This message was self-deleted by its author

[Tesha]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Tesha) on Sat Dec 1, 2012, 07:56 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Snake Alchemist]

1. How about we just close the loopholes and they be taxed in America? nt

[Pholus]

4. It's St. Paddies week so we're dancing the "Irish Two Step" here....

http://www.fpif.org/articles/ihate_corporate_tax_dodgers_how_apple_avoids_paying_its_fair_share

[Snake Alchemist]

7. What we really need is a tax holiday.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/19/447341/as-it-lobbies-for-tax-holiday-apple-admits-hoarding-cash-overseas-to-avoid-paying-taxes/?mobile=nc

[Pholus]

8. Good link! I missed that one, though I remember that particular bunch of lobbying!

But, but, but we threw the beggars a farthing! They should be happy with that!

[Chan790]

21. I'm against granting a tax holiday.

I want that hoarded cash taxed. If we grant a tax holiday, they will do the same thing they did after the last tax holiday...hoard money overseas in anticipation of the next tax holiday.

No tax holidays. The closest I'm willing to get is a window for repatriation of funds for taxation in advance of an increase on the tax rate for such funds.

[Snake Alchemist]

33. I was of course joking. nt

[SomethingFishy]

20. Yeah.. and that's half of what they should be paying...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/apple-pays-up-but-keeps-billions-offshore/article2373096/

Apple is hiding billions offshore to AVOID PAYING TAXES. Just like lots of other companies. Sure America gave them the opportunity to become disgustingly rich, but why would they invest back in the country? Just so future generations could have those same opportunities? Nah that would be altruistic.... righteous... sane even. Can't have that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Because they don't need us any more.

Corporations like Apple don't need us as workers and in short order they won't need us as consumers any more, either. All this country is to them is a convenient tax shelter, a flag of convenience that still allows it's multi-millionaire executives to live in luxury.

Fuck Apple and fuck its cultish apologists.

[think]

43. Amen /nt

[Muskypundit]

96. Yep. Cultish is right.

[LanternWaste]

54. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

Like tariffs, a two-edged sword. But I imagine we rationalize our use of them while minimizing that same use by others.

[Pholus]

3. Thanks for admitting that Apple is no longer an American company.

It's bigger than that, right? Bigger than jebus!!! It's soooooo big it's bigger than big.

It's bigger than 'Murca.

More megacorporation worship.

Regards, the "'Murcan"

[leveymg]

5. So that they can continue to have access to our copyright/TM and legal protections

Or, they can simply move their skeletal US operations to Beijing and rely on the Chinese for that, too.

[shcrane71]

15. They should definitely let the Chinese protect their intellectual property rights.

No American resources should be used to protect Apple's patents, copyrights, TMs, or any company that readily admits to keeping over 100 Billion off-shore in order to not pay taxes during the worst Recession since the Great Depression.

[leveymg]

19. It's potential leverage over the multinationals, and should be used as such by the federal gov't

to compel repatriation and reinvestment of taxable profits. But, we know who's really in charge on those issues.

[RDANGELO]

6. Why should they , if tarrifs for moving someting into China is 20% and moving someting into the U S

is 2%? RAISE THE DAMN TARRIFS!!!

[Muskypundit]

98. The U.S has been the worlds bitch when it comes to "free trade"

Mostly over other countries being allowed to tariff our goods to oblivion, us not doing anything about it because..... Free trade. Fuck China, our tariffs on Chinese goods should be as high as their tariffs on ours. Double edged sword be damned.

[Snake Alchemist]

113. Isn't that always the excuse used about unions? nt

[Pholus]

115. You've noticed the "cheap labor" arguments underlying this too....

It does say a lot.

[Progressive dog]

9. so Apple should build in China. What on earth for?

Apple sales, first quarter of 2011, by region were over $9 billion in Americas, Over $7 billion in Europe and less than $5 billion in Asia Pacific.
Know how to use Google?

[trotsky]

13. Here, let me help you understand the mindset of the Apple fan.

You start every discussion about Apple with the framing of "Everything Apple does is good, and they only make bad decisions when FORCED to. (By gubmint, or competitors, or whatever.)"

And then you proceed from there. Rationalize whatever is necessary.

(Full disclosure: I own both an iPhone and an iPad, but I don't pretend to believe that Apple is anything other than a greedy for-profit company exploiting loopholes and looking to screw us over. In other words, a typical corporation.)

[Ikonoklast]

10. I certainly hope you don't do this for free.

If you do, it's really creepy bordering on obsessive.

