So Apple is about to have 100 BILLION cash on hand.

Where conditions are so bad that the management installed suicide prevention nets on the buildings to prevent despondent workers from killing themselves when the jump.

Or, at least it is rumored on the internet.

And the luxury yacht industry.

You know, those kinds of things.

What, do you have something against those companies staying in business?

And that's the saddest part of all . . .

Greed

I could look at the books of every company that moved overseas and show that they made a profit. Now, that profit is just not enough for some people, so they take advantage of cheap labor and US law that alowws them to make such a transition with no real risk.

It really enforces the thoughts of Buffett...that Congress has passed such laws that make these situations not just possible, but easy.

It's about the only thing that stands between us and a new era of feudalism.

You're better off rooting for currency revulsion, which could happen (albeit still highly unlikely).

There are other ways that the value of these types of rentier-stashes could be reduced, too. It would take significant effort from people working through state and local governments to adopt alternative forms of payment for services and taxation. Feasible? I don't know.

I have to admit, it's refreshing to see this viewpoint expressed. People are generally way too worried about inflation.

on all levels.

It's exactly the same thing Rmoney and the rest of the .01% does.

and no preferred shares.

It's called hoarding cash so that your stock price rises.

It's not just lust for profit as it is a rock hard erection for profit and companies like Apple will stomp over anyone and anything they can to get to it.

China demanding better wages and working conditions? They'll go to India and Thailand.

India and Thailand demanding better? They'll go to West and South Africa.

West and South Africa demanding better? They'll go to Central America, Ecuador and Peru.

And when they're all out of options they'll fire all the workers and replace them with machines.

See the pattern? The lust for profit is uncontrollable and knows no boundaries.

and a myriad of other computer manufacturers that existed then, now the company makes me sick
And Steve Jobs considered himself a Buddhist...makes me wonder how that justifies what his company
has not done for this country

Capitalism isn't for the benefit of the 99%. At all. The 1% think we should be grateful for any crumbs that might fall off the table. And if they decide to take the crumbs too, well that's just our problem.

many in the 99% are stockholders.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=aapl

Everyone I know has a mutual fund - either a 401K or an IRA

Corporations are supposed to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Why would anyone invest in a company that didn't do that?

According to Daily Finance, the top ten institutional shareholders are:

Fidelity Management & Research 53.07M
Vanguard Group, Inc. 33.86M
State Street Global Advisors (US) 31.54M
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. 30.28M
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. 23.25M
Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC 16.09M
Janus Capital Management LLC 12.48M
Wellington Management Company, LLP 11.12M
AllianceBernstein L.P. 10.95M
Capital World Investors 10.57M

The top ten mutual fund shareholders are:

Fidelity Contrafund 16.44M
PowerShares QQQ Trust - Series 1 15.19M
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 9.57M
Vanguard 500 Index Fund 8.31M
American Funds Growth Fund of America 8.2M
Fidelity Growth Company Fund 6.33M
Vanguard Institutional Index Fund 6.53M
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund 5.77M
SPDR S&P 500 ETF 6.61M
Statens Pensjonsfond Utland 6.48M

The top ten individual shareholders are:

Jobs (Steven P) 5.55M
Levinson (Arthur D) 225,015
Mansfield (Robert) 40,831
York (Jerome B) 50,000
Drexler (Millard S) 40,000
Cook (Timothy D) 13,659
Oppenheimer (Peter) 8,105
Forstall (Scott) 2,830
Gore (Albert A Jr) 1,000
Johnson (Ronald B) 288

The mutual funds and institutional investors are managing their clients money, most of whom are not wealthy. I'm not wealthy, but I have investments with Vanguard, Fidelity, T Rowe Price and Wellington (part of Vanguard). Indirectly, I'm an Apple shareholder. If you own any mutual funds, you probably are as well.

My pension will come through CALStrs, which has 2.2 million of Apple Stock. What we're getting is the crumbs, which I mentioned in my original response to the OP. You must have missed that bit. And personally, I think stock-backed pensions are crappy, but I have no choice. Mine will be very small and subject to political whim. Steve Jobs and his buddies would never have that problem, that is what is the difference between the 1% and the 99%. I can't afford mutual funds, I'm a teacher. If you have a lot of investments, your life is probably very different than mine.

