The  general impression across the Western world was that manufacturing  moved en masse to China because labor costs are so much lower. That  fallacy should have been discredited by now.
Yet, news reports regularly explore the issue and offer suggestions  from experts on how countries can leverage their expertise to neutralize  China's supposed cost advantages. In fact, an entire industry of  research, procurement, manufacturing, and logistics expertise has  developed over the last 10 to 15 years to support companies either  relocating facilities overseas or seeking ways to blunt the edge rivals  have supposedly gained from moving to China. 
Join the Move-to-China bunch if you believe that country has gained  its manufacturing edge simply by offering the cheapest labor costs on  this planet. I assure you, however, that -- like many other industry  executives -- you'll soon figure out labor represents only one of  several reasons behind China's great pull and attractiveness to Western  executives.  In fact, research firms like 
IHS  have long questioned the validity of the labor cost argument, noting  that wages account for only a fraction of electronics production costs.
In its "teardown" analysis of the iPhone 4S from 
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL), for instance, research firm iSuppli Corp.   estimated the manufacturing cost at approximately $8 for the device,  regardless of the model. This means manufacturing represents only  approximately 4.1 percent of the total bill-of-materials and production  cost for the 16GB iPhone 4S model and 3.7 percent and 3.2 percent,  respectively, for the 32GB and 64GB models. Had Apple manufactured the  iPhone in the United States or in Western Europe -- adding a multiple of  two or three to its labor cost -- the total production cost would have  edged up but not significantly, and the product, which retails for $500  and above, would still be highly profitable. You don't move across the  world for that kind of leverage. What else is at play here?
Before attempting to answer that question, let's look at our next  fascination in the China demonization campaign. After wearing out the  low-labor cost pendant and after being repeatedly told by Western OEM  executives that "labor accounts for only a small percentage of total cost,"  politicians in the US and Europe have been consumed by another  obsession: alleged Chinese currency manipulation. China's hefty trade  surplus with the US, according to Congressional leaders, is because  Chinese leaders have refused to allow the Yuan to float freely on the  international market, thereby grossly undervaluing the currency against  the dollar and the euro.
So, to rectify this situation and "provide for identification of  misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for  other purposes," US senator Chuck Schumer has introduced a bill named  the 
Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011.  The bill sets out a bunch of objectives, but it aims specifically to  identify "misaligned currencies" and impose punitive sanctions on  countries that fail "to adopt appropriate policies, or take identifiable  action, to eliminate the fundamental misalignment." This bill is aimed  squarely at China's economic jugular.
However, will it correct the fundamental manufacturing misalignment  we see in relations between Western countries and China? I doubt it. But  that's a subject for another blog. China didn't steal Western  manufacturing jobs because of its lower cost advantages alone, and the  elimination of that edge -- if the West can pull this off -- will not  dramatically alter the global manufacturing landscape in the West's  favor.
What, then, are the more critical reasons behind the shift in  manufacturing to China? Why will this situation persist for a while  despite indications wages are surging in China?  How should the West properly respond to the perceived disadvantages in  manufacturing? I will explore answers to these questions in my next  blog, which will focus on the fascinating subject of "supply and demand"  -- you'll be amazed how bad that nomenclature is and why the thinking  behind it is equally wrongheaded. 
Things get made today in China because of a bunch of reasons, but  cheap labor is not the most impressive factor because it can be and is  being neutralized. For now, I suggest we look more closely at the  outsourcing wave of the 1980s that drove increased manufacturing  specialization, the forces of economic globalization that have pulled  China and its southeast Asian neighbors into a tighter embrace with the  West, and the mouthwatering prospects of selling products to and serving  the world's most populous nation. 
Comments welcome!
 I this answers the questions, why are products made in china 
Davez Solomon