#manufacturing #USmanufacturing #iPhones #Apple #tariffs
More domestic manufacturing may be a desired goal, but it’s not as easy to pull off as it sounds.
Tariffs are designed to bring more manufacturing to the U.S., but it can’t happen overnight.
Take the idea of putting a tariff on an iPhone, which is now made in China.
To make an iPhone here, Apple would have to create enough capacity to fulfill the demand . As iPhones change and are upgraded, the manufacturing will have to change with it.
It probably means Apple would have to build all new factories. That alone would take years.
It would have to build them so they can be easily retooled as the iPhone evolves.
Then, there is the job of finding enough workers, which has not been easy for any employer recently.
What would Apple have to pay these workers to entice them to work in an iPhone factory?
If the tariffs go away BEFORE Apple can finish building the factory, would the whole idea be moot? Certainly, the Chinese-made iPhones would always be cheaper to make than the ones made here.
Now, let’s talk about how often iPhone users trade in their phones.
Are you the type of user that trades his or her phone every time a new iPhone comes out?
Or, do you hold on to your iPhone for as long as it works for you, or until Apple decides it no longer will support your old phone? (Such forced obsolescence is a debate for another day).
How will those decision-making patterns affect factory construction?
What about all the accessories – cases, holsters etc. – that go with iPhones. Do the companies that make those make them in the U.S.? If not, and they are tariffed, will a case cost more than a phone, or will those companies also have to create factories here?
The tariffs are being assessed without regard for any of this. It’s nice to wish for more domestic manufacturing, but it’s hard to achieve, considering the facts on the ground.
Most companies would gladly make more things here, if they could do it for the same price as they pay to make them elsewhere.
But labor, materials and everything else used to make things are usually more expensive here.
Those who wish to create more manufacturing jobs here learn quickly that Americans will not work long hours in a factory for minimum wage.
Americans are having enough trouble affording to live here, never mind having to be forced into an income that will not cover their bills.
In short, domestic manufacturing may be a great goal. But, not everything can be made here for the price that can make what we need affordable.
International trade should be as free of tariffs as possible to allow the markets to be stable, affordable and make products of the best quality and price.
Peter
Monthly Archives: May 2025
UNCERTAINTY, OR UNPREDICTABILITY?
#uncertainty #unpredictability #investing #tariffs #InvestmentClimate
How does one invest in a time of uncertainty, as we are in now?
Betsey Stevenson, economics and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department, discussed this on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes on May 15, 2025.
She basically said it was difficult for investors and businesses to plan when things change so frequently.
She and other economists consider this time “uncertain,” as tariffs are implemented, adjusted and/or paused almost daily.
In fact, most investment climates, save for mattress money or insured bank accounts, are “uncertain.” Investors do not know for sure whether the risk(s) they are taking will pan out. They can judge, based on fundamentals and research, the likelihood of an investment panning out.
They also can judge the economic climate to see whether their decisions are more or less likely to pay off.
But, as with all risks, there is always a chance of an investment not proving worthy.
A pandemic, a natural disaster or other unanticipated circumstances could suddenly affect the investment performance.
Or, the company or venture in which one is investing could fail because of human error or mismanagement that one may not foresee.
So, all investments, no matter the climate, are uncertain.
What is happening today makes investing more unpredictable.
Investors are unable to forecast, even if the entity is a good risk on its face, whether the investment pays off.
The purpose of tariffs, essentially, is to urge companies to import less, and make more things in the U.S.
There are myriad problems with that. First, it takes many years for a company, if it were to decide to make more things here, to set up the capacity to do it – build or convert a factory, hire the right people, buy the needed equipment (perhaps from a foreign maker) etc.
Who knows what would happen to the tariffs during that conversion period.
Secondly, there are things that we just can’t grow in the U.S. Bananas are tariffed, yet we do not have the climate to grow them. Coffee is tariffed, but Hawaii is the only state that grows coffee, and it doesn’t grow enough to satisfy nationwide demand.
Thirdly, other countries can make many things better and cheaper than we can here, no matter what we do. We do things well, they do things well, and that’s why we trade.
So, the next time an economist calls these times “uncertain,” they’d be more precise to call these times “unpredictable,” because the “uncertainty” is deliberately created by one person – who is unpredictable.
Peter
How does one invest in a time of uncertainty, as we are in now?
Betsey Stevenson, economics and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department, discussed this on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes on May 15, 2025.
She basically said it was difficult for investors and businesses to plan when things change so frequently.
She and other economists consider this time “uncertain,” as tariffs are implemented, adjusted and/or paused almost daily.
In fact, most investment climates, save for mattress money or insured bank accounts, are “uncertain.” Investors do not know for sure whether the risk(s) they are taking will pan out. They can judge, based on fundamentals and research, the likelihood of an investment panning out.
They also can judge the economic climate to see whether their decisions are more or less likely to pay off.
But, as with all risks, there is always a chance of an investment not proving worthy.
A pandemic, a natural disaster or other unanticipated circumstances could suddenly affect the investment performance.
