Debunking the $10,000 Myth: The Real Cost of a Made-in-USA iPhone

The idea that an iPhone manufactured entirely in the United States would cost $10,000 has gained traction in popular culture, fueled by comedians and YouTubers. While the claim makes for an entertaining punchline, it oversimplifies the complexities of global manufacturing and economics. In reality, the cost of a U.S.-made iPhone would be higher than its current price, but NOT EVEN CLOSE TO the exaggerated $10,000 figure.

The Labor Cost Factor

One of the main arguments for the $10,000 claim is the higher labor costs in the United States compared to countries like China. Currently, Foxconn, Apple’s contracted manufacturer in China, pays its employees around $3.00 per hour. By contrast, the iMac Pro is assembled in Texas, where workers earn closer to $30.00 per hour. While this significant wage disparity would indeed increase manufacturing costs, analysts estimate that labor costs alone would raise the price of an iPhone by approximately 20%. For example, an iPhone 16 Pro, currently priced at $1,199, might rise to up to $1,450 due to labor expenses, or around $250.00 more.

Additionally, there’s another factor—Apple may decide to automate more of the production process, much like Xiaomi’s new Automated Factory, which has significantly reduced labor dependency.  If they did this, the cost would be practically the same as the current costs in China, but won't add very many jobs in the USA.  Even in this scenario however the fact that they would most likely buy more parts and logistics in the USA would end up increasing total employment.

The increase in cost to Apple would be closer to just $135!

Alternatively, in order to retain market share, Apple could cut its massive margins, which are currently around double the industry average. With these measures in place, a U.S.-manufactured iPhone would see price increases, but not anywhere near the extreme $10,000 claim.

Supply Chain and Component Sourcing

Another critical factor is the global supply chain. Many iPhone components, such as displays and processors, are manufactured in countries like South Korea and Taiwan. Even if assembly were moved to the U.S., Apple would still need to import these parts, potentially facing tariffs and logistical challenges. However, just as the Trump Administration allowed a carveout for smartphones to avoid high import taxes, a similar carveout would likely apply if iPhones were manufactured in the U.S. This could exempt smartphone parts from high tariffs or tax them at a lower 10% rate, significantly mitigating cost increases. Analysts suggest that even with these adjustments, the price of a high-end model would likely be closer to $1,500—not $10,000.

Cost Breakdown: Parts vs. Labor

To better understand the cost dynamics, here’s a breakdown of the estimated costs for an iPhone assembled in China versus the USA:

Cost Component	China	USA
Parts (e.g., display, processor, etc.)	$400	$400
Labor (assembly)	$40	$200
Additional logistics/tariffs	$50	$25
Total Estimated Cost	$490	$625

This chart illustrates that while labor and logistics costs would increase somewhat in the U.S., the total cost would still fall far short of the $10,000 myth.  The ACTUAL increase in cost to Apple would be closer to just $135!  Last year, Apple sold almost 232M iPhones.  That works out to a cost increase of around $31B.  While sure, nearly 1/3rd of their profits, if they didn't increase the price.  However Apple's total profits last year was over $90B on nearly $400B in revenue.  If they say, "split the difference" and maybe raise the price by $68, their profits at $75B WOULD STILL be greater than BOTH Alphabet (Nearly $74B) and Microsoft (Just over $72B)

The $10,000 Myth: Where Does It Come From?

The exaggerated $10,000 figure likely stems from a misunderstanding of manufacturing economics. It assumes that every aspect of production, from raw materials to assembly, would be relocated to the U.S. instantly and without optimization. In reality, Apple would likely adopt a phased approach, leveraging existing infrastructure and negotiating tariff exemptions to mitigate costs.

Why the U.S.-Made iPhone Is Feasible

While a fully U.S.-made iPhone would face challenges, it’s not impossible. Apple has already demonstrated its ability to manufacture products domestically, such as the Mac Pro in Texas. With strategic investments, automation, and policy support, the company could gradually increase U.S.-based production without reaching the astronomical price point of $10,000.  Realistically the Mac Pro a BEAST of a machine is around $6K, so how could they possibly sell a tiny iPhone with far less power for $10K!  It's just ridiculous.

