Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks Foxconn to Move Some MacBook and iPad Production From China to Vietnam
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I got a better idea. How about moving the assembly to the United States and the upper mangers all take a slight pay cut to pay for it?
Still wouldn't be enough. Vietnam has a more capable work force for this type of repetitive assembly work than the US. The US has fully transitioned into a Services Based Economy. There is no going back.
No but I’d pay more to avoid it. It’s unavoidable in the current climate.
Apple is only one of many, many manufacturers moving their production facilities to Vietnam.
Highly unlikely, companies are trying to diversify as much as possible. While Trump may have instigated the trade war, China has been overzealous in other arenas and angered other nations and peoples with its actions as well, in Hong Kong and the South China Sea for instance. Companies see the writing on the wall, they know they can’t keep all their eggs in china’s basket. If public opinion turns south, it could kill businesses tied too much to China. China under Xi has also made it clear to foreign companies they can’t just stay quiet and self-censor, they are now expected to be proponents of the communist party and quash any controversy before it erupts. Disney had hoped the Chinese market would compensate for international criticism of Mulan’s production, but China hampered the release their as well. Disney didn’t do enough, so China left them out to dry. Companies can’t even rely on the Faustian bargains they’ve made with China anymore.
I know of two big box retailers who have told all of their private label vendors they need to move manufacturing out of China within 2yrs. It’s beyond the trade war at this point, it’s about whether the public will still be willing to buy products made in China. Add a cheaper labor environment in other parts of Asia and it’s a no-brained for any business.
The big question for China will be if they are able to hold onto the high-end precision manufacturing that the rest of the world lags far behind in.
Last edited:
Who do you think brought Hitler to power?
Hitler and Nazis were nothing but a puppets and like your average chumps they attacked Soviet Union in a desperate attempt to gain approval and acceptance from UK and US.
Ironically, China did the same when they went to war with Vietnam and killed Soviet Union's border servicemen. China went to great lengths in order to get US factories. And just like Hitler, when China became strong enough they began to think that they don't need to beg for approval anymore and now can bite the hand that feeds them.
Eh, you’re saying the US and UK brought Hitler to power? No, there were enough stupid people who actually voted for him in the beginning. And then after he was elected he destroyed the democratic process right away to stay in power unchecked. The US and UK could have reacted faster against him, that is true as it is now for China. But he definitely got to his position thanks to the stupidity of the people.
Hitler also received loans in abundance to rebuild the country and make Germany a military superpower. Do you really believe that anybody can come to power “just by voting” and get all the international loans and support? If UK/Europe/USA was actually fighting Hitler, he would never have made it to the Russian front. It seems that nobody was interested in making Hitler weaker, only to make him stronger in order to give him a better chance against Soviet Union.
If you mean directly no but if you mean indirectly yes and it goes back to the Treaty of Versailles: the UK for demanding the blasted thing and the US' Woodrow Wilson being a total idealistic idiot. As Frank Capra's Why We Fight points out the UK, US and everybody else turned the League of Nations into a joke. As that first film correctly pointed out no one wanted to fight for some 'mud huts in Manchria/Ethiopia' but if they had Hitler would have not gotten anywhere.
And do not get me started on the naive idiot Neville Chamberlain and his "Peace in our Time" stupidity.
As the old saying says sometimes all Evil needs is for Good people to do nothing.
Also I would like to point out that Hitler's rise to position of Chancellor was not due to popular vote but due to a bunch of bunch of fools in a back room who though they could control him and an increasingly senile President Paul von Hindenburg who despite having 49% of the vote vs Hitler's 30% effectively signed the away Germany's equivalent of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
MBA's destroy companies. Some of the biggest companies in the US like AT&T and Boeing have been absolutely driven into the ground by filling their boards with MBA's. At the time of the 737-Max crashes Boeing didn't have a single engineer or scientist on the board and moved their HQ from Everett to Chicago.
AT&T rely on being a huge monopoly and incumbent and have made some truly staggeringly bad business decisions like buying DirectTV when it was plain as day it was a bad business move.
Intel too, at least they have had the sense to appoint an engineer as CEO so hopefully they'll get back on track.
Every single bad decision can be traced to MBA's on boards. Too many accountants too. I'm firmly of the belief that engineers build companies, MBA's (and too many accountants to a lesser degree by penny pinching) destroy them.
I think you are missing out the fact the UK and France were absolutely shattered by the First World War and had zero appetite for a second. Appeasement looks foolish in hindsight but was completely understandable at the time. They could've stopped Hitler by simply reacting to his re-militarization of the Rhineland, but the Allies didn't want to risk conflict which I completely understand as someone who lost family in both wars.
Russia lost more than UK or France in a WW1 and also had zero interest in any wars. Czechoslovakia had the same size army as the Nazi Germany but when UK forwarded Czechoslovakian gold to Hitler, Czechoslovakia "decided" not to fight Hitler. I am sure that when France surrendered to Hitler after a couple of months, it was not a result of French being wimps but a result of certain consensus to keep Hitler strong and give him more chance against Soviet Union.
Keep in mind that Soviet Union's economy was growing 15% a year at the time so it is not hard to see why this might have been considered a "threat" by the West and Hitler was considered to be a dumb enough instrument to help stop the growth of the Soviet Union's economy.
When Soviet Union crushed Hitler in 1945, Churchill's career was effectively over and he declared the start of the Cold War (I believe the next day or so after the end of the WW2). Stalin also was smart enough to refuse US dollar as the world's reserve currency as he understood that it is going to become a paper fiat currency soon enough.
To be fair to accountants (I was one) they are rarely asked about where corners should be cut. Generally they have their bosses looking at the lines and deciding that that category cost too much and start cutting.
Sort of 'Hey we are spending 10% on whatever line 27 is; cut it in half'. 'Ok that is done.' 'Uh where is half of our workforce?' 'Oh that is what line 27 was - worker wages.'
While insanely simplistic that is how decisions are made. And yes it is about as bright as a dead firefly. And people wonder why corporate America looks like a garbage fire so much of the time.
I do understand that and accountants are important. I'd argue accountants are responsible for many of the issues with US automakers. The Japanese and Koreans can remove cost from cars without sacrificing reliability and quality, US manufacturers always seem to cut costs at the expense of the product.
MBA's on the other hand add virtually nothing to companies. There's a lot of well run companies in America too, it's just there's some enormous players like AT&T and Boeing where this effect of idiot MBA's destroying once great companies is plain as day. As an investor I usually look at who the executive management of a company is and their track record before investing. Perfect example was Lisa Su taking control of AMD and has been a fantastic investment for me. I'm hoping Pat Gelsinger can do the same for Intel as he is an engineer. The second I see an MBA or accountant taking the reigns I usually sell the stock. Apple is an exception to this, even although I have a pretty low opinion of Tim Cook and Eddy Cue, they have enough talent and momentum that I have held Apple stock and they seem to be investing in the right places like their own chips and modems.