed and I genuinely and honestly think you are in need of and should seriously seek some help.

    No joke.

    edited November 2016 singularitymwhitechristophb
  • Reply 38 of 191
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Others have said it, we live in a world that has shrunk and there is no way we are going to, or should, try to become some isolated, protectionist, country.  It is ridiculous at best to suggest we do so, and in reality is just pandering to an un-educated populace who are "mad" about things they don't even understand.  One of my business partners complained about the ACA, yet recognizes that without it, he wouldn't be able to afford or get health insurance.  And because he feels betrayed by this fact, then he complains that it's not really affordable - because you know it's "Obama's fault that he couldn't make insurance cost less".

    Trump is selling the idea of what he thinks was a great America, one from the 1950's, where women participated in society by staying home to raise the kids, and anyone of color (read as not WASP) knew their place in the world.  American's should be embarrassed of Trump and the "ideals" he is spewing.

    Curious, if we shouldn't try to be protectionist ("protecting those in our nation"), who should we strive to protect? In the past, typically you start by protecting your family, and then when that is taken care of you move on to community, state, nation, etc. You seem to be proposing a flipped perspective of 'help the world' at a time when most of the world still yearns to protect themselves first (i.e. at a time when it is suicide to think good intentions and sacrifice will lead to a greater good. e.g. China in regards to massive human rights abuses).

    It's interesting you bring up the 1950's, because in the US quality of life surveys indicate that women are far less satisfied with quality of life today than they were in the 50's.

    Many on the ACA are paying $1000 premiums with $10k deductibles. That's not really insurance. 

    Single payer is the econo
    mically sound solution due to economies of scale arguments. Only Sanders and Trump support single payer.
    We're not living in the 1950's; seems this kind of fracking needs repeating and it's not coming back because were not going to get a WWIII
    and other countries are not going to accept the US's jingoism just to please it.
    The US economy was booming mostly because the rest of the world had been utterly decimated and when it got rebuilt, the US was all primed and ready to produce.

    As the European economies started to recover quickly by the late 1950s, the US economy started to slow down.
    The organizations that opened commerce to rebuilt the economies abroad was made so to avoid what had happened in the previous 50 years.
    Bad economies, lack of multilateral cooperation and protectionism led to near total world wide disaster.

    Send me some fracking links about ACA that doesn't from your master Trump or Fox.

    As for Sanders he's a populist like Trump, just not a racist or Xenophone; he also doesn't have a clue on many things (like most populists).

    If you think Trump could get single payer approved by the republican (if he even really supports it), you're really out to lunch.
    lymf
  • Reply 39 of 191
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    bweston said:
    I'm not speaking as a Trump supporter… he's not my guy… but I can't stand media mischaracterizations, and this is just one of a litany of such…

    There was no "mandate", nor did he say anything about "forcing" Apple to do anything. Specific words spoken, in the context of Making America Great Again, were "I think we're going to get things coming. We're going to get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

    This reads as if to say "we are going to make Apple WANT to start building their damn computers in this country again"… again, you make America great, manufacturing comes back here. It is irresponsible to use the word "mandate" or to assume that he was talking about doing anything by force.
    He can do no such thing, He's a liar in the extreme and it doesn't matter since whatever he says, someone will defend it.
    There is no misrepresentation and you are a Trump supporter or you wouldn't even attempt to defend his crap.

    his jingoist "making American great" (sic) is sickening on sight. The US is right now one of the only bright economic spot on earth and is already good. Could it be better: yes, everyone strives for better.
    edited January 2016 frankieMacPro
  • Reply 40 of 191
    ben20ben20 Posts: 126member
    Foxconn already said 2 years ago they can do it, here is the Wall Street Journal article.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579344013148753716

    A positive attitude helps ! Just look at the poll numbers what America wants !


Sign In or Register to comment.