A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)
Teaser
Everyone loves the sound of “Made in America,” but few are ready for the sticker shock. In this opening post, we break down the real costs of reshoring manufacturing—from the iPhone to your washer and dryer—and ask whether patriotism is enough to justify the price.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, this week we are talking about bringing back manufacturing to America. I thought I would start by saying everyone believes that bringing jobs back to America is a good thing—but we also have to realize that companies from America are investing in other countries for a reason. We all enjoy the lower-cost items we receive from the global supply chain.
The other issue is that our corporations have invested billions into developing the skillsets of people in other countries, which enabled them to have a tech revolution that spills over into other areas like military capabilities. I think the best company that represents this is Apple. Can you give us a summary of how we got here?
Beth’s Initial Response
You’re absolutely right—while the idea of reshoring manufacturing has patriotic appeal, it’s also rooted in a complex global reality shaped by decades of economic strategy. Apple is a perfect lens through which to view this evolution.
How We Got Here: A Brief History of Globalized Manufacturing
In the early 2000s, as globalization accelerated, American companies began outsourcing production to countries with cheaper labor, looser regulations, and expanding infrastructure. China, in particular, emerged as the epicenter of electronics manufacturing—offering an unmatched combination of scale, speed, and cost-efficiency.
Apple, which once built its computers in California and Colorado, transitioned to China not just for labor savings but because China invested heavily in workforce training, precision manufacturing, and regional supply chains. Foxconn—Apple’s key partner—built entire cities around assembly lines, offering a level of manufacturing readiness the U.S. couldn’t match.
This wasn’t just outsourcing—it was industrial migration, driven by the pursuit of shareholder value and consumer affordability.
But this migration had ripple effects:
- Economic lift for China: It helped create a new middle class in regions like Shenzhen.
- Skill export: U.S. companies helped raise global technical standards.
- Strategic implications: As you mentioned, industrial capability spills over into other sectors—including military and surveillance tech. For instance, China’s semiconductor advancements, partly fueled by industrial growth, enhance its drone and surveillance capabilities.
Today, the average iPhone costs about $971, largely because it’s made in a place where labor costs were historically around $2.80 an hour—though by 2025, this figure has risen to approximately $4–$6 an hour. If you moved that same production line to the U.S., with labor costs of $20–$25 an hour, that same iPhone could easily cost between $2,000 and $3,500. Automation could lower these costs, as seen in U.S. factories like Tesla’s, but rebuilding supply chains remains a major hurdle.
Meanwhile, calls for tariffs or reshoring ignore the fact that Apple and others spent decades optimizing their supply chains overseas. These systems aren’t plug-and-play. They’re deeply embedded, and walking away from them is like trying to replace the foundation of your house after you’ve already moved in.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
Given all this, do you think American consumers are truly ready to pay more—for iPhones, TVs, even T-shirts—if it means bringing jobs back home? Or is this more about symbolism than sacrifice?
Miles’ Reflection
Beth, that is a good question. When I read the headlines, I see people supporting the movement of bringing back the jobs, and I see people against it—and I can see both sides of the argument.
Yes, I want and think we should create and invest in American skills and capabilities. No, I do not want to pay $3,500 for an iPhone. For the most part, it’s a complex problem and we don’t have our best people on the solution. There’s good rhetoric around both sides, but it has been more of a political issue—and the corporations are playing both sides.
One thing I do feel strongly about is that we should invest in technology and develop the core capabilities here in the U.S. for technologies that can be leveraged in ways that threaten our national security if we don’t own them.
Beth’s Summary
The movement to bring manufacturing back to America resonates with national pride—but it’s entangled in a global web of economic realities. Apple’s journey from domestic assembly to international supply chain mastery shows why companies sought foreign partnerships: lower labor costs, advanced infrastructure, and government-backed industrial agility. Yet, as geopolitical tensions rise, so too does the argument for restoring America’s technological independence.
Your response cuts through the binary: this isn’t just a question of jobs vs. prices—it’s about strategic investment in core technologies that impact economic and national security. If reshoring is to succeed, it needs more than slogans and tariffs. It needs real strategy, smarter leadership, and public-private cooperation to rebuild domestic capability without pricing the American consumer out of the market.
Surveys (e.g., Deloitte, 2023) show only 30–40% of Americans are willing to pay a significant premium for “Made in USA” products, underscoring the need to lower domestic production costs through automation and policy alignment.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment