> The answer is not 'no'. The answer is, 'It will take some investment'.

That's also the answer to 'can we move production under the sea?'

Not really "some investment" is not equal to "extraordinary investment". One is possible with little change and costs, the other would require lots of change and waste.

Which one is which?

the difference is that there are lots of parties that stand to profit by moving the production back to the u.s.. if a u.s. packaging company is able to be price competitive with a chinese counterpart, it will certainly emerge... over time, the whole supply chain can reemerge.

This feels an overly technical objection? Very little of our problems are actually "impossible" if by "impossible" you mean something like "inverting a one-way function".

What I think most people mean is that moving production is impractical, e.g., that there is no realistic incentive that justifies making the investment and so for that reason nobody will make the investment, and production will not move, etc.

It would be more effective to argue that the required investment is smaller than expected, and some particular entity does have an incentive to make the investment after all, etc.

Yes, it's only 'impossible' if you hold a bunch of economic variables constant.

Precisely. It's much easier to move supply chains when you don't have to move the labor (people) with it.

Also it is not limited to electronics - as others have pointed out, Addidas moved automation back to Germany.