(The discouraging thing to see there is that about half the containers coming in from Asia to the US go back empty.)
Depends on how you look at it. The US is only sending pieces of paper (or electrons that represent pieces of paper) and getting back containers full of goods.
It doesn't seem like Chinese labor plays that big of a role regardless, seeing as labor costs on a $800 device are around $2.
Apple and their shareholders certainly benefit from selling $800 devices at 70% profit margins, but I would not go so far as to say that consumers also get the benefit, seeing as they are paying 70% markups.
Well, the Foxconn (or whomever) assembly labor costs may be $2, but in some way, shape or form, all $800 is a labor cost to somebody, somewhere.
- it makes a lot more sense to ship by Air for product with such value per kg - Apple has been shipping products by Air since 1997(famously they booked the entire capacity for the holiday season) - Apple brags about how little inventory they keep all the time. Sea Freight is slow, very slow.
Most foreign companies are forced to pair up with local Chinese companies. The transfer of IP is "included in the price of access to the market", to put it mildly. There are significant limitations when it comes to foreign participation in Chinese stock markets. Also, China now runs 4 of the world's 5 biggest banks.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/04/investing/worlds-biggest-ban...
Yes, but not in the way you meant. Much of the outgoing US container traffic is recycling, mostly paper and steel. Container shipping to US to China is very cheap, since there are so many empties going back.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...
So the question: how do we reconcile these two things? Chinese capacity doesn't explain the drop, but BDI doesn't match the core "containers shipped" data you cite. Is Los Angeles' shipping somehow exceptional? Or is something else going on?