Is the iPad Killiing Job in the US?

Isn't Jesse a big time liberal? I figured anything that would save a tree would be a good thing regardless of unintended consequences.

I think Borders closed because it was too big. A small bookstore with soul like Tattered Cover or Mountain Books is so much more appealing. I love my ipad- the computer it largely replaces wasn't made in the USA either.

Who really cares what Jesse Jackson thinks?

Unions are the ones killing jobs in the US, IMHO.

Union workers can't afford iPads.

NPR ran a story last week about how all the big record stores in NYC are closing. I am showing my age but I used to love going to record shops and see the new albums and hear the songs before you buy on big headphones. One of my favorite shops in Omaha stayed open late night and we used to go there after the bars closed. Good memories, but...I was a a Borders this weekend and was very frustrated with it, they want me to pay full price and they have a lousy selection of what I want to read even though the store is huge. But not as huge as Amazon's warehouses and I can download 5 books from anywhere for the time I waited in the the checkout line.

Science Chic wrote: Or is this just another politician on a crusade being short-sighted (either accidentally or by design)? Yes, it's not assembled here, but what about the people employed by Apple who designed it, or who just work for Apple and whose salaries are supported by its success (along with other Apple products)? I find it telling that 2 prominent store chain closings since the beginning of this recession were tech stores (Circuit City and Ultimate Electronics), but libraries aren't going to be closing anytime soon and publishing companies are already in the process of switching to a new electronic media. I see it merely as evolution - just like from the horse as primary transportation to automobiles - We no longer lament all the poor blacksmiths who went out of business - they just had to find a new trade.

Comments?

What is true of the publishing world is also true of manufacturing in general. The reason that companies are locating elsewhere and taking the production jobs with them to that new location has more to do with the rise of the standard of living across the globe and the accompanying expansion of the market for the products that accompanies it.

I've used this analogy before, but I think it is worth repeating here. Levi Strauss is in the business to sell as many pairs of blue jeans as they can sell. For the sake of discussion, let's say that if the company produces the jeans here, they must be sold for $45/pair to cover the cost of production, taxes and profits. The company can't take that pair of blue jeans, export them, and hope to sell them in the nation they were exported to in anything but the luxury market in that nation. However, if the company produces the jeans in an emerging nation, they can manufacture them in that emerging nation at a price that is significantly less than $45/pair, sell them in the emerging nation at a price that is affordable to a much larger demographic there and export those jeans to this nation and still sell them at the same cost as they would if the jeans were manufactured here. Since the purpose of the company is to sell as many pairs of jeans as possible, which scenario makes the most sense? Manufacture here and sell as a luxury item everywhere else or manufacture somewhere else and sell as a utility in all the markets?

This is the economic reason behind establishing new taxes on energy consumption. If an exorbitant tax is levied globally on the energy used to ship goods, then the economics of importation and exportation are severely altered without the repercussions and risk of one nation levying protectionist tariffs upon the goods of another. The effect is the same, protecting the industry of one nation at the expense of the industry of another, but the end goal is realized without raising the ire of another nation directly as a protectionist tariff would. We can then also charge the emerging nation more for what they purchase from this country, lessening their ability to emerge economically and challenge us in the global marketplace and ensuring an economic superiority for our, and other existing, first world economies. Basically, if we can find a way to tax them sufficiently, we can keep second and third world nations subservient to the ones that already rule the roost.

To expand on PS's thoughts, look at the IKEA story in the papers over the weekend. IKEA sets up a factory manufacturing their furniture in the US and are being raked over the coals currently for labor law violations.

Where do you think IKEA will open their next factory? I am betting it will be in a country with weak labor law enforcement.

SS109 wrote: To expand on PS's thoughts, look at the IKEA story in the papers over the weekend. IKEA sets up a factory manufacturing their furniture in the US and are being raked over the coals currently for labor law violations.

Where do you think IKEA will open their next factory? I am betting it will be in a country with weak labor law enforcement.

As far as I am concerned IKEA put itself in that position. If IKEA wants to market itself as a progressive company it should uphold the values it proclaims to support. After all IKEA pays its workers in Sweden on average $19 an hour and has to give them 5 weeks of paid vacation. It seems to me that the people at corporate headquarters figured out that they could not make a profit in the paradise known as Sweden and had to find lower cost labor to subsidies their way of life. What a shock. Where is a good liberal to spend their money on furniture now? I would suggest your local Amish furniture store if you don't want to support corporate america.

Photo-fish wrote: Union workers can't afford iPads.

Oh come on. They're just a little more expensive than a smartphone (some are the same price) and way less expensive than a flatscreen.