Dan Rodricks' comments on re-shoring — making a product in a low-wage country but then shipping it to the U.S. for final assembly — are well taken, but not in the context of Under Armour ("For Under Armour, why not 'UA Made in the USA'?" March 21).
I work with Vietnamese provinces on trade and investment policy, and we discuss final assembly in the U.S.
Imagine making the textile and some of the other parts — buttons, collars, logo, zippers, etc. — in Vietnam, then shipping it to Baltimore and assembling it, then sending it back to Los Angeles or Seattle for sale.
Compare that to assembling it in Vietnam, then shipping it straight to Long Beach and from there to sales points. Obviously, the carbon footprint is higher in the first scenario, and it's not economical either.
It does work for other products, however. A bookshelf fully assembled overseas takes up a lot of space in a shipping container. If the shelf could be sent to the U.S. market prior to assembly, container volume costs could be slashed by up to 80 percent, which would be good for both the pricing and the carbon footprint of the product. Then you assemble it in the U.S. and ship it to factories.
Another option is added value. A big Vietnamese coffee seller I know wants to switch from selling bulk coffee to packaged coffee. Afraid of tariffs on sugar and milk (coffee is tariff-free, because we make none in the U.S.), the company thinks about shipping the coffee from Vietnam to the U.S. and manufacturing the final product here with U.S. milk and sugar.
These are successful possibilities for re-shoring. But on textiles, there really is no advantage for anyone to do it unless a company can convince American consumers to pay more for a product made in the USA.
Thomas Jandl, Washington
The writer is a partner at TJMR Asia Consultants, an economic policy advisory firm.