Why isn't the IPad made in the USA?

You answered your own question, cheaper labor, higher profit margin.

http://www.guru3d.com/news/cost-of-ipad-production-in-the-us-1140/

 

Yep. But I wouldn't call it the reason for America's economic downturn. It contributes to unemployment, yes, but the financial crisis that caused this whole mess started in the housing market, which will pretty much always remain domestic.

True that, this has nothing to do with the crisis and the bailouts. However, Americans refusing to buy American will certainly put you guys in a downward spiral.

They mine the source goods there (which usually damages the environment and worker health), some of the components come from Japan and so assembly parts, shipping and labor is cheaper there.

Pay double the current cost and they'll make one here

DUH!!

Housing market was about the only thing that was keeping us afloat but it caught up to them.  It started with wall street trying to make more money in a shell game and lost it.  Then like dominoes stacked up, they all started to fall.  When Sam died that was the turning point in everything going to China.  (Sam, walmart)

There is no such thing as a free market or private enterprise.

Economies does not have natural order where the condition or status is determined by seemingly random events by various independent and/or interdependent factors, because there are no random events.  The economy is wholly manipulated (by laws) to where specific outcomes are made to come to fruition.  This has a detrimental effect on all people, but most importantly on the companies the people create and rely on for their individual pursuit of happiness and [their delusion of] freedom (hence alienable, not unalienable).

-.-

I read #8 3 times...and concluded it's random word arrangement by some form of bot.....;)

No... bots probably wouldn't produce something that completely patternless.

The unemployed spend less money.  Less money being spent means lost sales at local businesses.  This reduced profit decreases shopkeepers purchases, which decreases the sales of other businesses and so on down the line.  Less money being spent means less tax revenue being generated.  Decreased tax revenue results in decaying infrastructure and cut backs on civil services.  Civil service cutbacks results in lost jobs.  The economic downturn escalates.  Buy local.  Support your neighbors.  Enrich your communities.  Help pay for your local infrastructure by paying taxes on local purchases.

......don't give loans (and ridiculously long ones at that) to people who have no business having a loan in the first place.  I thank god everyday that our canadian banks didn't engage in such practices and the results speak for themselves.

To bad that when the guy beside you is drowning he will gladly pull you down with him. I was tought to keep this from happening you punch him in the nose.

An obese person drowning would pull down everyone in the pool. 

I do not completely understand the idea behind by American. Why such an arbitrary geographic region? If buying domestic products is better than buying products from around the world, then it seems that buying only from one's state would be better. Perhaps one should stick only with goods produced in ones own city. Each city can be its own economic island, no imports or exports. Such a city would have the best economy in the world.

I know what unemployment does. The reasons you have outlined are why the recession is still around. But it was housing, not exports, that caused the thing in the first place.

The reason most people cite is that it transfers some jobs from people in foreign countries to Americans, which makes sense if you think Americans are more deserving of prosperity than people in foreign countries (I don't). The economics backs you up, though- the more globalized an economy is, the more efficient it is, and everyone benefits. However, there is also the factor that a job in China is not equal to a job in America. The US has fairly worker-friendly labor laws, as compared to, say, Singapore or India, so things made in America are probably not going to be made by 10-year-old boys running 100-hour work weeks. So there is a legitimate reason to buy American (or other countries that are friendly to labor), but it isn't the one people usually cite.

Buy American .... means your purchase dollar goes to support American business.  The dollar stays within the US and doesn't end up in the coffers of some offshore business/industry.

Same thing is of issue in Australia....where we do absurd things like importing food which we are ENTIRELY CAPABLE of growing locally and thus supporting our OWN farmers rather than some un-regulated and over crop-sprayed/chemically unclean crap from China/elsewhere.

In simple terms it SHOULD be utterly FORBIDDEN for a Nation's flag to be able to be manufactured offshore.

It's disgusting that for example, a country responsible for the sinking of a hospital ship and the subsequent systematic raping of the surviving nurses can be allowed to manufacture the Australian flag under which so many died in the fight to stop such attrocities.

On a lesser note it's just plain embarrassing that a country's souveniers aren't even made in the country they are supposed to represent. 

Oh, I don't know. I've always heard that 'a rising tide lifts all ships.' Support of businesses abroad helps employ people abroad (obviously). You can then sell to those people the things that you do make. I've never heard a credible economist even suggest that trade protectionism is a viable economic strategy. But hey, you all may know something that they don't.

Also, trade in GalCiv 2 is so profitable, it can't be wrong!

True unless they're underwater (or sunk), or unless tethered port and starboard.

 

See this: The US has fairly worker-friendly labor laws, as compared to, say, Singapore or India, so things made in America are probably not going to be made by 10-year-old boys running 100-hour work weeks. So there is a legitimate reason to buy American (or other countries that are friendly to labor), but it isn't the one people usually cite.

Of course, there's also the fact that sending more jobs to a country can cause them to adopt higher standards. It doesn't always happen, by any means, which is why international economics is complicated, but I for one think it might be starting to happen in China.

Don't forget bow and stern!

More seriously, I think that all economies go through something like what Scoutdog describes as their economies are established. It certainly happened in the US. The sooner that a significant percentage of China or whereever's population have the opportunity to make non-sweatshop money, the sweatshops will be forced to compete or go out of business. Free market economics aren't perfect, but the trajectory is in the right direction.

Harley Davidson made dinosaurs.  Japan made bikes people could actually want to ride...and ride fast.

HD was going to the wall until the US Govt. 'protected' them.

Eventually enough old bastard riders got their mid-life crisis and went out and bought HDs [they were no longer lean and mean and fast [the riders, not the HDs]  and sedentary 'boat anchors' suited their middle aged spread....so HD survived....;p

I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I understand...

They got subsidies so the mid-lifers bought them because they were cheaper? Are you sure it wasn't due to advertising? What's a boat anchor? To be fair (if this is the point that you're making), I think that farmers get extensive subsidies, too, but in both cases, these are granted by politicians who nearly always have little to no experience in economics. Plus, subsidies to their constituents help them get re-elected, whether it's a good idea in the grand scheme of things or not.

The Harley Law

What has become known as the “Harley Law” was the resulting finding of the ITC that imports were a contributing cause of injury to the domestic heavyweight motorcycle industry. The ITC recommended to then–President Ronald Reagan that import duties be increased for a period of five years. Duties were to be raised to 45 percent the first year (1983), with the duty declining steadily over each following year until reaching 10 percent in the fifth and final year of protection (1988).

For the rest of it.....

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,714764,714771 

 

It always pays to be eddykated when debating issue/opinion....;)

....and a 'boat anchor' is what the racing fraternity [in particular] call HDs .... remembering of course that I am an FIM official who has worked at 20 SBKs and I think this October is my 18th MotoGP....[though I'm up to 32 consecutive Formula Ones - but that's FIA instead]...;)

Oh, so pretty much what I guessed it was, then? I guess I'd rather be smert than eddycated.

Not to be argumentative or anything, but what you posted just indicated that subsidies had been given, not whether or not it had been good for the 'motorcycle economy' or the overall economy. Sure there's plenty of examples of trade protectionism (including the one I mentioned in the previous post), but that wasn't the point of my post. Granted, I'm sure that the head of the ITC meant well, but I'd only be convinced if I saw some actual data.

So snap to it, Jafo! It's just Saturday night, what could you possibly have better to do?

One word, Unions.

 

*was refering to the OP