Or, the company or venture in which one is investing could fail because of human error or mismanagement that one may not foresee.
So, all investments, no matter the climate, are uncertain.
What is happening today makes investing more unpredictable.
Investors are unable to forecast, even if the entity is a good risk on its face, whether the investment pays off.
The purpose of tariffs, essentially, is to urge companies to import less, and make more things in the U.S.
There are myriad problems with that. First, it takes many years for a company, if it were to decide to make more things here, to set up the capacity to do it – build or convert a factory, hire the right people, buy the needed equipment (perhaps from a foreign maker) etc.
Who knows what would happen to the tariffs during that conversion period.
Secondly, there are things that we just can’t grow in the U.S. Bananas are tariffed, yet we do not have the climate to grow them. Coffee is tariffed, but Hawaii is the only state that grows coffee, and it doesn’t grow enough to satisfy nationwide demand.
Thirdly, other countries can make many things better and cheaper than we can here, no matter what we do. We do things well, they do things well, and that’s why we trade.
So, the next time an economist calls these times “uncertain,” they’d be more precise to call these times “unpredictable,” because the “uncertainty” is deliberately created by one person – who is unpredictable.
Peter
HAVE MORE BABIES? WHO’S GOING TO PAY FOR THEM?
#natalists #babies #children #MothersDay #HavingMoreChildren
We just celebrated Mother’s Day.
Certain people want more mothers. Or, more accurately, more children.
Nedra Rhone, the “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites a lot of reasons women don’t have children, or as many children, as some would like. She discussed the issue in her May 8, 2025, column.
As Rhone, who happens to be a mother, points out, there are many reasons women don’t have children. She also says that some women may want children, but circumstances haven’t allowed them to have them.
In fact, the U.S. population, as is the case with most developed countries, is aging. People are not “replacing themselves” at a rate that keeps the population growing.
We want the population to grow for many reasons, including having enough workers to replace those who retire.
But this natalist movement appears aimed at creating children that only fit a certain demographic.
Immigrants can bolster the work force, and have lots of children, but most don’t match the desired demographic.
The elephant in the room, of course, is the cost of children. Rhone points out that it costs about $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18.
Not everyone has that kind of money, or the ability and opportunity to earn that much.
Women are a significant boost to the work force, but the natalists prefer women to stay home and raise children. Again, not every woman has the luxury, opportunity or desire to do that.
Then, as Rhone points out, some women don’t really want to bring children into the world as it currently is. What she doesn’t talk about in her column is what happens to children when they become adults.
With the cost of living, housing etc. as it is, many young adults cannot afford to live on their own, never mind starting a family. They often live with mom and dad long after age 18. Some are burdened with student debt. Some just can’t find work that pays enough to live independently.
The natalist and pro-life movements want children to be born at any cost – even if the mother dies doing so. But, they offer no means to ensure these children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and otherwise taken care of.
Many other countries do take care of their children. The citizens may pay dearly in taxes for it, but, to them, it’s well worth it.
These natalists say they love individual freedom. That is, unless you are a woman of child-bearing age. Would you want to have more children if you live in a place in which your medical providers are severely restricted in how they can care for you during and around your pregnancy?
This should not be a matter of debate. People should have the freedom to start and grow families as they see fit – or not.
The natalists can do much more to encourage more births by giving women – and men – the resources to be able to work AND tend to families, without unwanted sacrifices.
Being pro-life means not only encouraging life’s creation, but also making it easier for both parents and children to sustain a quality of life.
Peter
We just celebrated Mother’s Day.
Certain people want more mothers. Or, more accurately, more children.
Nedra Rhone, the “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites a lot of reasons women don’t have children, or as many children, as some would like. She discussed the issue in her May 8, 2025, column.
As Rhone, who happens to be a mother, points out, there are many reasons women don’t have children. She also says that some women may want children, but circumstances haven’t allowed them to have them.
In fact, the U.S. population, as is the case with most developed countries, is aging. People are not “replacing themselves” at a rate that keeps the population growing.
We want the population to grow for many reasons, including having enough workers to replace those who retire.
But this natalist movement appears aimed at creating children that only fit a certain demographic.
Immigrants can bolster the work force, and have lots of children, but most don’t match the desired demographic.
The elephant in the room, of course, is the cost of children. Rhone points out that it costs about $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18.
Not everyone has that kind of money, or the ability and opportunity to earn that much.
Women are a significant boost to the work force, but the natalists prefer women to stay home and raise children. Again, not every woman has the luxury, opportunity or desire to do that.
Then, as Rhone points out, some women don’t really want to bring children into the world as it currently is. What she doesn’t talk about in her column is what happens to children when they become adults.
With the cost of living, housing etc. as it is, many young adults cannot afford to live on their own, never mind starting a family. They often live with mom and dad long after age 18. Some are burdened with student debt. Some just can’t find work that pays enough to live independently.
The natalist and pro-life movements want children to be born at any cost – even if the mother dies doing so. But, they offer no means to ensure these children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and otherwise taken care of.