Apple is just another corporation that makes stuff.

They don't love you.

They want your money.

[Pholus]

11. I think this post shows this *has* to be done for free...

I can't imagine any Apple marketer voluntarily saying "screw America and Americans" as firmly as the OP did.

I was refreshed, however, by the statement that rational self-interest makes a multinational do what multinationals do.

I'm just hoping that our government sees that and starts acting in its own rational self-interest.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. Doing Apple's work for free is probably the only way to repatriate their manufacturing.

They are now sucking at the teat of slave wages and lax worker protections and that's a drug more addictive than any.

[Pholus]

65. I dunno. It's cheaper if you work em to death for free then harvest their organs too.

So don't think you have some sort of monopoly on the cheapest labor ideas either...

It's a labor buyer's market out there so you need to meet my offer.

And just like the OP, it's not a sin if it increases the bottom line!

[Liberal Veteran]

70. Don't forget to take a bonus if you take out "Dead Peasants Insurance" first.

[Pholus]

72. and then make some soylent green out of what's left.

I almost couldn't top your offer! You are devious!

[varelse]

139. Brand loyalty taken to extremes is creepy

but implying that a DU'er is a paid operative is kind of rude

[bowens43]

12. Why????

Because they are supposedly an American Company. Any American company that moves jobs out of the country should either be taxed, or a tariff placed on their goods to such an extent that they lose money by off shoring.



I am just amazed when I see any American express the opinion that you have expressed.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. How would that effect the cost of Apple products in the US?

Honest question.

As far as I know I do not own any Apple products.

[savalez]

109. It probably wouldn't, because they don't seem to be

passing on the cheap-labor savings to the US consumer as it is. Of all the computer manufactures I've always thought of their products as the same outsourced-cheap-labor-products but at American-made prices.

[davidpdx]

16. I will attest that many people have I-Phones

I teach in China and I would say 50% have one. In my class I have a rule about phones and I sneak right up behind them and grab them out of their hands. They play on them during lectures and I'll stop and go and take one. We think American children are spoiled rotten, the Chinese are one up on us on that one as well.

[Javaman]

17. They will move production back to the U.S. when...

the economy of China raises above ours and it become cheaper to make Apple products here than in China.

[Chan790]

23. ...or when we end our "free-trade" policies whole-hog.

The solution is tariffs. Big tariffs.

Go Tariffs!!

[Javaman]

28. Stop bringing reality into the discussion.

Free trade has killed the unions and worker rights of this nation.

I hope for the day when nafta and the like are done away with.

Cheers!

[RZM]

36. 'This American Life' did a retraction show last week

Where they spent most of the hour explaining all of the holes in Mike Daisey's story.

But at the end they trotted out a real reporter and asked him what the real deal is with Apple/Foxconn etc. The reporter mentioned that low wages aren't really the main reason Apple makes things in China. It's about the supply chain - the factories that make all of the other stuff that goes into an apple product (glass, screws, whatever) are all right there in China too.

I thought it was an interesting point.

[think]

37. guess they can take the suicide nets down then /nt

[RZM]

40. That doesn't speak to my point at all

I didn't say I approved. I just said that this NYT reporter (I forget his name) argued that it's about more than low wages - it's about the entire supply chain from start to finish. Since most of an iPad's parts are made in China, it makes sense to produce the iPad there too. He particularly emphasized the ability to get custom parts on short notice.

[think]

41. That must be why Foxconn is opening 5 new Ipad factories in Brazil:

Foxconn to build 5 new factories in Brazil to help make Apple iPads, other products

“Apple product assembler Foxconn plans to build five additional factories in Brazil to help cater to demand iPads and other tablets, which are expected to combine for an annual run rate of nearly 400 million units within five years,” Katie Marsal reports for AppleInsider...

Article:
http://macdailynews.com/2012/01/31/foxconn-to-build-5-new-factories-in-brazil-to-help-make-apple-ipads-other-products/

Grumpy this AM. Sorry.

[Pholus]

58. Ahhhhh, the barn door AFTER the horses have left argument then....

Tax em into the ground. They paid to slake their lust for "cheap labor" and they can pay to clean up the mess.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Because

Of the Environment. Think about it . . . I'm not going to get into a good v. bad on Apple - but the carbon footprint is much lower when it doesn't have to come across the ocean.

Look to the D.C.'s of the major carriers - it's less of an environmental impact to consolidate into just three or 4 locations.

