Exporting imports and jobs.
When I was a kid I noted how US toy companies imported Japanese components and complete products, gave them a US brand and sold them on to Europe.
Avoiding high wage economies seemed smart to me as, doubtless, the greater part of what I paid was pocketed by the brand's owners. But it also seemed inefficient, as US products tended to be more expensive than European ones, let alone those imported directly from the Far East.
To the present. Virtually none of the IT companies make anything in their home countries. This doesn't seem to lead to cost savings for users -- as Apple's amusing prices demonstrate.Thus the inevitable rise of Far Eastern brands, doubtless building on skills and infrastructure and economies of scale facilitated by supplying US companies.
To take a more prosaic example -- Levi's originally supplied the UK market from factories in the US. The price -- about three times that of UK brand Lee Cooper -- seemed reasonable for a better-made product and a tangible authenticity. Later, production was in Scotland and product quality remained, but one could still buy US-made Levi's when holidaying in the States where, ironically, they cost less than in the UK.
More recently Levi's has started supplying even the US market from Mexico and the world market from factories in Pakistan, Egypt, Bangladesh, Poland and more. Unsurprisingly this has diluted the brand (and, I think, quality) and provides little incentive for customers to pay more for jeans possibly made in the same factories as those sold under cheaper labels.
Moving manufacturing back to the US sounds attractive. The alternative is to continue concentrating wealth in the hands of the brand owners, to deprive the home market of incomes with which to pay for products -- and to encourage competition from abroad.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
