I think part is trans-Pacific

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:20:58 +0000

In reply to Actually, I'm surprised to

I think part is trans-Pacific shipping (doesn't count on the US side).

But yes, 45% seems like a lot. Of course makes a difference if toys or electronics or other goods.

One of these hippie socialist sites summed it up as: (Barbies were even wider margins from what I remember):

It’s that the workers in China are paid just 17 cents for each doll they assemble, and that the total cost to produce the doll is $3.01. When the Bratz dolls enter the U.S., the companies mark the price up by 428 percent— another $12.88—and retail the dolls for at least $15.89.

Actually, I'm surprised to

kgb999 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:05:39 +0000

In reply to ‘Made in China,’ but Still Profiting Americans

Actually, I'm surprised to see China capturing 45% of the profits.

Or are they counting produced-by-Foxconn products as being from Taiwan because Foxconn is technically a Taiwanese company? I imagine Apple is a typical example, they pay like $188 in parts and $6.50 in labor for an iPhone4 while the thing sells for $650 retail (at around a 40% profit) ... which leaves around $195 for the rest of the supply/retail/marketing chain.

Even if China were capturing 100% profit on labor and materials they are only looking at 30% max out of that arrangement. There must be something bringing up profits somewhere to make up for the way they are undercutting the electronics sector.

dagblog - Comments for "‘Made in China,’ but Still Profiting Americans"

I think part is trans-Pacific

Actually, I'm surprised to