Many other countries do take care of their children. The citizens may pay dearly in taxes for it, but, to them, it’s well worth it.
These natalists say they love individual freedom. That is, unless you are a woman of child-bearing age. Would you want to have more children if you live in a place in which your medical providers are severely restricted in how they can care for you during and around your pregnancy?
This should not be a matter of debate. People should have the freedom to start and grow families as they see fit – or not.
The natalists can do much more to encourage more births by giving women – and men – the resources to be able to work AND tend to families, without unwanted sacrifices.
Being pro-life means not only encouraging life’s creation, but also making it easier for both parents and children to sustain a quality of life.
Peter
‘YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT TILL IT’S GONE’
#government #GovernmentCuts #GovernmentEfficiency #GoodGovernment
“They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.”
That Joni Mitchell lyric rings true as certain government programs that many cherish get chopped.
We all think of government as too big, spending too much and we, as citizens, don’t really know what all those people do.
But, we learn all too well when we go to a government office for, say, Social Security information, a driver’s license or to mail a package.
When staff at those places get cut, the wait is much longer. In some places, you can wait hours to see a Social Security counselor, or to renew a driver’s license.
When government affects us, we feel the cuts.
MSNBC news anchor Ali Velshi pointed out that some of the government agencies we don’t know much about, or don’t hear about regularly, are working well BECAUSE we don’t hear much about them.
In other words, if they were full of fraud and waste, we would know it because a journalist, inspector general or other watchdog would find out and point it out.
By the way, oversight personnel are among the priority cuts in this milieu, BECAUSE those doing the cutting do not want people to know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, until it’s too late.
The cutting of government agencies and personnel that’s being done today seems haphazard, at best. The chainsaw approach will lead to some mistakes, Elon Musk says, and his Department of Government Efficiency will fix those mistakes as they occur, he said.
Everyone wants government to be as efficient as it can be. No one wants government, or those in it, to commit fraud.
But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater will lead to a dead, or badly hurt, baby. We may not know that until we actually have to wait hours for badly needed service, or, when benefits we are entitled to suddenly stop coming.
Government has a function in all of our lives. We don’t often hear about, or realize, those functions until they stop. As another Joni Mitchell lyric in the same song says: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
The best way to make government more efficient is to first look for the good that government does, and either let it be or enhance it.
If services are duplicated between or among agencies, consolidate those tasks in one place.
If tasks can be accomplished with fewer people, or if machines can replace people more efficiently, by all means make those changes.
People have said that government should be run like a business. But, government is different from business, in that the process of how things get done can be as important, or even more so, than the result.
Not all government work can be easily quantified. The service one might get from a good government employee who meets an individual’s need can be as important as the number of needs that person may meet in a given day, week, month or year.
And, if that person meets YOUR need properly, you won’t really care how much that person costs.
We all need government. We all need good government. We all should be willing to pay for good government that is as efficient and corruption-free as possible.
Peter
“They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.”
That Joni Mitchell lyric rings true as certain government programs that many cherish get chopped.
We all think of government as too big, spending too much and we, as citizens, don’t really know what all those people do.
But, we learn all too well when we go to a government office for, say, Social Security information, a driver’s license or to mail a package.
When staff at those places get cut, the wait is much longer. In some places, you can wait hours to see a Social Security counselor, or to renew a driver’s license.
When government affects us, we feel the cuts.
MSNBC news anchor Ali Velshi pointed out that some of the government agencies we don’t know much about, or don’t hear about regularly, are working well BECAUSE we don’t hear much about them.
In other words, if they were full of fraud and waste, we would know it because a journalist, inspector general or other watchdog would find out and point it out.
By the way, oversight personnel are among the priority cuts in this milieu, BECAUSE those doing the cutting do not want people to know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, until it’s too late.
The cutting of government agencies and personnel that’s being done today seems haphazard, at best. The chainsaw approach will lead to some mistakes, Elon Musk says, and his Department of Government Efficiency will fix those mistakes as they occur, he said.
Everyone wants government to be as efficient as it can be. No one wants government, or those in it, to commit fraud.
But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater will lead to a dead, or badly hurt, baby. We may not know that until we actually have to wait hours for badly needed service, or, when benefits we are entitled to suddenly stop coming.
Government has a function in all of our lives. We don’t often hear about, or realize, those functions until they stop. As another Joni Mitchell lyric in the same song says: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
The best way to make government more efficient is to first look for the good that government does, and either let it be or enhance it.
If services are duplicated between or among agencies, consolidate those tasks in one place.
If tasks can be accomplished with fewer people, or if machines can replace people more efficiently, by all means make those changes.
People have said that government should be run like a business. But, government is different from business, in that the process of how things get done can be as important, or even more so, than the result.
Not all government work can be easily quantified. The service one might get from a good government employee who meets an individual’s need can be as important as the number of needs that person may meet in a given day, week, month or year.
And, if that person meets YOUR need properly, you won’t really care how much that person costs.
We all need government. We all need good government. We all should be willing to pay for good government that is as efficient and corruption-free as possible.
Peter