From Wool to Wires, Why the Future of Manufacturing Doesn’t Include People
Apple, robots, and the illusion of industrial revival
According to Trump administration Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Apple is ready to bring iPhone assembly back to the United States. But to make it happen, Lutnick claims Tim Cook told him, Apple needs robotic arms, not workers. This is indicative of the future of manufacturing, where human labor is more of a liability than an asset: too expensive, too fragile, too heavily regulated. Automation, not manpower, is the real prerequisite for reshoring in the future of manufacturing.
It’s a signal that foreshadows a broader shift: production may return to democratic countries, but not to create jobs. Rather, it’s to escape geopolitical dependencies while keeping profit margins intact. What changes is the geography of factories, not their logic. Tariffs, introduced to bring labor back home, may instead accelerate its disappearance by making automation the more cost-effective option.
This isn’t the first time that rising input costs have triggered a technological leap. A telling precedent can be found in the textile industry. In the 1970s and ’80s, the price of raw wool—particularly the premium Australian variety—rose sharply. The industry didn’t adapt by reviving artisanal weaving. Instead, it created synthetic alternatives like fleece: cheap, lightweight, and fully compatible with automated industrial production. It wasn’t a return to tradition—it was a clean break, and wool became a niche product overnight.
When a production factor becomes too expensive—whether a natural fiber or a human worker—the system seeks a substitute. And while the shift to synthetics had commercial consequences, replacing labor with automation brings a far deeper transformation. It reshapes the relationship between capital and labor, redraws the distribution of wealth, and hollows out the factory’s traditional social function. This marks a clear future direction for manufacturing.
In this context, Apple isn’t the exception—it’s the prototype. Other companies will follow, driven by the same pressures and incentives. Robots aren’t a futuristic choice; they’re an industrial necessity. And the “Made in USA” narrative risks becoming a rhetorical cover for an economy that increasingly sidelines human labor.
What’s different from the past is not the mechanism of change, but its speed and scale. The shift from natural to synthetic textiles unfolded over decades. The replacement of labor today moves at exponential speed, powered by AI, advanced sensors, and geopolitical urgency. And unlike fleece, which made performance wear more affordable, robot-driven manufacturing concentrates value and power, often deepening inequality, and shaping the future landscape of manufacturing.
From Wool to Wires, Why the Future of Manufacturing Doesn’t Include People
In the end, the real reshoring isn’t geographic, it’s structural. Factories may come home, but workers don’t. The new industry may be American, perhaps. But it will be automated, without question, indicating the inevitable future of manufacturing.
From Wool to Wires, Why the Future of Manufacturing Doesn’t Include People
technology, labor, economy, automation, manufacturing,