Conclusion

The claim that a U.S.-made iPhone would cost $10,000 is more myth than reality. While higher labor costs and supply chain adjustments would increase the price, estimates suggest a more realistic range of $1,500 to $3,500 for high-end models. With potential carveouts for smartphone parts, as seen in past trade policies, the cost could be further reduced. Moreover, when considering that Foxconn pays workers $3.00 an hour compared to $30.00 an hour for iMac Pro manufacturing in Texas, it’s clear that automation and margin adjustments could make U.S. production feasible. As discussions about domestic manufacturing continue, it’s essential to separate fact from fiction and focus on the real challenges and opportunities of bringing production back to the United States.

Is America Isolating Itself When It Comes to Global Trade?

Global trade has long been a cornerstone of economic growth and international cooperation, with the United States historically playing a pivotal role. Compared to almost all of its trading partners, the USA has nearly always had the most free and open markets. But here's the problem: after World War II, the USA allowed countries in Europe and Asia to protect their industries with high tariffs while, at the same time, letting them sell to the USA with very few trade barriers. For decades, the USA ran trade deficits with these countries as they enriched themselves with American dollars.

The WTO has 164 member nations.  Only China has been an issue.  198 complaints were filed against China, nearly half of all disputes!

At one point, manufacturing towns such as Detroit, Chicago, and Pittsburgh literally had the highest standard of living on the planet. These cities are now merely shells of themselves, as their manufacturing core—the very heartbeat that brought wealth to these cities—was ruthlessly cut away and moved to countries such as Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam, and cities like Berlin. This loss of industrial power raises an important question: Is America truly isolating itself in trade, or is it simply reacting to decades of economic policies that have hollowed out its manufacturing base?

America’s Unique Trade Position

Unlike most countries, the United States relies significantly less on trade as a percentage of its GDP. This distinct position stems from America’s vast internal market and economic resilience. After World War II, the goal of global trade was to enrich other nations and prevent another world war—a vision in which the USA played a central role. However, this dynamic has created a dependence among other nations on trade with the USA, far outweighing America's reliance on them. If the world shifted toward an isolationist model, the USA would be the least affected economically, underscoring its unparalleled ability to thrive independently.

Is it fair to maintain protectionist tariffs and trade barriers in their own countries while expecting the USA to abide by a different standard? 

Recent Isolationist Trends

The impact of globalization and shifting trade policies is evident in the decaying cities across the United States, such as Detroit and Chicago. Once thriving hubs of manufacturing and innovation, these cities were gutted as jobs were shipped overseas to countries like China, Korea, and Vietnam. Entire industries collapsed, leaving workers without the livelihoods that sustained their communities for generations. The men who once powered the manufacturing backbone of America were faced with an impossible choice—reinvent themselves in a world that told them to "learn how to code" or grapple with the harsh reality of economic displacement. These stories fuel America's pivot toward protectionist trade policies, aiming to reclaim the industries lost to globalization.

China and the WTO Spotlight

The World Trade Organization (WTO), with its 164 member nations, serves as a critical platform for resolving trade disputes. Last year, 198 complaints were filed against China, accounting for nearly half of all disputes. These complaints highlight issues such as industrial subsidies, forced technology transfers, and intellectual property violations. America has been among the most vocal critics of China’s trade practices, further straining trade relationships and influencing the global conversation around fair trade.

American military power guarantees their trade security ... yet at the same time, they shield their own markets...

Economic Implications for the U.S.

The introduction of 25% steel tariffs in 2018 marked a turning point for America's trade and industrial policies. Designed to counteract issues such as Chinese overcapacity, dumping practices, and structural barriers in other markets, these tariffs aimed to bolster U.S. steel production and safeguard national security. While critics feared long-term price hikes, the measures ensured the preservation of critical manufacturing capacities for military and infrastructure needs. However, they also reshaped trade relationships, increasing costs for certain industries reliant on imported steel. This protectionist stance highlights the trade-off between reducing foreign dependency and managing the economic impact on domestic manufacturing sectors.

Global Perception and Fair Trade Standards

While other nations may seek closer ties with one another and question America’s commitment to free trade principles, they must also confront a critical question: Is it fair to maintain protectionist tariffs and trade barriers in their own countries while expecting the USA to abide by a different standard? The United States already operates the most open markets in the world, but this openness comes at a cost. Should the American middle class be sacrificed on the altar of free trade? This discrepancy underscores the need for a more balanced approach to global trade—one that fosters fairness for all participants without disproportionately disadvantaging certain economies or communities.

One out of every three world trade dollars originates from the United States

The Question of Security

One final question that no one is talking about: Who ensures global trade routes remain safe? Years ago, when Somali pirates began attacking Chinese and EU shipping lanes, who was called in to put an end to their reign of terror? It wasn’t China, nor was it the European powers—it was the United States. More recently, when the Houthis started targeting EU ships filled with Chinese goods, did China deploy its vast naval resources to stop the attacks? Did the British Royal Navy extend its forces? Did France send the mighty Marine Nationale to dispatch the Houthi threat? Of course not! It was the United States, committing two strike groups at a staggering cost of $6.5 million per day each.

This underscores a deeper issue: Asia, Africa, and the EU rely on American military power to guarantee their trade security, yet at the same time, they shield their own markets from U.S. companies while demanding free access to American markets. Does that seem fair? While America shoulders the burden of global stability, it continues to see its manufacturing base eroded and its wealth creation opportunities hollowed out. As trade policies evolve, the question remains—should the United States continue footing the bill for global security while receiving little in return?

Conclusion

America’s trade policies have sparked debate about its future in the global economy. But as a recent Chinese TikToker pointed out, one out of every three world trade dollars originates from the United States. That fact underscores a fundamental truth—the customer is always right. For decades, nations have benefited from America’s open markets, selling their goods freely while imposing protective barriers on their own industries. The expectation that the USA should continue this practice indefinitely, even at the cost of its own economic well-being, is simply unsustainable.

More importantly, the dollars that America sends abroad do not simply fuel foreign economies—they are frequently redeployed into massive military buildups, some of which begin to challenge the United States itself. At what point does free trade cross into an existential threat? Should America continue enriching nations that, in turn, use those resources to undermine its global position? That would be an exercise in suicide. As trade policies evolve, the real question is not whether America is isolating itself, but rather whether the world is demanding an unfair and dangerous trade arrangement—one that risks America's economic and national security.

Trumps Freeze on $2B Harvard Grant Begs the Question. Why Are We Subsidizing The Rich?

Why the U.S. Should Stop Subsidizing Elite Universities with Billion-Dollar Endowments

Elite universities in the United States, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, have long been bastions of academic excellence and innovation. However, these institutions also boast astronomical endowments, with some exceeding $500,000 per student. Despite their financial independence, these colleges still benefit from federal subsidies and tax exemptions—a practice that raises critical questions about fairness and priorities in funding education.

Endowments: More Than Enough Wealth

Harvard University, for example, holds an endowment of over $53 billion, making it wealthier than the GDP of some countries. These funds are generated through investments, donations, and alumni contributions, and often grow exponentially over time due to favorable market conditions. While these endowments are used to fund scholarships, research, and campus infrastructure, a significant portion is restricted to specific uses, limiting flexibility for broader spending.

Nonetheless, the sheer size of these endowments highlights the self-sufficiency of these elite institutions. They possess the resources to not only sustain themselves but thrive—making the case for federal subsidies increasingly difficult to justify.

Federal Support: Misplaced Priorities

Each year, elite universities receive substantial federal funds through research grants, work-study programs, and other initiatives, in addition to benefiting from their tax-exempt status as nonprofit organizations. This federal support is intended to drive innovation and provide educational opportunities, but it disproportionately benefits institutions that are already financially flush. Meanwhile, public colleges, community colleges, and smaller universities—often serving lower-income and underprivileged populations—struggle to secure adequate funding.

Redirecting subsidies from wealthy elite universities to underfunded schools and programs could address disparities in higher education and better serve the nation’s needs.

