That may be true for Intel's CPUs but when products aren't produced by monopolies, those that have the cheapest costs and are in competition with others, often lower their prices to compete where the competitor can't. For example: AMD, graphics and motherboard parts
My understanding is that the price should never be set based on production cost but on the value it brings to the customer. Thereby, a simple program you or I could hack together in a month, might have a cost of 10k in labor only cost, but if it would save the customer millions each year, they would pay a million for it.
So, you set the cost based on how much they are willing to pay, based on how much they would profit/save.
If another competitor offers a similar solution, you just undercut them by 10%, or invest another 10k for superior features.
Perhaps American workers. But an alternate take is that American consumers got cheaper chips and PCs - which resulted in more being sold, more companies and people using them, greater efficiency and new ideas and perhaps a more productive economy.
It will be interesting in 5-10 years if the US needs to tax/block possibly cheaper and better components built outside the US being sold