Read the Case Incident “Apple Goes Global”. Assume you are a member of the leadership team for a small to medium sized manufacturing firm, and prepare, as your initial post, a response to Apple and Lululemon regarding the strengths of the North American workforce. What could the North American workforce offer that might not be available in offshore regions?
Here is the case:-

Apple Goes Global CASE INCIDENTS
It was not long ago that products from Apple, perhaps the most recognizable name in electronics manufacturing around the world, were made entirely in the United States. This is not so anymore. Now, almost all of the approximately 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads, and 59 million other Apple products sold yearly are manufactured overseas. This change represents more than 20,000 jobs directly lost by US workers, not to mention more than 700,000 other jobs given to foreign companies in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. The loss is not temporary. As the late Steve Jobs, Apple’s iconic co-founder, told US President Obama, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.” Vancouver-based Lululemon Athletica has also transferred many jobs out of Canada to countries such as Cambodia and Bangladesh. When the company first started in 1998, all of its factories were located in Canada. By 2007, only 50 percent of the factories were in Canada and now that figure is only 3 percent.
At first glance, the transfer of jobs from one workforce to another would seem to hinge on a difference in wages, but Apple shows this is an oversimplification. In fact, some say paying US wages would add only $65 to each iPhone’s expense, while Apple’s profits average hundreds of dollars per phone. Rather, and of more concern, Apple’s leaders believe the intrinsic characteristics of the labour force available to them in China—which they identify as flexibility, diligence, and industrial skills—are superior to those of the North American labour force. Apple executives tell of shorter lead times and faster manufacturing processes in China that are becoming the stuff of company legend. “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” one executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.” Another said, “We shouldn’t be criticized for using Chinese workers. The US has stopped producing people with the skills we need.” The perception of an overseas  advantage might suggest that the North American workforce needs to be better led, better trained, more effectively managed, and more motivated to be proactive
and flexible. If Canadian and US workers are less motivated and less adaptable, it’s hard to imagine how that does not spell trouble for the future of the North American workforce. There is an ongoing debate whether companies such as Lululemon and Apple serve as examples of the failure of North America to maintain manufacturing plants at home or whether these companies should best be viewed as examples of global ingenuity.