[Bluewater2015]

Some food for thought:

If Apple, that has 40% of its sales in the U.S., employed 40% of its workforce here at $40,000 each instead of 1/10th of that cost in China, it would cost them $10 billion, employ about 300,000 Americans, and they would only need to raise prices by 6% on their $185 billion in sales to recoup that. Theoretically, if they didn’t raise prices, they would still have made about $45 billion pretax.....still a whopping 24% of sales.

[Raycpa]

If Apple, that has 40% of its sales in the U.S., employed 40% of its workforce here at $40,000 each instead of 1/10th of that cost in China, it would cost them $10 billion, employ about 300,000 Americans, and they would only need to raise prices by 6% on their $185 billion in sales to recoup that. Theoretically, if they didn’t raise prices, they would still have made about $45 billion pretax.....still a whopping 24% of sales.

Why not raise prices 6% and still use cheap labor? Currently Apples stock prices is about average for the market compared to earnings (pe ratio about 15). Why would the stockholders want Apple income to be less than average which would result in a loss on their stock?

[noinfringers2]

I don’t think $40,000 would cover all the employee costs but even with my numbers there would still be a ‘large’ profit. It is questionable that in todays business world a ‘large’ profit would satisfy the ravenous appetite of so called entrepreneurs.

[RedHeeler]

Yes. Perhaps- is there is another equation?