/linked/2016/11/17/iphones-us

Comments

anonymous:
There's no reason this couldn't happen if people actually wanted to do it.
8:07 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
Of course it could happen. Gruber may not want it to happen because it would invalidate Apple's earlier defense (that they couldn't "find 3,000 workers overnight"), but of course it could happen.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/21/apple-china
8:17 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
It could happen, but it would be a years-long process, and would involve a massive increase in immigration.

Do you think Trump/Republicans would allow the massive surge in immigrant workers it would require?
8:28 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
And by "years-long" I mean like a decade-long process.
8:28 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
Even if it takes a decade, so what?

And, no, it would not require "massive" immigration.

It would, however, bump iPhone prices.

Hopefully Tim Cook's successor makes it happen.
9:04 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
webOS & BB10 forever:
Of course, and this is what's freaking out Gruber, is that Apple itself is considering eliminating the middleman and hiring American workers to assemble an iPhone, whether it is the low-end SE or a high-end 8. Parts would likely come from the Far East. Apple choosing a Right to Work state would also cause Gruber and his fellow libs to wail and grind their teeth for the next eight years!
9:13 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>Even if it takes a decade, so what?

So the people who were saying that it would be simple to just start manufacturing in the US were wrong.

>And, no, it would not require "massive" immigration.

So, where are you going to get the workers from?

>It would, however, bump iPhone prices.

Thus making the product unviable, as it would still have to compete with other companies manufacturing in Asia. Making the whole idea pointless.

The only way that moving production to the US makes any sense is if it is price-competitive.
9:18 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
> Apple itself is considering eliminating the middleman and hiring American workers to assemble an iPhone, whether it is the low-end SE or a high-end 8.

How does that eliminate the middle-men, who are the component manufacturers?

Assembling the final product does nothing to eliminate middle-men.
9:20 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
gruber circlejerk:
> How does that eliminate the middle-men, who are the component manufacturers?

I assume "middle-men" means Foxconn. But the article itself mentions how Apple asked Foxconn to look into manufacturing in the US.
9:26 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
No one suggested Apple would be able to start manufacturing iPhones here overnight.

There are tens of millions of able, working-age people out of the workforce.

So you only buy an iPhone because of the bargain-basement price?
9:31 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>No one suggested Apple would be able to start manufacturing iPhones here overnight.

Actually, they did.

>There are tens of millions of able, working-age people out of the workforce.

Not with the training or willingness to work in such a factory.

>So you only buy an iPhone because of the bargain-basement price?

it's not about what I personally buy (which is an extreme outlier) but what the market will bear.

And the market is already stretched to its limit of how much more it's willing to pay for something with an Apple logo.
9:37 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
jimothy:
> The only way that moving production to the US makes any sense is if it is price-competitive.

There are two ways to make this price competitive. The first is massive automation, so phones are made in the United States, but mostly by machines and not humans. Manufacturing, regardless of location, has been following this route for decades, and the trend will continue.

So, if iPhones are manufactured in the US, it will not significantly affect US employment.

The second way, coming from the Smoot-Hawley-Hoover-Sanders-Trump school of economic thought (or lack thereof) is to impose high tariffs on imports. This doesn't make the price of US production any lower, but raises import prices to the point of making them uncompetitive with domestic production.

Needless to to say, the second way is a disaster. This could also be called the Harrison Bergeron Approach.
9:48 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
Who suggested it? When? Relevant to this news? No, no and no.

It would be easy to find millions willing to work in an Apple factory, under Apple manufacturing conditions, for Apple manufacturing pay.

Even just looking at the last decade, we’ve shed millions of manufacturing jobs that would require minimal retraining.

No, it’s not at all about the consumer market will bear. It’s about what Apple’s investors demand in terms of margins.
9:52 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>Who suggested it? When?

Donald trump, for one, this year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/01/19/why-donald-trump-is-now-targeting-apple-and-its-damn-computers/
9:59 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
Nope, Trump didn't say Apple could start manufacturing iPhones here overnight, which is what you're insisting. Read your own link.
10:03 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
![trump](https://i.imgur.com/Jov5b4um.jpg)

Repeat after me: THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME!
10:35 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>Nope, Trump didn't say Apple could start manufacturing iPhones here overnight, which is what you're insisting.

Wait, do you mean "overnight" literally, as in "within 24 hours"?