And to your question downthread. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1

"It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward. "

It would be around $65 more for an iPhone built in the US. I would pay that happily for a US made iPhone on top of the current price.

That's seems pretty sporty to me, so I don't know why you'd complain that your pension fund owns a big position in Apple. I wish all my investments were doing that well.

Everyone's situation with respect to saving and investing is different, but even if you can only put a little aside, I'd encourage you to do it. I've been working for almost 40 years and have systematically saved and invested most of that time. I have managed to build a decent portfolio, but it happened a little at a time, over a long period of time.

I don't agree with you about the $65. I think it would hurt sales substantially. Many (most?) consumers buy chinese made products at Walmart or some other large retailer to save a buck or two over the same product made in America (assuming they can even find one). I'll gladly pay a substantiall premium for a quality, American made product, but nothing infuriates me more than paying a premium for an American made product and getting poor quality.

people who had very very large chunks of their stock would be really upset about it, right?

not just the big ones. Management has a fiduciary responsibility to act in their shareholders best interests

on how much outrageous superprofit is necessary to the company? All of them, or just the big ones? We're talking $100 Billion cash on hand here, badtoworse. Much of it off-shore and not getting taxed. A healthy growth is one thing, $100 Billion is another.

My original point is that Apple came to this pass because the large shareholders made the decision to make their phone overseas for as cheaply as possible. They are the ones largely benefiting the most, personally, from those decisions. They'd scream the loudest if a law was passed to bring those jobs home. Yes?

Management is supposed to act in a way that maximizes shareholder returns - the investors have a right to expect that. Just because Apple has been hugely successful up to now doesn't mean that management should take action going forward that would make them less profitable in order to act on some social agenda. If they did, the Board would and should fire them.

The question you are raising could be put on the ballot at an annual meeting and would bascially come down to this: Should Apple move its production facilities to the USA which would likely reduce net income substantially, but would increase domestic employment albeit without direct benefit to Apple. A few shareholders might vote for such a proposal, but I would be amazed if more than 10% did so. Your point about the largest investors benefitting the most is really irrelevant. The largest investors are the institutional ones and they have an obligation to act in their clients' interest. They would be acting against their clients' interest if the voted for the proposal.

Sorry, but that is the way business works. If you want to blame someone, blame the clowns in government that made the trade agreements and passed the tax laws that incentivized businesses to move the jobs offshore without penalty. Business is supposed to act in its own best interest and did so. Government is supposed to act in our interest, but clearly did not.

In fewer words. And most of the clowns in government probably are large shareholders in the companies too.

There is no real reason for Apple to not move jobs back here, the only reason they don't is because of the shareholders. That's what I said several hours ago. Thank you.

What I'm struggling is why you have a problem with shareholders wanting to maximize their returns - that is the reason why most people invest money.

I believe there are mutual funds that focus on socially driven investments. If you do have some money to invest, you seem like the kind of person that might be interested in them.

Sorry if I wasted your time. It's late here and I'm tired. Have a good night.

they are no different than the car company that builds engines in Mexico, the sneaker company that manufactures its product in China or any other company that acts in its own interest. People invest to make money and want to maximize their return - I can't understand why so many on this board have a problem with that.

I'm an investor and probably own some share shares of Apple indirectly. How does that make me a vulture?

with NONE of the costs.

Wow, I get ridiculed for being a RW shill all the time...I think you're right of me, even. Wow.

... and what Apple wants is irrelevant. They operate in a competitive environment under a set of rules that are laid out by governments. The rules that our government has laid out have made us uncompetitive in the world market, opened our markets with no requirements on American content and have put our workers in the position of having to compete with dirt cheap labor in China. I don't agree with those policies - they're idiotic, but they weren't Apple's doing.