As we become more global - we must also become more 'local', walkable, and sustainable. Imagine the tax breaks to Apple if they created a manufacturing facility in Detroit or Rochester NY. Seriously - in Rochester - you have the old Kodak Complex off of 490 pretty much empty. Even if they DID pay their employees say - $12 an hour - the cost of moving the product around the East coast to East MidWest would be radically lower than putting it on a plane (when we carriers start demanding a really tight launch deadline to keep the masses happy) and the cost is not just measured in freight forwarding - but in carbon footprint and energy costs.

It would also help solve the problem of Foxconn reverse logistics. That's a nightmare to contend with on their Defective Devices. Anyone who says that Apple or ANY electronics manufacturer doesn't create defective product is full of bologna and has never had to manage in any way, shape or form forward and/or reverse logistics of bringing to market or re-market.


I especially like the idea of . . .

It's December 1st and we need the devices NOW NOW NOW and we no longer have to jerk around with Chinese customs to get them out of country. And - it would put this nonsense that they are trying to impose on their BUSINESS PARTNERS of us obtaining a logistics company in China, taking our truck to their dock, hiring people in China to load it (Foxconn won't) - alllllll because Foxconn wants an Ex Works (Incoterms) set up. I understand that Foxconn is ALSO their partner - but without us . . . . their phones in the U.S. are bricks. ALL of us that allow them on our networks.

[Pholus]

29. Wow. An answer to the CARBON question. Guess the other ones are too hard, huh?

I think the best part about being on someone's ignore list is that you can ALWAYS shred them and they don't even know they need to rebut.

[JustAnotherGen]

53. And I'm an insider

If the American consumer demands it be made in America - Apple will need to comply.

Also - you can't just look at the Carbon Footprint.

Look at the cost.

Do you want your Service provider's cost to keep increasing as gas prices increase? Do you want us to have pass the cost of goods on to you so that Foxconn/Apple can have their way (we are going to have to pay a lot of people OFF in China if they can't just continue to do things as they have been). This game is all about palm greasing.


I think you need to go back and look at the shipping costs.

And YOU DO realize that all of the carriers that sell the device with two year plans . . . we pay far faaaaaaaar more than you the consumer does?

So if Apple continues, and the four big ones - we gang up on them and tell them they can sell their product with our service but we won't be a distributor for them any more - will you be willing to pay Apple's Cost of Goods plus mark up?

I don't mean to pick at you - but while everyone else is whining about Foxconn employee treatment - I'm looking at this from the POV that I have customers. Those customers want Apple products. I want to bring those products into my Distribution Centers (DC's) as CHEAPLY as possible in order to keep the price in line with what they consumer will pay - AND - make Wall Street Happy.


Good bad or ugly - if you pick on Wall Street - the pick on Apple.

If you pick on Apple - pick on Wall street.

[Selatius]

24. With free trade policies currently in place, the answer is most definitely no.

You simply can't compete with consumer electronics manufacturing workers in China on labor costs. It's impossible. Their average wage is typically less than a dollar an hour when you convert back into USD.

If the US had maintained a system of competitive tariffs in place to protect domestic manufacturing but also still be open to outside competition, it would make more sense to make it here.

We simply don't manufacture our own things anymore. The corporations think that is too expensive. The problem is now we're hopelessly dependent upon a military dictatorship with appalling human rights abuses for the things we use.

[Pholus]

26. The NYTIMES quoted the increased price if they WERE manufactured here.

By all means, we should tariff "cheap labor" companies like this to within an inch of their business life....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

"It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward."

So since its like $15 to assemble in China, it's $80 to assemble in the U.S. Compared to "hundreds of dollars per phone" neither number breaks the bank as far as Apple is concerned. It's just a matter of GREED.

My biggest revelation in looking at the numbers in this article was that the cost of labor doesn't make this impossible to build in the U.S. -- it just doesn't give the astronomically high return needed to build $100 billion in unspent profits. If Apple had chosen to build in the U.S. they'd only have $75 billion or so sitting around.

And then Apple is sociopathic enough to try to blame the victim, saying U.S. workers no longer have the motivation or skills they seek. I guess that sounds a bit better than admitting they're greedy slimeballs.

