
Apple plans to spend $1B to support advanced manufacturing jobs in the U.S - happy-go-lucky
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/04/apple-plans-to-spend-1-billion-to-support-advanced-manufacturing-jobs-in-the-u-s/
======
ryanmarsh
> Cook told "60 Minutes” in 2015. “I mean, you can take every tool and die
> maker in the United States and probably put them in a room that we’re
> currently sitting in. In China, you would have to have multiple football
> fields.”

In that interview he also said that the jobs weren't coming back.

This is one of the most powerful statements uttered on American labor and
employment trends in recent memory.

I have shared this quote with every middle/lower-middle class person I know
who voted for Trump and their responses have all been the same, horror.

Financial interests convinced liberals and conservatives alike that globalism
was a good thing (for altruistic or selfish reasons respectively). Instead it
just gave Capital access to cheap labor and totally fucked the American
worker.

~~~
david-cako
What's the answer? Protectionism?

That's the thing I don't get, so many people will advocate "fewer
regulations", yet are perfectly content with prohibitive tariffs from the
place that allows people living in section 8 to afford iPhones.

You're 100% right, but i just don't see a good answer other than coming to
terms with the fact that cheap labour overseas and automation WILL back us
into UBI in the very near future. It's the cost of doing business. No
different than the argument that it's more economical to work an extra 30
minutes and pay someone else to cook for you.

Why such a large percentage of the middle class thinks that THEIR livelihoods
are threatened by having the rich pay up, I don't know.

~~~
sbov
But it's not completely a labor play. Some of it is to skirt environmental
protections. I'm not going to assume, but if you consider yourself both a
globalist and an environmentalist, how do you personally resolve those two
beliefs? Anyone reading this who does, how do you resolve those beliefs?

I can vote for all the environmental protections that I want, but what good
does that do if it just forces companies to manufacture goods in places that
have worse environmental protections than we do?

I ask this as someone who believes in both movements, and don't have a great
answer to resolve this internal conflict.

~~~
nickik
The answer is not very hard. People like to attribute everything to regulation
but the reality is that most parts of living standards improve when incomes
grows.

As China becomes richer they will go threw the same stuff that Britain and
later the US did.

Maybe I don't fit the bill as 'envoirmentalist' but I like to live in a place
and country with a clean envoirment.

China will have to fix its own problems, and Im sure they eventually will.

~~~
thevtm
Polution and slave labour in China.

Unemployment in the US.

Globalism sounds great.

~~~
silverbax88
Globalism is, and will continue to, happen no matter what the US does. The US
needs to figure out how to make it work for the long term. Protectionism won't
work. You might as well be a cooper or haberdasher trying to pass laws to keep
people using barrels and hats.

People keep trying to either spin globalism as evil or good, but it's neither.
It's just something that was going to happen no matter what. The US does not
have a say in whether it happens. If the US doesn't figure out a way to make
it work for them, then they'll be replaced by whichever country does.

The answer is _not_ passing laws for tariffs or thinking the US can race to
the bottom with low wages and manufacturing. The world desperately needs
advanced technology and medicine, and the US should be focused on that, not
stupidly trying to compete with literally every other single country on Earth
on things any country can produce.

~~~
mtempm
Protectionism has proven to work well in some cases in history.

You are also misunderstanding by conflating globalism with free trade. The two
are related, but not the same. You can be for free trade of goods and
services, but not for unelected central powers (i.e. an EU, a central bank).

Mainstream academic economists are typically free trade, but we have no
science to test this theory so just br careful about drinking too much of the
kool aid. LarGe corps, banks, and US gov generally want globalism. Keep in
mind why they want that (profit and power). We still have a lot of people
suffering in 2017 and no longer a good excuse for it (i.e. resources scarcity
cant explain malnutrition anymore).

~~~
linkregister
The EU is unelected? Member countries send their own representatives to the EU
Parliament; they send council members to the European Council.

The ECB is nominated by the EC.

The U.S. Federal Reserve commissioners and chairman are appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate.

~~~
sbov
Many would consider that unelected. I'm sure you draw the line somewhere too:
I doubt you consider every government employee elected just because you can
draw a chain of responsibility back to some elected official.

~~~
linkregister
Please don't backpedal by going into the definition of the word. The
rhetorical value of "unelected" was to paint the EU and Federal Reserve as
unrepresentative.

Hell, by your logic, the U.S. Senate before the 20th Century wasn't elected
because they were elected by state legislatures instead of popular elections.

~~~
mtempm
You are simply and flatly factually wrong about this, sorry. I encourage you
to check out the textbook definition of the Fed as well as technocracy. You
can also Google 'differences b/w a technocracy and democracy.' The Fed is
widely accepted by every piece of academic literature Ive ever come across to
be a technocracy, and that is the word we use to describe it. Also, the EU can
and should be thought of at least being largely technocratic as well.

~~~
linkregister
You're the only person in this thread to talk about "democracy vs
technocracy," debating a point I never made.

