...paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense.
The point of the article is to illustrate that wages are not the only problem. Chaotic effects in multi-tier supply chains are also a real problem.
I would pay more for an iPhone that I knew was made in America. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
You are certainly a minority. I don't think most people value nationalism at $65.
Personally, I'd rather have the jobs go to the people who need them most, rather than to people who are superficially "like me". But while assigning a $0 value to nationalism is probably a minority view, I suspect the majority view is far closer to $0 than to $65.
You only chose to respond to a portion of what I wrote or didn't read the first sentence so I've italicized it for clarification: they just might not be able to produce 100% of their products there [in Fremont]. Maybe you're not familiar with guitars either, but Fender American made are substantially more expensive but they are in definitely in demand. There is also demand for a cheaper entry level product--both products serve a need. Why do you think it has to be one or the other?
What you're talking about sounds like Ayn Rand's objectivism--basing your argument 100% on cost. I think you're wrong about this--Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Red Wing Shoes, and local coop growth shows that people do care where they get their products from when given a choice.
Also, please stop making assumptions about me: rather than to people who are superficially "like me".
Where did I say this and where do you come off being so vitriolic? Personally I come to HN for an intellectual discussion and don't appreciate your condescending attitude, or mischaracterization of my comments, or lack of intellectual integrity, or your argument by fallacy. You responded to your own strawman argument because it was easier than responding to what I actually said. You argue like a bully--if I disagree with you I am 'nationalistic and superficial'? That seems like an elevated discussion.
Guitars in this category would be Veblen goods, IMO; not simple commodities, but status-exhibiting luxuries. Apple is more mass-market than that I think.
Analysing things based on cost is something economists do for lots of good analytical reasons, not necessarily because of some philosophical bent. Customers' preferences between various brands and perceived value systems can be turned into costs through pricing experiments.
"Superficially 'like me'", as the word "me" indicates, was not an assumption about you, and nor was it describing you as superficial (that looks like quite a misreading on your part from where I stand). Rather, it is an implicit criticism of nationalism, of the idea that people of one's nationality deserve better employment terms for some intrinsic reason (i.e. they are better) than people lucky or unlucky enough to be born under a different flag.
Are Fender guitars substantially different depending on origin? (For instance[1], different wood, electronics, composition, etc.) If they are, even if it stems from where they are manufactured, then I don't think it serves the argument perfectly because I don't really see how a Made-in-America iPhone would be superior to the one we have now. Lower tolerances? More robust?
Maybe I'm naive but I think food and instruments show a lot more characteristics of the craft worker than electronics.
The point of the article is to illustrate that wages are not the only problem. Chaotic effects in multi-tier supply chains are also a real problem.
I would pay more for an iPhone that I knew was made in America. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
You are certainly a minority. I don't think most people value nationalism at $65.
Personally, I'd rather have the jobs go to the people who need them most, rather than to people who are superficially "like me". But while assigning a $0 value to nationalism is probably a minority view, I suspect the majority view is far closer to $0 than to $65.