[Puzzledtraveller]

30. Insightful, thanks.

I get the greed part. However, looking at individual shareholders who want to make money on their investments is understandable at least. I have always had a problem assigning human traits to non human entities, be it businesses or governments, nations. So is it greed that compels Apple?, or "good" business sense. I say good only for its result, not as a reflection on a moral choice. It defintely doesn't mean I agree either. I tend to be on the side that the cat was out of the bag when we transitioned to a global economy a la NAFTA and other trade agreements. I often wonder if we just don't suck at incentivizing. I had been an opponent one time of universal healthcare via public option, BUT, such a model could be great for the economy. How many corporations that manufacture over seas have to provide health care to their employees? We could make it more profitable to manufacture good here also, without cutting into salaries, we just choose not to.

[Pholus]

32. It's not the greed that bothers me, it's the apparent pride in it...

I guess I was raised differently. There are right ways to make money and wrong ways and they're easy to spot using just the golden rule. But that's such an old concept these days when profits trump all.

I love posts like the OP telling me that our country should BUY this crap but that there is no obligation in return and besides our country's time is past anyway. That's a common theme from this poster, by the way -- I was once dismissed as being a "'murcan" -- so perhaps there is a bit of a dislike for our country behind this as well.

That being said, the Maker knows if I suddenly somehow infringed on an Apple patent that the poster would suddenly be extolling the virtues of the US legal system that Apple barely supports with its tax money...

[Puzzledtraveller]

76. I agree completely

It's not the greed that bothers me, it's the apparent pride in it...



I guess I was raised differently. There are right ways to make money and wrong ways and they're easy to spot using just the golden rule.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. It's not apple, it's systemic

Greed is good.

Visualize young man getting a paid internship at a new york firm, a six week summer internship, paying 30k. Yup, he is soon to graduate from a top business school. The I back stab you to get ahead is learned while in elite business schools.

[Pholus]

91. True, but only Apple gets this kind of fawning headlines here.

At least I haven't heard someone defending J. Crew's labor practices or their right as a corporation to use whatever labor source they can secure.

I'm sorry but that does make Apple a convenient target.

But as you say, very correctly, it is systemic.

At some point the correction will come, probably when we physically cannot borrow any more. Here's hoping we can pick up the bits after that...

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. That is because J Crew or Hilfinger

Have not released internal data pointing to practices. To give apple a little, smidgen, of credit, we know what we know since they released it themselves about three years ago. Now if thy took their internal debate to logical conclussion, and they just may, my credit will grow a little.

I have been following this cheap labor while writing (still researching) us labor history.

The shocking part is...apart of a generation or to, us corporations have relied on cheap labor. The 1950-80 or so, was an aberration.

[Pholus]

94. So my childhood memories were an abberation. That's just depressing... ;)

I'm thinking things were getting worse, when they're just returning to normal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. From the data

We have relied on cheap labor, whether it is the indentured white servant, a form of slavery, slaves, poor immigrants, what have you.

Yup, depresses me too.

[Selatius]

34. This is why I favor competitive tariffs, as opposed to exorbitantly high ones.

If it costs 15 dollars in China and 80 dollars in the US to build, I would say the problem is we didn't equalize the two costs.

The result is global labor arbitrage.

If tariffs were levied on the phones that Apple attempts to bring back into the US such that labor costs between the two countries is basically the same, they wouldn't have bothered going through the trouble of building manufacturing in China, shipping it back to the US via cargo ships for the sake of seeking greater profits because the impact on profit margins would've been negligible.

[pampango]

87. That tariff sounds like the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 (the 'scientific tariff')

The Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 introduced two new concepts:

The first was the scientific tariff. The purpose of the scientific tariff was to equalize production costs among countries so that no country could undercut the prices charged by American companies. The difference of production costs was calculated by the Tariff Commission.

A second novelty was the American Selling Price. This allowed the president to calculate the duty based on the price of the American price of a good, not the imported good.
The bill also gave the president the power to raise or lower rates on products if it was recommended by the Tariff Commission.

The tariff was supported by the Republican party and conservatives and was generally opposed by the Democratic Party and liberal progressives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney%E2%80%93McCumber_Tariff

Republicans had enacted higher tariffs in 1921 two months after Harding succeeded Wilson. Of course, the 1921 and 1922 tariffs, which were largely opposed by Democrats, did not solve our economic problems. Indeed by 1929 income inequality had reached unprecedented levels (since exceeded in the past decade, of course) so republicans came back to the idea again (apparently perceived by them as the only tool in their tool box) in 1929 with Smoot/Hawley.

During the 1928 presidential campaign Hoover promised to raise tariff rates again.

In their certitude that tariff hikes were the answer, no matter what the question, Smoot’s Republicans resemble today’s Republicans, who put a similar faith in tax cuts.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/eb6357c0-3d1a-11e0-bbff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EaoLpkGn

The Utah Republican senator Reed Smoot ... wanted to prop up the market in sugar beets, which his constituents grew. He also wanted to protect citizens from imported pornography. ... Economists warned, almost unanimously, that he was on the path of folly. Smoot dismissed them as the dark, “powerful forces” that “lurk in the international economic conferences held in Europe”.

(I)n June 1930, it passed in a flurry of parliamentary manoeuvres and vote-buying, and President Herbert Hoover signed it into law, conceding it was not “perfect”. The Senate bill passed on a vote of 44 to 42, with 39 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The conference committee then aligned the two versions, largely by moving to the greater House tariffs. The House passed the conference bill on a vote of 222 to 153, with the support of 208 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Republicans lost their House majority in that autumn’s elections to an opposition (Democrats) urging repeal.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke against the act while campaigning for president during 1932. ... The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a reflection of Republican Party policy. In his 1932 election campaign platform Franklin Delano Roosevelt pledged to lower tariffs. He and the now-Democratic Congress did so in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. ... After World War II this undergirded a push towards multi-lateral trading agreements that would prevent a similar situation from unfolding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

[Zalatix]

121. You keep pushing this war against tariffs but you forget one thing.

The drop in trade that actually occurred under Smoot-Hawley was the same as the drop in GDP - we didn't trade as much because we didn't make as much.

Income inequality in 1929 was not the result of tariffs - it was because of de-regulation and laissez-faire economics. Of course the tariffs weren't enough to surpass that.

By the way are you afraid that PRICES will go up if we raise tariffs? Well, when Chinese workers' wages go up, guess what... prices will go up. And when we run out of sources of cheap labor? Prices will go up. This is one thing that free traders refuse to address. That, and offshoring our jobs results in the devaluation of our currency.

So everything you fear will happen because of the thing you defend the most.

[Selatius]

129. I would say gross income inequality was due to a lack of market regulation, not tariffs.

In those days, you didn't have agencies like the SEC regulating the markets against people purposely gaming the system, engaging in reckless banking practices, pumping and dumping stocks, or just plain selling fraudulent securities. The recklessness seen during this period led to the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act several years later, in the midst of the Great Depression, preventing bank consolidation between commercial banking entities and investment banks, precisely because it caused a major conflict of interest that would encourage executives and loan officers to engage in risky or downright unlawful behavior.

As we saw, this law was repealed in the last years of Clinton under the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 preceding the cratering of the US economy in 2008 in the worst downturn seen since the Great Depression.

[hughee99]

67. I'm not sure those numbers are accurate.

If it cost Apple an extra $65 dollars to manufacture, they'd just mark it up from $600 to $665 (for example) and they'd still see the same profits. I know many iPhone and iPad owners, and none of them would buy something else just because of the $65 price increase.

[Pholus]

69. It is a single source, indeed, but playing with the numbers sounds kind of reasonable...

I did it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=334440

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. As long as you keep this to companies.

[handy hannah]

27. Yeahto

makes more sense to exploit people with slave labor so that we all can "enjoy" their gizmos...

[former9thward]

39. I assume you will now stop posting and using the internet because the machine

you are using was made with that same "slave labor". Of course you would not want to be hypocritical and exploit those people.

[Pholus]

60. Ahhh, the "let those who are without sin cast the first stone" argument.

We went around on this before. Seems to me you ran out of things to say and ended up sputtering that I must be some kind of hater.

Do you have any NEW arguments, or should I simply relink to that?

[former9thward]

66. Always good to hear from my I Live To Hate Apple stalker.

Link to whatever gets you through the day.

[Pholus]

68. Hehehe. Stalker. You can't argue ANYTHING without name calling.

It's just who you are. No ideas.

[HopeHoops]

31. If they want to continue to lay claim to being the first viable PC, they should make stuff here.

Yes, there were viable PC's before them and contemporary competitors. The Apple I was built in a briefcase. Apple has always tried to differentiate itself in one way or another. Bringing the manufacturing home would do that and wouldn't change the cost of the machine by a cent. All it would do is reduce the billions in profits by a bit.

[think]

35. we should exploit cheap labor, lax environmental laws, and loose tax structures

for as long as we can

[Pholus]

61. I believe response #50 says that that's the case...

Because Apple is too beautiful to need to exist within anyone's laws...

