Made in China: The Real Reasons Why Apple Won't Build iPhones in the US

A recent "New York Times" article tells the story of Apple's decision to build glass iPhone screens in China and not in the United States. Front Page regulars Terry Jones and Elan Journo bring you the real reasons for the manufacturing exodus to China.

See more at http://www.pjtv.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• pj media
• pjtv
• allen barton
• terry jones
• elan journo
• investors
• ayn rand
• steve jobs
• president
• barack obama
• manufacturing
• china
• united states
• jobs
• employment
• shareholders
• wealth
• occupy wall street
• class warfare
• rich
• poor
• california
• shenzhen
• scalability
• distribution
• glass screen
• betsey stevenson
• efficiency
• free market
• outsourcing
• engineers
• education
• government
• subsidies
• hard skills
• suicide
• foxconn
• apple
• iphone
• ceo
• tim cook

[Dragdamar]

I love when people bitch about corporations on the internet while using the products made by the corporation they are bitching about. If you don't like how a corporation, stop buying the products. Damn hypocrites.

[cstarr3]

No company makes any money by making something, no matter where it is made. It costs money to make anything; labor, capital, intermediate goods, etc. all cost the company making the product. They make their money by selling their product. If you don't want a company to make money, don't buy from them. That is the thing people hate most about capitalism, it is democracy in its purest form. Businesses succeed in proportion to the number of people that support them.

[TeaParty1776]

@cstarr3 In the context of the 18th century individualism of the US Constitution, the terms which can be distributive or collective, eg, common good, were distributive.

Maybe democracy was a necessary learning stage between collectivism and individualism but its not individualism. Greek individualism didnt develop much beyond the philosophical, ie, to politics. Even Aristotle was in a transition phase. They were not Lockeans!

[TeaParty1776]

@cstarr3 But that what I said! I meant that purpose is, logically, the widest issue, ie, the contextual essence, regardless of what people studied at the beginning of political philosophy.

Its very odd to claim that demos, the root of democracy, means the individual. Democracy is, from the beginning, unlimited majority rule over the individual and his rights. Of course, the development of knowledge is filled with errors only later corrected.

[cstarr3]

@TeaParty1776 Words like "democracy," "oligarchy" and the like are definition based on who rules, and is not indicative of purpose. Demos did not mean society, but was used in very much the same way that the English word "people" is used. Por ejemplo, "people" being referenced in the second and fourth amendments does not make these rights communal and void where individuals are concerned. But if "democracy" is cause for argument, consider it changed to "politocracy."

[TeaParty1776]

@MrConservative608 Agreed, but its a matter of economic law, ie, comparative advantage, not courage. Cheap Chinese goodies means more money for US production in something else. Besides, our interventionist economics drives our firms offshore. And China is developing its own stimulus-driven, unsustainable investments, w/ghost cites, etc. We need capitalism. Back to the 19th century! One, two, three, many Steve Jobs.

[TeaParty1776]

@cstarr3 Who rules, which was the first concern of political philosophy, is non-essential. The essence is the purpose, ie, individual rights, collectivism or religion. Meaning is conceptual, not arbitrary, but a logical organization of the observation of similarities and differences. Demos, after all, means society, not the individual. The same word or concept cant be used for unlimited majority rule, voting and individual rights. Plato ,Aristotle ,and the US founders feared demos w/good reason.

[TeaParty1776]

@MrConservative608 Good working conditions are the product of profit, technology and competition, not unions. Unions developed coincidentally with the increasing prosperity of capitalism and maybe not so coincidentally w/collectivism. Man has free will. Union members choose what to accept and think. Of course, union political privileges allow for political influence over members. Why, given decades of union political privileges, are only 11% of US workers in unions, mostly in govt?

[cstarr3]

@TeaParty1776 I agree. I do not believe in a stark majority rule system, especially if such a ruling would violate individual rights. Generally, I speak of pure democracy as a system in which ruling power is placed with the people, not a portion of the people, no matter how large. A society in which each person is master of his own fate (in my opinion) is a democracy, even if he can't vote to decide the fate of his neighbor. Any disagreement we have is probably over mere semantics.

[MrConservative608]

@TeaParty1776 Yes, "they [Unions] may be unable to offer more than employers can offer", is true. I live in Madison, WI and stand with Scott Walker on Act 10 which the Union opposition is iconic of what most every Union demand of companies in the right to demand wages & benefits beyond the ability. But I believe that Unions at one point in our history demanded good working conditions but I don't support Unions now which continually brainwash followers that they are almost slaves.

[TeaParty1776]

@qtutoringhelps Of course! My formal ed was shit w/shitheads. Even more, Progressive education, with its anti-reason, pro-emotion perspective, disintegrates students' minds in private and socialist (public) schools. 19th century classical ed created 15- and 16-yr-old high school grads with education like today's M.A.! Ayn Rand's philosophy of ed is better than classical ed because its based on observation, not authority. See Van Damme Academy.

[TeaParty1776]

@MrConservative608 Unions may or may not be chosen by employees in a capitalist economy. They may be unable to offer more than employers can offer. But politically privileged unions are destructive of all, including their own members.

Job safety is a selling point that employers can offer to potential employees. In capitalism, employees would tend toward the safest employers. Markets Don't Fail-Brian Simpson. Job safety results also from capitalist insurance firms who dont want to pay claims.