Because everybody else in the conversation is using it metaphorically.
10:40 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
The New World Order:
These are the immigrants we want: highly educated and productive. Trump would welcome all of these high-skill, high-earning immigrants. They bolster the tax base and don't load the country down with demands.

The problem with the illegals is that they drain resources. There are very few countries on Earth that have multilingual signage. Some places (like Quebec) do it because people are smart. The US does it because the illegals who arrive are too dumb to learn English. Seriously, learn the fucking language hombres. It's not that hard.
11:09 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
anonymous:
TBF, we get it. But no one, Trump included, means immediately or overnight, even in the metaphorical sense.

tNWO: Exactly. Almost no one is for zero immigration. But most people are for reasonable immigration, which means immigration which benefits America and the American people. We need to identify and invite good people with much-needed skills – and then expect those people to assimilate into our culture. We should know how many our resources and ability to assimilate can accommodate, and bring in as many as that number allows. Everyone wins.

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are separate matters. It's time the left stops conflating the two. Resistance to illegal immigration does not make one anti-immigrant – or racist, despite how often we hear it.
11:46 pm — Thursday, 17 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>These are the immigrants we want: highly educated and productive. Trump would welcome all of these high-skill, high-earning immigrants.

[citation needed]

>TBF, we get it. But no one, Trump included, means immediately or overnight, even in the metaphorical sense.

Well, Trump obviously does, because it would have to be within the first four years from his election.

And plenty of people at the time (2012) of the linked article I was responding to (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/21/apple-china). Were saying that it could happen quickly.

>Legal immigration and illegal immigration are separate matters.

That's not true, they are very much interlinked.
5:00 am — Friday, 18 November 2016
Donald Clinton:
>There's no reason this couldn't happen if people actually wanted to do it.

LOL. You have no clue how manufacturing and supply chains work, do you.
8:49 am — Friday, 18 November 2016
Going Going Gone!:
@Don LOL. You have no clue how manufacturing and supply chains work, do you.

If you're willing to pay the price you can do anything.
3:13 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
Donald Clinton:
>If you're willing to pay the price you can do anything.

Nobody is going to be willing to pay for that. So, nope, you can't do it.
3:32 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
gruber circlejerk:
Credit to twitter:

> weird how trump knows breaking state lines will lower healthcare prices
but not that free global trade lowers prices of everything else.
4:04 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
anonymous:
There's more to it than prices. He wants to put America first.
4:07 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
Donald Clinton:
>weird how trump knows breaking state lines will lower healthcare prices but not that free global trade lowers prices of everything else.

Excellent point.
4:21 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
anonymous:
>Excellent point.

No it isn't.

Watch:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8bf6dbYt4&feature=youtu.be&t=72](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8bf6dbYt4&feature=youtu.be&t=72)
5:28 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
The New World Order:
@donald

Nobody is going to be willing to pay for that. So, nope, you can't do it.

That's a completely different statement than "it can't be done."

Maybe you don't understand English well enough to know the difference between "it's not worth it" and "it's impossible." However, there is a big difference indeed between the two statements.
6:03 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
anonymous:
> However, there is a big difference indeed between the two statements.

I fucking love people who argue like this. You and Gruber - masters of the distinctions without difference.
6:45 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
elbowroom:
Apple has already done it with their Mac Pro which was contracted out to Flextronics, which I believe technically has HQ in Singapore, and assembled in the Texas. Motorola also did the same thing with their Moto X using the same contractor.

However it should be said "making" something doesn't really mean what most think it means. Motorola in particular made a big deal out of making the Moto X phones in the USA but all it meant were the very final process of assembly was completed in the USA, meaning most of value added occurred in overseas before the final production. For instance the main boards were shipped to the USA already all assembled.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/10/4717632/moto-x-factory-tour-photos

At the end most of such tasks will be automated and there won't be that many jobs added even if they "make" iPhones in the USA. Is it doable? Yes but most of values will still happen outside the USA. It'll mostly be for show.

The reason many voters wanted to "bring back" manufacturing back to the USA is because they long for the well-paying middle class factory jobs that didn't require much education or specialization. However we all know those jobs aren't coming back.

But none of that really matters. All Trump wanted to do was to make a stance and appeal to the Republican voting base as well as the dwindling middle class white voters. It didn't matter if immigration was legal or illegal. He was dog whistling to those who just felt uncomfortable with foreigners of different heritage taking over the country, for instance when he said the mother of late Khan was "maybe not allowed to talk" on TV, which was ridiculous and offensive but appealed to his voting base. We know bringing back manufacturing to the USA at the scale required by Apple is stupendously difficult and practically impossible within any reasonable time frame, but it didn't matter. He said things he felt correct at the moment to his advantage, the facts didn't matter.

At the end, I'm not really sure what Trump knows about manufacturing process or technology products nowadays. My impression based on his speech is he doesn't really have any grasp of the process or a particular position other than "bringing back jobs" and if that's what the Americans want, I guess that's that.

7:12 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
anonymous:
elbowroom, so it all boils down to Trump and his supporters are racist That's the kind of shallow thinking that helped Hillary lose the election. Keep it up.
7:24 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
elbowroom:
@anonymous

That's too much of a reductionist thinking to simply say it's "racists". Conservative right wing politicians always appeal to those who have more to lose in terms of social power and afraid of changes when it's threatened, that's natural.

The problem with Trump is he did it in the most crude and tasteless fashion possible that brought out the worst people to the front. Despite all that Trump will likely end up with less votes in terms of % than Romney in 2012, and less than Hilary.

The fact you simply said "keep it up, you call us racists" is a good tell what kind of discourse Trump has ushered in.
7:38 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
The New World Order:
@anonymous

If you don't understand the difference between "impossible" and "it's too expensive" you have bigger problems than whatever is happening in this anonymous comment area. Here's a brief primer on the difference:

What's impossible: shoving your head into your own asshole while alive.

What's too expensive: fucking yourself with an elephant trunk while feeding the elephant peanuts.
9:41 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
anonymous:
Yes, you either support unlimited immigration or you're a racist.
9:56 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
anonymous:
Calling everyone a racist (or a misogynist, nativist, sexist, homophobic, etc) has increasingly diminishing returns.

Conservative politicians are no more interested in power than leftist politicians. And the same goes for their constituencies.

So, yeah, please continue reducing the discourse to name calling. You certainly can't win on policy.
10:25 pm — Friday, 18 November 2016
The New World Order:
That's funny, the NYT Sunday edition just called for the end of identity politics because they don't work.

No wonder the Democrats have lost control of most governments in the US: because Democrats are name-calling namby pambies who all suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
12:24 am — Saturday, 19 November 2016
elbowroom:
@The New World Order

We should remember the Democrat presidential candidates received move votes than the Republican counterparts in 4 of past 5 presidential elections post Bill Clinton era. It's unfair to outright dismiss their sentiment as a Dunning-Kruger effect when more people in the country actually have been shown to agree with their message in the past 20 years or so than any other party's.

How they can win in the current system is another story and it's true they aren't living up to the challenge.
12:53 am — Saturday, 19 November 2016
The New World Order:
@elbowroom

Luckily the system is designed so the popular vote is irrelevant. Anyone in California can see that the popular vote alone leads to instability due to the urban/rural divide. Urbanistas are just different.

The US is build along the lines of the Roman Republic, which was surprisingly stable until it wasn't. People forget that the US is a grand experiment, one that really changed the relationship between the individual, society, and government.

Is this form of government stable? The jury is still out. It has, however, proved more successful at unleashing humanity than other forms of government.
1:16 am — Saturday, 19 November 2016
anonymous:
@elbowroom: hey faggot, eat shit.

t. America
1:46 am — Saturday, 19 November 2016
Q*Bert:
It's true that when polled on the actual issues, a large majority of Americans agree with what the Democratic party claims they support. But there's a disconnect between what many of them claim to support, what they will fight for, and what they actually do once they get any power. That's the problem.

Most of them (like Republicans also) quickly become interested only in keeping their jobs and lining their own pockets. All that stuff they claimed they'd "fight" for -- income equality, equal pay for women, affordable health insurance and education, etc. -- becomes secondary at best, kicked down the road until people forget about it, or more often just plain quietly dropped.

And the Clintons are the worst. Look at this Clinton Foundation empire they've built. No Democrat has been elected in the last 20 years without help from the Clintons and their friends somewhere and Hillary called all those favors in to shut out Bernie Sanders and whoever else might dare to challenge her.

Until Democrats demonstrate they will fight hard for what they claim to represent, people aren't going to be motivated to come out and vote for them because too many times they've been burned when the walk doesn't match the talk.
9:26 pm — Saturday, 19 November 2016
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!