[dmallind]

38. I do have to wonder if answers would differ, in either direction,

When asked about the huge numbers of Americans employed here by companies like Subaru, Toyota, Novartis, Bayer, Shell, SAP, Siemens, etc?

The measure of how much of the productive economy is owned by foreign companies (how much "offshoring"is placed in a given country by foreign companies) is called direct foreign investment at home.

The number one country by a mile? China of course!


Except they are not. They are number 7. Literally trillions behind #1 - the USA. Ending offshoring would hurt the US ecenomy much more than China's.

[Pholus]

64. AKA the "everybody does it so it's okay" argument.

Completely shredded a month ago. Of course, the meme will be started again in the hopes that our memories are short...

[dmallind]

80. I have no idea what you think was "shredded" but I doubt it was relevant

Since there's been no sudden collapse in global trade or multinationals' freedom of investment in the last month. Production goes to where it is most effective, and there are many criteria including cost, quality, workforce availability, logistics of both upstream and downstream supply chains, government, environment, site flexibility, etc. Many times the US is the best location, many times it isn't, for both US and foreign-based companies. Since the only alternative is economic isolationism, where one country refuses to buy from/invest in and hence is certain to be refused the right to sell to/gain investment from, any other, and since that way lies certain ruin, it's more a case of "it's ok if you want to have a functional economy".

[Pholus]

89. Binary ("either/or") thinking will not work here.

How about a little bit of: "Fine, go do that. Now to enjoy our legal protections, here are your tariffs and taxes."

Additionally, telling me that this wonderful company is merely a force of nature following its own best destiny regardess
of where it leaves causes me to despise it all the more.

It shows no loyalties to what I hold dear so I show it none back.

[pscot]

44. Umm, patriotism?

Nah. That's crazytalk.

[pscot]

49. All rights and no responsibilites

And here I thought they were just folks.

[Pholus]

62. Yup. Just in their nature to be exploitative. Gotta love them for it in fact.

Besides, shiny i-crap rules! Who cares about right or wrong, just show the letter of the law.

All from the "thinking different" company. As valuable as their marketing slogan and not a penny more.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Because americans should prefer american products. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. They should and they do.

They import very little - far less than they export.

A negative balance of trade is a slow death spiral for a country's economy. Our only saving grace is that we handle/borrow everyone else's money.

[Pholus]

63. And by your OP argument, don't let the door smack you on the way out...

Apple worship uber alles!

[Dreamer Tatum]

56. OK, fine. Move the company to China and slap a huge fucking import tariff

on their toys and let them pay that way.

[LanternWaste]

57. Vultures dislike the ethical responsibility of taxes.

I imagine there are too many social and ethical obligations for them to meet to continue remaining in the US too much longer. Carrion creatures dislike the ethical responsibility of taxes. Amorality find morality inconvenient and expensive, hence the slow corporate move and branding towards dead-beat dadism.

[Pholus]

78. One wonders why they bother with a connection here at all. Oh yeah, lawyers.

Who else protects their rights? Their buddies in China would have no problem making the "Appppple iPpad" and then selling it for 1/4 the price. But Apple has always loved the legal profession, you have to admit.

Sorry, guess you still need us for something.

I think the lawyers should charge a bit more for that.

[Sea-Dog]

59. this stood out to me.

"but the
handwriting is clearly on the wall:
as China's economy advances, its
population becomes more and
more able to buy what we
consider to be modern luxuries
like
high-end consumer electronics."

I take it you have little idea how much a nice phone costs in China? its cheaper to get it in britan than china

[Sea-Dog]

85. it would have been useful if u had a arguement.

they work for peanuts on a item like a iPhone and it costs more to get one than it would on britan.

[girl gone mad]

88. Even by Chinese standards, Foxconn's wages are not considered very good.

Shenzen workers can't afford to have anything approaching a decent quality of life on that pay. It's one of the reasons they have such a huge turnover rate.

[Sea-Dog]

90. sounding like a rich individual that turns the other cheek

when it concerns they're favourite bits of plastic.

[Pholus]

95. Your junkheap because advertising makes you buy new stuff....

you don't need. I get the castoffs.

So you still think this is a winner of an argument. Sad, just sad...

[Sea-Dog]

99. the library

and it the level of poverty you think others should have in order to keep you in the latest i-shite

[Pholus]

111. As usual, backed into a corner and we see the classy side come out.

Personal yet nerdy insults, knocks on the United States and unswaying loyalty to a "cheap labor" company all at once.

Efficient.

[Sea-Dog]

122. another post of fail.

[Pholus]

141. In a trashbin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. I say let them move the whole company

Corporate offices, everything, to China.

there are reasons why this is not susyainable. Either that or tariffs at the border and Sherman anti trust

Oh wait, but I was told here I am an Appe defender for actually liking the user experience.

It is the system that has been created. The logical end is Apple moving to China and becoming a Chinese company.

[Pholus]

79. I apologize for what I said earlier to you.

After this morning's OP, I was VERY wrong. Things need to change and
legislation needs to be an issue.

How can one start the process? Letter writing? Through an organization?

However, they are not leaving yet. They need our legal and patent systems for a while yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. I have been mulling this myself

I know a boycott will not work. It's like trying to boycott BP.

But embarrasing "the system" is the first step and demand that tariffs be imposed on all companies doing business in China.

I know the pols started talking that, time to capitalize.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Shh over here, here are a few other companies doing this

J. Crew

The Gap

Eddie Bauer...

While they close stores here in the states, where do you think they are opening them?

No, they are not our favorite electronics bauble producer to hate, but they are just as guilty

Oh and let's not forget Wallmart.

[fascisthunter]

103. it really stinks

I really do not like the idea of our excesses being provided by poor people who have no choice but to work for peanuts. Our entertainment so they can struggle making a living... it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, because I am guilty of taking advantage of it.

[Blue_Tires]

97. I dunno...Might have something to do with it's an American company?

Founded, owned and managed by Americans??

(How fucked up are we that I need to this statement? Why do the vast majority of companies elsewhere in the world understand the importance of re-investing in their home nation that brought them to prominence and it's such an alien concept here???)

That being said, if Apple loves China that much, then kick their collective ass out of Cupertino and let them re-incorporate in China

[fascisthunter]

101. Not if it is an American Company

look... I like their products, but I don't like the idea that poor people are being taken advantage of just so I can have the latest Apple product. Apple, HP, Microsoft, etc can make enough money while paying a living wage, and considering how badly our economy is here, I'd like American companies to invest in the country that made their existence possible by keeping jobs here.

[fascisthunter]

107. you asked why... did you expect folks here to somehow ignore facts

and just say... yay? WTF? Do you understand what this is doing to people in this country and how it uses and abuses the poor in other countries so that some can benefit... do you NOT think there is an immoral element here, because I do. Let me guess, you aren't poor and a long way from it?

[Pholus]

114. Tone deaf! Tone deaf! Tone deaf!

Yeah. So why is poor widdle Apple getting the bad rap....

1) You're on a site occupied in part by labor. Just how arrogantly ignorant
ARE you that you can post stories talking about moving jobs overseas
to a "cheap labor" country and not get pushback.

2) You're on a site worried about our national economy. Just how completely
clueless and advertising-brainwashed are you to think it's great that
you're bragging about a company which uses tax dodges which rip us off.
Sorry, as a startup your company benefitted from my taxes. You made
it big, pay it back so others can benefit too. That's the contract. But
Apple doesn't HONOR contracts, they only want to enforce a handful
beneficial to them.

3) You're on a site occupied by people screwed by multinational corporations
and free trade. Do you honestly think for a moment you'll go unchallenged
in your uncritical praise of the profits made at our expense? It's rich that
"but the bottom line makes this move obvious" is supposed to appease
everyone.

4) You're actually DEFENDING another US company leaving using right wing
cheap labor arguments..... Which site are we on again?

Oh never mind. The best part about this is that it's all on display for everyone
to see. I really don't need to do much more at this point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Because believe it or not they will come back crying like little kids

when the Chinese government finds it convenient to take them toys away from them.

It's happened in the past.

What I find incredible is that you are defending these policies. That is what I find incredible.

I get it, why they and Dell, and J Crew and the rest are doing that. It is not sustainable...

Perhaps you should consider, and I am very serious on this, the consequences of what you are advocating right at the moment. I mean the full consequences, not just to insert transnational here.

By the way I hope their full move to China costs them everything. As is, well it already is

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKldBGvbQmB6akyRAY6KHC0zmXV0Bsu9UjBdQJkJ4OweceBhzlkQ

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSllie72yU9POXfsCKbUg9vsanh1kK-wx6Ci4vpV3Ynj2VAuubK

Any similarities to any product you love are NOT coincidental. Guess what the afternoon shift at Foxxcon does? Yup, build clones We have a name for that, but hey... I will not bother trying to explain it to you. I hope it costs them every red cent. Then maybe they will come back crying.

[bluesbassman]

117. I'll tell you why, because basically your question was asked in order to defend Apples's activities.

Your locic is flawed to begin with. iProduct purchases in China will never surpass what's done in the US and Europe because the Chinese are never going to pay wages that will allow it. Now if you're talking about units, then sure the Chinese vastly outnumber the West so if Apple decides to sell iPhones and iPads for $39.95 then they'll surely sell billions. But do you think Apple's corporate responsibility to their shareholders will allow them to do that? Where do you think Apple makes the most profit?

[Union Scribe]

136. You asked a deceptive question that ignores

what people in this thread have been trying to discuss with you, to only be met with 'my post wasn't about that!'

[cali]

104. Why? Because it was, in significant part, built on taxpayer provided infratstructure

because it is an American Company.

That's why

[bluesbassman]

118. Oh don't bring THAT up cali...

Apple was just clever to use the resources available to them.

[2ndAmForComputers]

112. They can build wherever the hell they like. Just don't expect generosity from the tax man.

[Zalatix]

119. Because they moved out of the US while we were their biggest market, that's why.

We outsourced jobs to them, turnabout is fair play.

[krispos42]

120. China's emergence as an economic powerhouse...

...came at a direct expense to US prosperity.


If we close the laws that let China grow at our expense, China will shrink.

[Zalatix]

123. Heaven knows China's market is closed to America's working class.

The OP apparently doesn't realize that.

[Pholus]

127. Chinese growth compared to "the decline of American Exceptionalism" right Tesha?

The whole reason your smug series of posts here is tone deaf is you are in essence
bragging about precious company's success which comes at the cost of the people
I know personally.

See, my friends and family are in THIS reality (and not the top 5% either):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

I actually know why you put me on ignore -- when we argued you NEVER managed
to get a counterpoint that stuck. You lost every single time, with all your pre-canned
arguments. You know why you couldn't land a punch? It's because your position is
wrong....very very wrong.

This country made Apple and that ungrateful POS refuses to pay back. Screw em!

I will not stay quiet on this. Expect a response every time I see one of these
self-congratulatory OP's.

[JCMach1]

130. Until fair wages, fair profits and fair trade become the rule, not the exception for the world

then the corporations will continue to rule the world...

We will never know if Americans can make a better product, because better doesn't earn 500%.

[Pholus]

134. You can't prove THAT with a link.

I have *never* seen a company held up as a more moral alternative than Apple. In fact the general contention is that they all suck. This is used by cultists as an excuse as to why they shouldn't have to change and by haters as proof that Apple is no great shakes.

But that doesn't fit in with your goal, which is to serve as the equivalent of our own paid Apple rep, does it??

[JCMach1]

142. 500% was hyperbole, but it is no joke with some Chineses products sold in America...

[Pholus]

143. I actually meant the Samsung worship posts.....

I have not seen many electronics manufacturers singled out by name. In fact, that was a point I was arguing prior to hitting Tesha's ignore list. Many extreme Apple supporters seem to have a deep seated belief that any criticism of Apple is rooted in fanboism for another brand. My interactions with them have seen them flailing around, trying to find what brand name criticism will set me off. Too bad I have none. Well, perhaps I do but the company has been dead for 15 years so is it label whoredom or nostalgia....

In other words, they can't accept that criticism might be independent of a brand name.

[Global Teach-In]

132. Spam deleted by Ian David (MIR Team)

[Pholus]

135. By "thousands" you mean about 2500. Doesn't sound as impressive, does it.

Market speak. That's what we get from you. Always.

[apocalypsehow]

137. You're good, but Hannah still managed these kinds of things better. Practice makes perfect!

[The Straight Story]

144. I think they should bring slaves in by ship to make them myself

but first, let's have other companies do the same so that Apple won't be held accountable by others (the "others do it too defense&quot . Once that happens we can all agree not to mention or boycott any one company because it would not be fair.

Why should they move production back here? Oh I dunno - something we call loyalty to your base and country. Putting some things before money.

I realize some people think money is the most important factor in life, and they can get behind companies when they feel the same. Some folks though actually value some things above that and would like to see companies they do business with have similar ethics.

Others are fine if children are slaves, people are driven to suicide, etc (not saying this happens with Apple, talking in general) as long as the money is made they will say "I can understand where a company is coming from, I would do the exact same thing myself".