[Arubis]

In isolation, this might be a positive. But watching one of the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime is neither a good look nor what we should hope for as an example of how to influence corporate decisionmaking.

[ericmcer]

I agree that seeing the executive branch's authority continue to swell is not good for our democracy, but corporations (and specifically Apple) offshoring all their labor to developing nations has been viewed as a huge negative for ~30 years?

Any amount of returning manufacturing here, returning power to the middle class by increasing the demand for labor and stopping the exploitation of foreign workers is a good thing. I can't stand listening to him talk, but if iPhones aren't reliant on slaves mining cobalt and 13 year olds working 12 hours a days I will consider that a win.

[rTX5CMRXIfFG]

> Any amount of returning manufacturing here, returning power to the middle class by increasing the demand for labor and stopping the exploitation of foreign workers is a good thing.

I don’t think Americans realize that we haven’t suffered a global war since 1945 precisely because global trade took over and nations’ economies became more interdependent than isolated.

These trade wars are signalling pretty much all countries in the world to become more self-sustaining and less dependent on each other. Countries who succeed will be more confident to enter armed conflict because they’ll have less to lose, and those with lots to gain will have every incentive to start or join a war against those who have resources.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Nothing works without trade now. Literally nothing.

Countries have aligned themselves to maximise Ricardian comparative advantage, and there's no way for the global economy to realign itself towards plain old mercantilism without massive pain for everyone.

[murukesh_s]

I think iPhones can take a good bump in the pricing for bringing the manufacturing onshore. Currently an iPhone is 30% more expensive in developing countries like India compared to US, Dubai or even Japan. Thats insane, and still an average adult is looking forward to own one. That is 50% of your annual income you have to spend for buying an arguably, state of the art mobile phone. If you are in US, an iPhone is only approximately 1% of your annual per capita income. Thats massive difference..

[seanmcdirmid]

iPhones are more expensive in developing countries due to developing country taxes and tariffs. China used to be the same way (iPhones are imported into China because they are made in SEZs), but has a price that is comparable to the USA now mainly due to china’s push for more consumption by Chinese consumers. iPhone prices are high in India simply because the government would rather Indian consumers not spend money on them, not because the Indian government thinks they can afford it.

The USA is sort of addicted to consumption (where China wants to be actually), you could dissuade a lot of consumption by raising taxes on it (if, for example, you want people to save more and focus only on necessities). It would be a huge change for America though, the market might not survive intact if it happens too quickly.

[murukesh_s]

Even if there are zero tariffs, the per capita difference is so huge. US was so far reaping the benefit of product made with labour from developing countries and consumers getting wages from developed country, making buying a new phone a rather insignificant portion of total yearly salary, however for a common man in developing country, owning an Apple device is sometimes equal to your yearly salary. So yea even if manufacturing moves to US and prices doubles, the consumers can absorb it.

[seanmcdirmid]

Consumers won't absorb it, they will just buy less of it, like the common man in the developing country does. You don't just absorb higher prices, you re-prioritize your spending so that you still spend the same.

[jemmyw]

I mean, it's not going to fix the cobalt mining problem.

[bsder]

> In isolation, this might be a positive. But watching one of the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime is neither a good look nor what we should hope for as an example of how to influence corporate decisionmaking.

Ironically, your comment is double-bladed.

This has likely been in the works from when China shook Apple down and the timing has a nice upside that it also pacifies His Orangeness(tm).

[chrisco255]

An American president using the bully pulpit (as Teddy Roosevelt so fondly called it) to expand jobs and investment in America is the president doing his actual job.

Of course Apple didn't do it on their own accord, there was way too much profit to be made from outsourcing to China. Everyone else was doing it, why not also the richest company on earth?

[FranzFerdiNaN]

I’m sure Americans are just dying for jobs like screwing iPhones together all day, or standing in a field under the burning sun harvesting tomatoes.

[chrisco255]

You mean manufacturing and farming jobs? Absolutely, they're decent jobs and far more rewarding than serving diabetes to McDonald's and Starbucks patrons.

Tomato harvesting is done in an air conditioned tractor these days:

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/pDxZhOw9IH4

https://youtu.be/l4Dc6QNWiIs?si=S9qrFNpUBM5KuSrx

Production on iPhone can be highly automated these days as well. There are plenty of good examples of revitalized computer hardware manufacturing in the U.S. like the Starlink Factory in Bastrop, TX:

https://youtu.be/qz0k4wj_KlA?si=qUqJ0DWTRpHa4cgY

or the TSMC factory in Arizona, which has similar amenities to many software offices:

https://youtu.be/X3QuVwR30Uk?si=D92n34OZUpzAHIFn

[ilove196884]

Those jobs require a ton of college education. Atleast as far as I know TSMC only allows PhDs on lithography and etching machines. And Apple smartphone manufacturing is nearly automated and most of the required personnel are engineers.

