The Instigator
voltairelines
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
lovethekiller
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Apple Should Assemble and Produce All Products in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
voltairelines
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 28744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

voltairelines

Con

Both Pro and Con would have to argue and prove their side.
As Con, I am against the motion that Apple should assemble and produce all products in the United States. This would be Apple's decision, not some kind of mandate by the US.
The first round is for acceptance only.

Good luck! :)
lovethekiller

Pro

Challenge accepted. Good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
voltairelines

Con

It is not in the best interest of Apple or the world if Apple started to produce and assemble all products in the United States. In fact, it would be very harmful to the company and the rest of the world if Apple began making all products in the United States. Not only is it unlikely that that everything can be moved to the United States, costs would be raised, profits would hit the ground, and the company would be on a slippery slope which only ends in bankruptcy.

The first thing that must be established are Apple’s priorities. The main priority of Apple is not to make their products in the most moral way. It is not to make their products in the way that makes their workers happy. The main priority of Apple is to make returns to its shareholders. So, the main priority of Apple is to, within the bounds of the law, garner the highest profit. As Apple has done for many years, the best way to do this is to employ workers, through Foxconn, in China. This way, costs are cheap, therefore the product is cheap to consumers, and thus more people buy it, which leads to the $8.2 billion profit that was had in the fourth quarter of 2012. [1] This is the single objective of Apple. To make the highest profit possible within the law, which it has been doing successfully for some time by employing thousands of assembly workers, engineers, and others in China. In other words, last quarter’s profit was obtained by assembling and producing all products through Foxconn, China, and in other countries.

On the other hand, by producing and assembling all products in America, this kind of profit, if any, is not attainable. The first thing that would hinder profit is the cost to hire workers. Workers of Foxconn are not paid nearly as much as an American worker who does the same work. No, this is not fair. But neither is life. And the way to an $8.2 billion profit is not always the most moral or the happiest for everyone. But that is not the point of a corporation. As previously stated, the point is to get a high profit. An American would get paid exponentially more than a worker at Foxconn or an American engineer. Costs go up. And to compensate, Apple will have to raise the price of all its products to consumers. This way, less people will buy iPhones. Less people will buy Macs. Less people will iPods. And the list goes on.

Just in the same way, profits would also go down if Apple made all of its products in America since American workers cannot work nearly as many hours as a Foxconn assembly worker can. Foxconn’s longer hours allow more Apple products to be created quickly and in a greater supply. If Apple makes all of its products in America, then there would be a deficiency of Apple products. Less iPhones, iPods, iPads, Macs, and so on and so forth. This limited supply would also lead to a rise in price, which would, as previously mentioned, decrease sales.


It may not even be possible for this motion to be practically acted out. Apple has over 700,000 workers employed by Foxconn assembling and producing Apple products alone. [2] There may not be that many people willing to do that work, which would decrease production even further. But, it is possible, if not likely, that of the millions of unemployed people, 700,000 want to make iPhones and the like. And yet, even Steve Jobs is quoted as affirming the implausibility of bringing all production to the US. [3] Steve Jobs has stated that he needed at least 30,000 highly skilled engineers to make Apple products. [4] Those jobs are few and far between in the United States. Something the US does not like to talk about is its lack of skilled engineers. Foxconn can provide those engineers.


But let us suppose that it is morally corrupt for Apple to employ people with long hours and strenuous work. First of all, if Apple stopped employing Foxconn overnight, then another company would probably do the same thing. Foxconn assembles 40% of the world’s electronics [5]. Apple pulling out would just make room for another company to do the exact same thing. This is not Apple’s problem. If this is such a bad problem, then President Obama should take the initiative of raising the standards of labor laws in China, similar to the work of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.


And if employing Foxconn is too morally bankrupt to tolerate, then sure, let us move some of the production and assembly to America. But certainly not all. By moving every single instance of production and assembly in other countries and continents, the cost would be too great. The company’s costs would rise. The product’s costs would rise. The shareholders would be furious. Apple may even go under. Therefore, moving all of the production and assembly of Apple products would be ultimately detrimental to the company and to the world economy.




[1] http://www.apple.com...
[2] http://online.wsj.com...
[3]http://www.nytimes.com...
[4] http://www.politifact.com...
[5] http://business.time.com...





lovethekiller

Pro

Apple is a company that provides products that are unique to the industry. Their computers have software unlike the traditional PC, and (as of now) have no viruses that could potentially harm owners. MP3 players and iPods have become practically synonymous, as well as iPads and tablets. Apple has created products that people want. Despite the fact that most of their products cost much more than comparable items on the market, Apple stock values have continued to climb throughout 2012. [1] Apple has created for itself its own bubble by continuing to improve upon and update their products, and making the brand a household name. The company has been playing a price game since its founding, which has allowed it to grow to the capacity that it has. Even though the products never go on sale, by creating a web of products that complement each other and strategic pricing, sales continue to stay high. [2] Although insourcing the production and assembly of Apple products would cause the prices of Apple to rise, the following that Apple has acquired and the uniqueness of their products would keep their sales. This would also appeal to people within the United States, especially as the debate over insourcing v. outsourcing has become so prevalent, and potentially attract buyers.