The Case for Accountability

Critics argue that elite universities should be treated like businesses and taxed accordingly. While the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a 1.4% excise tax on the investment income of the wealthiest endowments, this tax is far lower than what other businesses or individuals pay on capital gains. Taxing these institutions at a higher rate—or ending federal subsidies altogether—could generate billions in revenue and encourage these universities to use their wealth more responsibly.

The Ethical Debate

Elite universities often justify their federal funding by pointing to their contributions to research and societal progress. However, the question remains: Should taxpayers be responsible for subsidizing institutions that already have access to vast private wealth? The funding disparity raises concerns about equity in education and whether public dollars are being used to promote the common good.

Conclusion

At a time when educational access and affordability are growing concerns, the United States should reevaluate its policies regarding federal support for elite universities. Institutions with endowments exceeding $500,000 per student clearly have the means to operate independently and should no longer rely on taxpayer funding. Redirecting these resources to support public colleges, community colleges, and underserved populations would create a more equitable education system and ensure federal dollars are spent where they’re needed most.

The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices: The Legacy of Trump's Tariffs

On March 2018, the Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel imports, aiming to boost U.S. steel production, reduce dependency on certain foreign suppliers, and strengthen national security. While critics feared long-term price increases, the tariffs led to a shift in trade relationships and a boost in American industry. But behind the economic reasoning was an even bigger concern—America's ability to defend itself in a time of war.

Why Were the Tariffs Implemented?

The steel tariffs were introduced to address several pressing issues in the global steel market:

• Chinese Overcapacity & Dumping: China was producing far more steel than its domestic market required, leading to dumping—selling steel internationally at far below production costs. This practice threatened the viability of U.S. and allied steel industries, pushing prices dangerously low and forcing plants to shut down.

• Structural Barriers in Other Markets: Countries like South Korea and members of the European Union had trade policies and subsidies that created barriers for U.S. steel exports, further disadvantaging American producers.

• National Security Concerns: U.S. planners recognized a larger strategic risk—if China bankrupted steel industries in America and its allied nations, the ability to produce warships, aircraft, tanks, and other military assets could be severely weakened in the event of a conflict.

Safeguarding Industrial Capacity

The tariffs ensured America retained critical manufacturing capabilities rather than becoming dependent on adversarial nations for essential materials. This protectionist approach prevented a potential scenario where the U.S. military might struggle to source steel in a crisis. Beyond trade policy, the initiative encouraged:

• Onshoring steel production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

• Strengthening supply chains with close allies like Canada and Mexico rather than competitors.

• Boosting domestic steel investments to ensure long-term production viability for military and infrastructure needs.

A Short-Lived Price Spike

When the tariffs first took effect, steel prices rose, including the cost of steel rebar—a vital material for construction. However, these price increases were temporary, as the market adjusted to new supply chains and domestic production expanded.

Positive Impacts on Trade & Jobs

Beyond price fluctuations, the tariffs reshaped trade relationships and expanded job opportunities across multiple industries. Some key benefits included:

• Trade Realignment: Instead of relying heavily on Chinese steel, the U.S. increased imports from trusted allies like Canada and Mexico, strengthening economic ties with neighboring trade partners.

• Domestic Steel Production Growth: Many American steel manufacturers ramped up operations, leading to a stronger, more self-sufficient industry.

• Job Creation Beyond Steel: The expansion of U.S. steel production led to the creation of around 6,000 new jobs—not only in steel mills but also in trucking, logistics, warehousing, and support services. This growth extended beyond manufacturing and boosted economic activity in related industries.

A Market Correction

Despite early price increases, the steel market stabilized as global supply chains adapted. By the early 2020s, steel prices—including steel rebar—had dropped below pre-tariff levels, proving that initial inflationary fears were overblown.

Looking Ahead

The steel tariffs demonstrated the power of protectionist policies in revitalizing domestic industries and preserving America’s national security interests. While debates continue about their long-term economic impact, one undeniable result was the strengthening of U.S. steel production, job growth in multiple sectors, and ensured capacity for military manufacturing in case of future geopolitical threats. 

As trade policies evolve, the challenge will be finding the right balance between economic protectionism and global competition.