~~~
mtempm
When you were arguing about how the EU and Fed are, in your opinion, elected,
I thought you would be able to make the connection. They aren't considered
elected officials in the standard sense we think about it--in a democratic
sense--and no one thinks that. They are unelected by any plain interpretation
of _democracy._ That's the reason the word technocracy is used to describe
them.

------
ardit33
There is also geopolitical reasons for this. There is a high chance that east
asia will be embroiled with some war coming soon, which will disrupt both
manufacturing (either in china or Taiwan), or transports of goods.

Even if the North Korea problem gets solved, the China problem is still there
and it wont be solved anytime soon.

If you have some streamlined manufacturing here, it is easier to fork it in
case the main area of supplies goes offline due to regional
wars/embargoes/troubles.

Right now relying only on east asian manufacturing is a single point of
failure for apple.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
I don't understand why this is being so heavily down voted. It's a major risk
theme amongst asset managers: what happens if a major war in the South China
Sea disrupts ASEAN and Chinese supply chains and/or trade relations.

~~~
komali2
Seems like a wild bet to make when the region has been embroiled in conflict
far worse. People were still manufacturing in China during the American
(Vietnam) war.

~~~
RUG3Y
I believe that in the 60s, Japan was the source of many of the kinds of
imports that we're now getting from China.

------
jonknee
> Apple says that it intends to bolster the U.S. manufacturing sector by
> creating a $1 billion “advanced manufacturing fund” — with some of that
> initial money going toward a company the tech giant is prepared to partner
> with, chief executive Tim Cook said.

Amazing what passes for news these days. This sounds no different from what
they normally do with their supply chain. Anyone remember GT Advanced
Technologies? Apple wanted their sapphire glass for the iPhone 6 and fronted
$439m for a factory in Arizona. The deal went south and Apple ended up owning
everything and 700+ people were laid off. Apple turned it into a data center.

~~~
mcphage
> The deal went south

It wasn't that the deal went south, it was that the company was unable to
produce & deliver the product that they said they could, at the price they
agreed to. GT bet the company on being able to fulfill their contract with
Apple, and failed.

~~~
jonknee
> it was that the company was unable to produce & deliver the product that
> they said they could, at the price they agreed to

How is that not the deal going south?

~~~
mcphage
Maybe it's not, but I think of "the deal went south" more as "negotiations
broke down", instead of "it cost more to make the things than one party agreed
to pay for them."

------
brudgers
I read the headline and thought:

\+ Advanced manufacturing jobs are done by robots.

\+ $1 billion builds one moderately sized manufacturing plant (Tesla's
Gigafactory is $5 billion [1])

\+ There's a scene _Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery_ I wish the
press would review before reporting so breathlessly.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1)

------
unchocked
Setting up a fund to create jobs is a pretty telling indicator that those jobs
don't exist, and aren't expected to.

------
PatrickAuld
I think "Advanced Manufacturing Jobs" are going to be roboticist, machine
learning and mechanical engineer related. Foxconn is moving this direction and
I'm betting Apple thinks they can do it as well as them. Plus possible tax
breaks based on Trump's comments.

~~~
tooltalk
Apple isn't probably thinking about doing this themselves. Note that Cook is
going to "support," not actually build themselves.

They are most likely to invest in Foxconn to help them open up shops in the
US.

~~~
PatrickAuld
Definitely possible, Apple uses vendors in a way that would be difficult to do
themselves. However, if I'm right about the types of jobs this will create it
does fall in line with Apple's expertise more than a human built process. Just
as they are building their own silicon they may want to own pieces of build
process.

------
euphoria83
This is the way to bring jobs back to the US. Start with investing "small"
sums of money to create an enterprise that will require manufacturing
expertise in some area. The ecosystem will then expand. Other companies can
then take advantage of the same expertise. Also, the radius of expertise will
grow as supporting jobs crop up.

------
CrankyBear
Or, to put this into perspective, that 1/250th of their cash on hand.
[http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/investing/apple-cash-
quarter...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/investing/apple-cash-quarter-
trillion/)

~~~
J0-nas
To be fair, while they are "richer than god" most of their money is either in
some non-us bank to avoid taxes or invested...

------
foepys
I guess it's part of a plan to pay lower taxes on their oversea cash when they
will bring it into the US. Create jobs, get tax breaks. Apple has stashed
about $250 billion overseas and paying a billion to reduce the tax burden is
most likely the cheaper option.