[ImJamal]

Instead we should just give it to brown people and pay them minimum wage or less than in other countries.

[const_cast]

If we give it to Americans, then we just also rely on brown people making minimum wage or less - undocumented Americans.

The reality is our entire economy is more or less fake - it's propped up like a dead body by hyper-consumerism. We rely on buying way more shit than we should, and that, in turn, requires warm bodies who can't live off their wages. This is in high contrast to the economy of the early to mid 20th century.

We can rip that bandaid off, but things would suck for a while, maybe a long time. That's a hard sell - especially since we (not underpaid) get nothing.

[mensetmanusman]

It’s surprising to see this done by the right, the left is supposed to strong arm corporations to do things.

[tootie]

Cook is getting significant considerations on imports and offering Trump PR with zero obligation. Maybe they invest, maybe they don't, maybe they just do what they were going to do anyway.

[ocdtrekkie]

They only have to look like they're working on this for the next three and a half years.

[chrisco255]

Then they'll pay import tariffs on the foreign components. And they'll increase their supply chain risk (as well as regulatory risk) in a polarized political climate.

[seanmcdirmid]

Trump is only in office for 3 and a half years. Spending $600b will take much longer time than that. Assuming america remains democratic, the next president is very likely to wash away most of what Trump has done on day one (since he did all of this via executive order).

[chrisco255]

1. The escalated tension between the United States and China is unlikely to resolve in the next 3.5 years. Apple already took the step to move iPhone production to India. However, as recently shown, even India could be subject to tariffs as they are purchasing Russian oil and in effect funding the Ukraine war. The next president will have to operate in a multipolar world.

2. The tariffs are producing revenue for the Federal government. Hundreds of billions per year. To remove the tariffs arbitrarily in the future, a President would need to assume the political risk of increasing the national deficit.

3. Trump imposed tarriffs on his first term that Biden did not reverse. Even if the next President is a Democrat it's more likely than not that the trade deals remain in place.

4. A strong contender for the next president is the current vice president, JD Vance, who would be highly unlikely to reverse.

[seanmcdirmid]

Trump’s approval ratings is in the gutter like it was during his last term. He doesn’t reach out and make new fans, he just loses the ones he has. JD Vance is even less popular than trump, anyone who thinks their electoral success occurs even with extra gerrymandering for the midterms is probably in for a huge surprise.

Trump didn’t initiate sweeping tariffs in his last term, and they weren’t wildly unpopular. Trump is accumulating enough bad will at the moment to make it very politically easy for someone to wash away everything if they win the 2028 election.

[chrisco255]

Approval ratings are unscientific, fleeting, and wildly variable, even among Presidents that go on to be reelected. It is a stat you take with a grain of salt, especially 6 months into a presidency. Even the polls for the actual election, which get far more money to spend, were wildly inaccurate especially in recent elections.

If Trump's moves pan out in the positive for American people over the next year or two, controversial as they may be in the present, then sentiment will increase, plain and simple.

JD Vance is quite popular among Republicans and reasonably popular among independents, which is all you need to win the presidency. The Democrats, on the other hand, have no heir apparent and have quite a few structural issues within their own party at the national level. We'll see what the actual field looks like in 2028 but that is a long ways off and a lot will change between now and then.

[msgodel]

Most people are upset that Trump isn't going hard enough and that's why his approval rating dropped.

[tootie]

Vance doesn't support tariffs except in his role as Trump's agent. Absolutely nobody in politics besides Trump thinks these tariffs are a good idea. It's not clear tariffs are actually going to reduce the deficit just because they bring revenue because they are likely suppressing growth. Repealing the Trump tax cuts would be on the table for Democrats and Republicans would be happy just ignore the deficit issue again.

[ilove196884]

1. Apple moved production to India to avoid Indian tariffs so as to sell it to Indians. Initially the factory only made iphones for Indians. 2. Tariffs revenue will stabilize once they are set and revenue can easily fall. 3. Democrats are for free trade since the FDR administration, Biden was an exception not the norm for democrats. 4. JD Vance has to win first, he is not charismatic or funny like Trump.

[realusername]

Either the American market will collapse or they will pay those fées anyways

[WarOnPrivacy]

> But when ... the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime ...

...it gifts authoritarian power to autocrats and fully guarantees more authoritarian behavior.

[atonse]

I totally agree with you about the motivations... and I can't speak to how many long term jobs will come out of this.

But if this even gives us some chance to jolt our manufacturing sector back, will we start to gain some momentum? Even if it's mostly using automation. Will it help to reduce our reliance on China?

I doubt it will in the same way that it's been extremely hard for other countries to replicate the US momentum in R&D.

But one can hope.