Apple competes with other companies and they all play by the same rules. Virtually of the the electronics manufacturers have moved their manufacturing to China or some other low cost country, so why is Apple being singled out? From reading this thread, posters seem to be outraged that Apple has enjoyed enormous success and expect Apple to apply a different standard to itself because of that. That is just not a reasonable expectation. Apple's investors expect management to maximize their returns and there is nothing wrong with that. Management has an obligation to do just that.

The real problem is the government. It needs to make America a more competitive place to do business and it also needs to change tax and trade policies to better protect American jobs.

Unless you are leaving off 3 zeros at the end. No way is just 288 shares or even 50,000 in the top ten of individual shareholders.

Apple Inc. reported quarterly profits of $1 billion a week for its latest quarter, blowing past Wall Street expectations on robust holiday sales of its iPhones and iPads.....

It boggles the mind. I drive past giant chip production facilities every day. Empty. Dead since the late 90s and early naughties.

How much profit does it take to be a "job creator" in the US?

The real question is how much would consumers be willing to pay for an iPhone made in the USA. My guess is not enough to cover the cost of production.

and still cover production costs.

They exist to make make great products and a shedload of money for their shareholders. I don't see that Apple or Microsoft or whoever has the same level of human obligation that banks, health care providers, leveraged buy-out firms, real estate companies and the like do. I don't see them as fundamentally evil like a hospital who'll sue you to reclaim costs or a bank that will foreclose at the drop of a hat. Them going under wouldn't do anything but hurt the American economy, unfortunately - they're major exporters and tax payers and all of these firms employee thousands of people who aren't on the top rung of the ladder; they could and in a fair world WOULD do a heck of a lot more, but until the system changes, that isn't happening. I don't think that they are "evil" for not doing so.

The onus is on the government, whoever that is at the time, to ensure that jobs return to America; I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps there needs to be a risk / reward system put in place for those who bring a large number of jobs back. If only the political parties could come to a common sense-consensus to impose much higher tax-rate for those who don't manufacture a certain percentage of their product in the United States, with incentives to the contrary for those who show the right initiative in 'repatriating' a decent number of jobs. That could work; unfortunately, getting any of the GOP and a not inconsiderable % of Democrats to agree to that is just not going to happen.

A government would need the brassiest balls in history combined with a monumentally huge electoral mandate to push through the level of reform needed to bring back a large number of jobs.

And in so doing moves wealth from the pockets of LABOR to the pockets of CAPITAL OWNERS.

Period. Paragraph. No wiggle room.

My guess is more than American consumers would be willing to pay.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/08/advice_to_apple.html



The ONLY reason that Apple uses Chinese manufacturers is because they would rather net $200 a unit than $175 a unit. It's greed, pure and simple.

make up for less than 2.5% of the cost of an iphone.

Apple's manufacturing costs could quadruple and the price would not be heavily impacted. When you buy an iphone, almost 60% of the money you spend is gross profit for Apple.

Not only are they screwing their poor Chinese slave workers, they are scalping consumers. They have the trendiest product around for now, so they can get away with it, but don't pretend this is how it has to be.

Regardless of whether their products are trendy, stiff and grey, good, bad or mediocre.

with the same power and more features.

And that it will end up frustrating you two thirds more during that time, and that the power will end up being a non-issue during the respective system's lifespan if you're using Windows given that it will invariably slow down after a while. With Linux not polished / supported enough in key areas, OSX fit the bill for me.

Also, how's the build? The trackpad, the chassis? How thick is it, how much does it weigh? There are plenty of considerations.

It is the case that Apple stuck with Core2Duo processors a bit too long, but that was rectified last year with the move to the last Sandy Bridge versions of Intel's chips.

It's not for everyone and there's no doubt that Apple make very good margins, but for me, the combination of chassis, keyboard, trackpad, screen, operating system *and* decent raw specs make it worthwhile. I've probably added months to my life with the stress I've avoided, so it works for me.

Glad you think so. Their lives depend on your convenience.

Boycott the entire tech world.

who are under the ridiculous impression that Apple is a "progressive" company just because
progressives overwhelmingly prefer its products.

That is a needlessly confrontational post. Secondly, it is logically bereft and intellectually dishonest.

A lot of people of ALL stripes just like the computers and devices! They're solid, well designed and have great software. It's not rocket science, they provide a stress-free experience and can be great creative tools. People aren't idiots for not wanting to battle Windows or whatever.

Few are of the impression that corporate leviathan Apple is a "progressive" company, but the moral argument falls down when you consider that more or less everyone here has computers or phones built in the very same places. Apple are just about the only company making even a token effort with regards to working conditions in their sectors, which doesn't make them 'progressive' but it certainly doesn't magically render them worse than the rest in the eyes of anyone without an irrational hatred of the company.

to start a business and create a product and then, instead of re-investing in the country that gave them the freedom and low fucking taxes to do this they invest in other countries.

Yeah, take take take and when it comes time to give back well, that's just too expensive.

People go there to save a few dollars on Chinese made goods. People on this board might pay a premium for American made (I do), but the average consumer, not so much. A higher priced, American made iPhone would cut into Apple's bottom line.

We were talking about Apple. Not Walmart (that's a whole other can of worms).

Other posters said it wouldn't increase the cost "that much". My point is than an average consumer shops on the basis of price and doesn't care where the product is made which is why so many shop at Walmart. If they can save $2 by buying a Chinese product, that's what they buy. I don't see that kind of a consumer paying even a small premium for an American made iPhone, let alone $65.

Apple is not going to just eat the higher production costs and it's ridiculous think they would.

silly products that are too proprietary (you HAVE to buy music from/thru Ituned? Seriously? People fell for that? Altho I think I've read Apple finally loosened that up.)

I checked into a few of these things. They were not good buys, and some had too many issues. But they were flashy, cool to have, and did some fun stuff. But not practical buys for the main purpose for which I would've bought them.

So I have a Dell (maybe should've gotten an HP), a SanDisk mp player. I don't see the point of a tablet. And I have a pay as you go Tracfone Motorola. I got everything on sale, and everything works great. Oh, and no monthly fees except for my DSL. I'm sure these companies use Chinese slave labor, as well, though.

and hate to pop your bubble, but your shit's made in china too

They could probably claim itunes mimics too much of WMP's functionality. Take out about 90% of iPhones, iPads, and iPods in one deft move.

Your move, fanboy.

great argument

iTunes used to have DRM, but that didn't effect what you could play on your iPod / iPhone / Mac or whatever. There's never been anything stopping you ripping a CD to your hard drive and putting it on your device or buying from another online MP3 store. The DRM which was in place - and phased out beginning 2007 / shredded entirely in 2009 - only allowed songs bought from iTunes to be played on iPods and select other devices, and only allowed you to authorise up to five computers at any one time to house the songs.

I disagree that Apple stuff is especially overpriced, given how many computers I burned through before switching, but that's another issue entirely; I don't want an argument about the virtues of the devices! And yeah, it's true...you'll have a terribly hard time finding something that wasn't made in China regardless of what you buy.

I have almost that many on my old early iPod from 2003, and none of those was purchased from iTunes. Where do you people come up with this stupid shit? It's like people who tell me there is no software available for Apple, and you are forced to use a one-click mouse. I just look at them and go WTF is with you people? It's almost as bad as repukes telling me Obama ran up more debt than than the previous 43 presidents combined. Oh, and the Apple haters here on DU never, ever mention that they are using products made by the same factories in China that make Apple products. Those Chinese factories are only BAD if they make products for APPLE.

I've been trying to read up a bit on this just today.

It is said that there is $1.5 TRILLION in cash overseas. The Corpublicans want another tax repatriation holiday like in 2004 (2005?), say, to bring money into the US at a low tax rate like 5%. Last time, the influx of net funds was hardly used to create jobs -- instead going towards toward dividends, share buyback, management salaries, etc. -- in fact, notable companies, like Pfizer, actually cut thousands of jobs. My speculation is that the downsizing and lack of investment we've been seeing is a direct result of ever-increasing executive salaries.

Builds their stuff. I think they don't even get 10 min breaks to take a shit

You answered your own question in your OP.

better to use virtual slaves in China