------
danm07
Anyone else find it odd that all these headlines states only how much these
companies are going to spend on manufacturing, but none of them say what
they're actually going to be making?

~~~
pm90
Is it really that odd? Its a way for companies to prevent getting hit by a
Trump tweet that deplores them for not hiring enough Americans. So now,
everyone wants to portray any US investment they make, any US workers they
hire, loudly and with big but vague/unspecific numbers.

~~~
mikeyouse
Exactly this, which is also why every single automaker now publicly announces
their retooling costs and shift changes for new model years. "We're spending
$4B to improve manufacturing and hiring 10,000 workers" is a politically
friendly headline even if you've done the same thing every year for the past
few decades.

~~~
cmdrfred
If that is true why was that message not popular under Obama as well?

~~~
SmellTheGlove
Well, Obama didn't do a lot of shitposting on Twitter. Trump shaming companies
on a daily basis is probably part of the reason.

~~~
pottersbasilisk
Maybe obama should have too instead of planning to take 400,000 dollar wall
street speeches.

~~~
pottersbasilisk
Even elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are upset with obama taking 400k from
wall street and not prosecuting them in 2008.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-400-000-speech-wall-
str...](http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-400-000-speech-wall-street-
elizabeth-warren-2017-4)

------
mtgx
This isn't just out of Apple's good heart:

[https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/theres-nothing-apples-
ce...](https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/theres-nothing-apples-ceo-cares-
about-more-than-not-paying-taxes/)

------
tmsldd
So.. 0.3% of their cash pile?

~~~
vnchr
I had the same thought. It's outlandish that a $1B investment in anything
could be viewed as insignificant.

~~~
tmsldd
It makes me wonder.. how much Apple invest in China currently?

~~~
cowsandmilk
Apple's latest 10-K has them with 7.807 billion of long-lived assets in China;
the majority of that is going to be manufacturing equipment.

They anticipate $16B of capital expenditure in 2017, where the breakdown there
is between US Data Centers, the new campus, and manufacturing equipment
requires someone who actually does analysis.

------
easilyBored
$1 billion. I wonder what % of their marketing PR a billion is. Because that's
all this is. PR to buy a few good mentions and to enable Apple to say, "Yeah
we're doing something..."

------
ericfrederich
So what'll that be?... 5 new jobs created? Look at the Tesla Gigafactory, they
brag on how dense it is and how automated it is... that means less jobs.

I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying bringing
manufacturing back to the US doesn't mean jobs, it couldn't and still be
profitable. Any new factory in the US will have to be so heavily automated it
couldn't possibly provide any jobs

------
acd
Robots will assemble iphones in the US.

------
yummybear
So, engineers for the robots?

------
paulrpotts
Or, less than one-half of one percent of their cash reserves. That's generous
and I'm sure it will be effective and not at all just a marketing gesture.

------
jlebrech
Trump spoke to Tim Cook last night

~~~
mattnewton
While I don't doubt Trump will rush to claim credit, Apple has been looking at
ways it can hedge against China and get "Made in America" gravitas for a long
time, and steadily experimenting on that front with things like the Mac Pro.

~~~
jlebrech
it was a joke, i thought people would have like that.

------
devy
Finally! This is long-overdue indeed.

On a related note, I was pretty shocked when I first knew scientific glass
blower was a very special skill set and is dying.[1]

[1]: [http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-caltech-
glassbl...](http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-caltech-
glassblower-20160613-snap-story.html)

------
malandrew
It's so incredibly obvious that the best course of action is to let all these
companies bring home all those foreign revenues so long as a significant
portion of it is reinvested in the US is a reasonable period of time,
excluding investments in financial instruments (stocks and bonds) and non-
productive assets like land.

Any money that is stuck abroad will be reinvested abroad, making foreign
economies more competitive relative to the US economy. Anyone arguing for
taxing profits from abroad heavily I can only assume has a very poor
understanding of macroeconomics.

~~~
qyv
The money isn't "stuck" abroad, it is hidden there. Don't pretend that it is
the big bad tax man that is stopping these companies from being altruistic,
this is 100% about maximizing profit.

The idea of reinvesting money domestically is good in theory, but how do you
actually ensure that the money stays here? Is Apple Et Al. going to build,
staff and operate these factories with local labour? Or, are they going to
sub-contract out to the lowest domestic bidder who will just end up
outsourcing the work overseas where the factories and labour is already
established and cheaper?

~~~
malandrew
Take the spirit of my comment and exercise the principle of charity:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

I already suggested that we attach restrictions on what constitutes a valid
reinvestment in the US. If you considered the spirit of my comment, it should
be obvious that I would support restrictions that would prohibit the loophole
you suggested.

Maybe we can even make it so the money can only be brought home piecemeal, one
investment at a time, with each investment going through a process that
demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of each repatriated tax dollar is
going to benefit the US economy.