In recent years, it has become less profitable to outsource production and assembly to countries such as China. Recently, Apple has announced that they will start manufacturing a new line of Macs in the US instead of China. China"s wages have been going up, making it less cost effective to have Apple products manufactured there. Apple has stated that the actual production and assembly of their products has very little to do with the production cost. The biggest part of that cost is the chips and technology that go in their devices, the most of which are made and sold in the United States anyway. [3]

Bringing back jobs to the United States would potentially boost the country"s economy, allowing for more potential profits, opportunities and investors.

Ultimately, moving the production and assembly of Apple products to the United States could help Apple, by gaining a wider consumer base, and the United States as a whole, as the insourcing of one of the country"s most wealthy companies would provide a large boost to the economy.

[1] http://www.macrumors.com...

[2]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

[3]http://finance.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 2
voltairelines

Con

“Although insourcing the production and assembly of Apple products would cause the prices of Apple to rise, the following that Apple has acquired and the uniqueness of their products would keep their sales. This would also appeal to people within the United States, especially as the debate over insourcing v. outsourcing has become so prevalent, and potentially attract buyers.”

The key word in this passage is potentially. There is no guarantee. On the other hand, as is shown all throughout Pro’s first paragraph, Apple’s stock has been rising, as well as profits, for years. Apple knows that it will make money if it continues doing what it is doing today. There is no promise that Apple will do as well or better if it insourced nearly every job. But, there is evidence to suggest, which is lacking on Pro’s side, that Apple will continue making more money by having thousands of workers in other countries. As I previously stated in my other speech, it is not in the best interest of Apple or the world if Apple started to produce and assemble all products in the United States.

“In recent years, it has become less profitable to outsource production and assembly to countries such as China. Recently, Apple has announced that they will start manufacturing a new line of Macs in the US instead of China. China"s wages have been going up, making it less cost effective to have Apple products manufactured there.”

It has becoming less cost effective to produce products in China, but not less cost effective than in America. It will be a very long time where the wages of any Chinese Foxconn worker exceed or equal that of an American worker. But, the Pro argument is taking something out here. Pro wants to move every last instance of production and assembly to the United States. Not just the new line of Macs.

“Bringing back jobs to the United States would potentially boost the country"s economy, allowing for more potential profits, opportunities and investors.”

I will quote myself from earlier. “The key word in this passage is potentially. There is no guarantee.” What if Apple starts losing profits, and the company goes bankrupt because they moved every instance of production and assembly to the US? What if Apple starts raising the prices of all of its products, and no one buys them anymore? What would that do to the economy? Opportunities? Investors?

“Ultimately, moving the production and assembly of Apple products to the United States could help Apple, by gaining a wider consumer base, and the United States as a whole, as the insourcing of one of the country"s most wealthy companies would provide a large boost to the economy.”

I do not want to repeat myself. The entire Pro argument is based off multiple What-If scenarios that are not even likely to occur. But, in the opposite way, the Con argument is based off evidence and fact. Apple has done amazingly well globally because of the way it has done business. Changing that, and going for a large risk which has little to no chance of success, is not a good idea. The Pro argument is based off of faith that the consumer base will stay, and wishful thinking.

By moving every single instance of production and assembly in other countries and continents, the cost would be too great. The company’s costs would rise. The product’s costs would rise. The shareholders would be furious. Apple may even go under. Therefore, moving all of the production and assembly of Apple products would be ultimately detrimental to the company and to the world economy.
lovethekiller

Pro

lovethekiller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
voltairelines

Con

My arguments still stand. Let's see if Pro comes back around.
lovethekiller

Pro

lovethekiller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) CON set up this resolution for himself as an easy win. He argued the semantics of the resolution, which indeed prevented any sort of equivocation on PRO's part. I found this to lead to a very poor debate.
2) CON essentially argued "it was, so it should be". The profit argument is compelling in this regard, but not in any other regard.
3) PRO argued for job creation and "made in America" appeal. CON did not refute these arguments, but instead asked audiences to weigh these benefits against the increased costs and how competition would make inroads into their market. This is of course a very compelling argument.
4) I found PRO's "what if" counters to CON to be exceptionally disingenuous. The entire purpose of asking "should" is to think of such hypotheticals. Considering he framed this resolution and seemed to be extremely reliant on this avenue of attack, I will deduct conduct from CON, even after considering PRO's forfeiture.
4) In the end, PRO forfeited and thus never gave a response to CON's rebuttal. Argument to CON.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Gonna watch this one.
Posted by voltairelines 4 years ago
voltairelines
From Apple's perspective. Apple would be deciding, the government would not be forcing them to.
Posted by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
That's kind of ambiguous are we talking from apples perspective or the Us perspective
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
voltairelineslovethekillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments