Take a look around you for a second. Your phone might have been put together in Vietnam. Those sneakers by the door could be Vietnamese too. Even the laptop you’re using right now, Vietnam may have had a hand in it somewhere along the line.
And yet most people barely think about Vietnam at all. Ask them to find it on a map, or to explain how their everyday costs have stayed surprisingly stable while the world’s supply chains have been a mess, and you’ll mostly get blank stares.
That’s the strange thing about Vietnam in 2026. It’s become quietly essential to how the modern economy runs, but it rarely gets treated like a main character. The spotlight stays on China, India, and the US, while Vietnam keeps doing the work in the background.
But what’s unfolding there right now is not background noise. It’s one of the most important economic shifts of our era, and it’s already changing the rules, from geopolitics to what you end up paying for electronics.
The Earthquake You Didn’t Feel
We should be clear about what “China + 1” actually means, because it isn’t just business-speak. It’s a real shift in how the world builds things.
For a long time the logic was simple: if you wanted to manufacture something at scale, you went to China. Not because of one magic advantage, but because everything was there at once. Ports, roads, factories, skilled labor, suppliers down the street, and decades of hard-earned know-how. It wasn’t just a country that made products, it was a whole machine that fed itself.
Then the ground started moving. Not in one dramatic moment, but slowly, and then all at once in how people made decisions. US-China tensions stopped being background noise and turned into tariffs and policy. Companies that had spent years optimizing for efficiency suddenly had to optimize for risk. The Section 301 tariffs were a turning point. Not just because they cost money, but because they signaled something bigger: this relationship could get worse, and it could get worse fast.
Still, nobody serious thought they could simply pack up and walk away from China. The scale is enormous. The supply chains are tangled. And the Chinese consumer market is too valuable to abandon. A total exit is the kind of thing people talk about in theory and regret in practice.
So the move became more practical: stay in China, but stop betting your entire future on it. Add a second base. Build an alternative supply line that can take pressure off when politics, costs, or disruptions spike.
That is what “China + 1” is.
And for a lot of companies, that “+1” has been Vietnam.
What makes “China + 1” so effective is that it’s not really a breakup. It’s a hedge.
Companies keep China running for what China is still best at: serving the Chinese market and handling the kind of manufacturing that depends on dense, highly specialized supply chains. But alongside that, they build a second track in Vietnam. Not as a full replacement, but as a pressure valve.
Vietnam is where you shift final assembly. It’s where you route exports to markets where “Made in China” comes with extra costs, extra scrutiny, or straight-up tariffs. It’s where you put the products that need a different label to avoid becoming collateral damage in someone else’s political fight.
Vietnam fit the role almost too well. It’s close enough to tap into China’s supplier network without reinventing the entire production system. But it’s also clearly separate in geopolitical terms. Labor is affordable, the country has been relatively steady, and for executives trying to de-risk without blowing up their business, it felt like the most sensible place to place the next bet.
The Human Story Behind the Numbers
Let’s put some real numbers on what it means when labor costs $6.50 an hour in one place and $3.00 in another.
Say you’re making smartphones. Not the chips, because that’s a different universe of expensive machines and deep engineering. I mean the assembly side, where people still do a lot of the work, line by line, station by station.
Now picture a factory in Shenzhen with 10,000 workers. If each worker costs you about $6.50 an hour, you’re paying $65,000 every single hour in direct labor. Over an eight-hour shift, that’s $520,000. Over a five-day week, you’re at $2.6 million.
And that’s before you even get to overtime, benefits, turnover, training, or all the hidden costs that always show up in the real world.
Now move that same setup to Vietnam, where labor might be closer to $3.00 an hour.
At that rate, 10,000 workers cost you $30,000 an hour. Over an eight-hour shift, that’s $240,000. Over a five-day week, you’re at $1.2 million. Compared to the Shenzhen example, you’re saving about $1.4 million every week, which works out to roughly $73 million a year.
And that’s just the wage line. It doesn’t include the stuff that really makes CFOs smile: tax breaks, special economic zones, tariff advantages, and various exemptions that can stack the deck even further.
What’s easy to miss, though, is that this isn’t only a corporate math problem. In Vietnam, $3.00 an hour can be a big deal. It can be the difference between scraping by and actually getting ahead, especially if there’s steady overtime. It’s the kind of job that can pull a household into a more secure, more comfortable life.
So you get this strange double effect. From the company’s side it looks like cost cutting. From the country’s side it looks like wealth creation. The exact same factory that saves a multinational a fortune can also change the trajectory of tens of thousands of families.
Everyone wins, at least on paper. The real world is messier, but you can see why the model is so attractive.
Samsung’s Bet: When Half Your Empire Moves
Let’s use Samsung as the clearest example, because their Vietnam footprint is the kind of thing that sounds exaggerated until you look at the scale.
A huge share of Samsung’s smartphones are now produced in Vietnam, commonly reported as more than half. Pause on what that implies. This is not a company dabbling in a side project or testing a small factory for “flexibility.” Samsung is one of the most valuable manufacturers on the planet, building high-end electronics with unforgiving quality standards. And they’ve made Vietnam one of the main places where those devices are assembled at massive volume.
They also didn’t stumble into it late. Samsung started investing in Vietnam back in 2008, years before “China + 1” became a boardroom phrase. They were early enough to shape the ecosystem around them, not just plug into it. Vietnam, for its part, was hungry to move up the value chain and very motivated to attract the kind of anchor investor that could pull suppliers, skills, and infrastructure in behind it.
The pitch to Samsung was straightforward and hard to ignore: strong incentives, predictable rules, and practical support. That meant tax breaks, favorable land terms, investment in infrastructure, and a regulatory environment that felt stable enough to plan around. Samsung’s response was equally straightforward. They committed. Not just with factories, but with deeper roots: R and D, training programs for engineers, and the slow, unglamorous work of building a local supplier network that could actually sustain production at Samsung’s level.
Today, Samsung’s Vietnam footprint is enormous. The company employs well over 100,000 people there directly, and once you count contractors and the supplier network around the factories, you are talking about an ecosystem that supports a far bigger number. The export volume is equally wild. Samsung ships tens of billions of dollars’ worth of products out of Vietnam every year, to the point where it has become one of the most important pillars of Vietnam’s export economy. In practical terms, Samsung is not just “operating in” Vietnam anymore. It is woven into the country’s economic identity.
And the punchline is that it’s working. By most accounts, Samsung’s Vietnam sites rank among its strongest performers. The lines run efficiently, quality holds up, and productivity is consistently high.
A big part of that comes down to the workforce. It’s young, it learns fast, and it still has that edge you see in places that are climbing quickly. People want these jobs, they take pride in them, and the country is still in that phase where opportunity feels tangible. That hunger is hard to replicate in wealthier economies where factory work has a different status and a different level of competition.
Apple’s Calculated Migration
Apple did what Apple always does: it waited, watched, and moved only when the logic was unavoidable. But when Apple finally shifts direction, it doesn’t just tweak its own operations. It drags a huge chunk of the global supply chain along with it.
For years, “Made in China” might as well have been stamped next to the Apple logo. Foxconn’s complexes around Shenzhen weren’t just factories, they were industrial cities. Massive headcount, insane throughput, tight coordination between suppliers, and an ecosystem built to serve Apple’s tempo and standards. From a pure execution standpoint, it was hard to argue with. The scale was unmatched, and the integration was almost frictionless.
So why change something that worked?
Because what worked operationally started looking fragile strategically. Not in a dramatic, collapse overnight way, but in the slow realization that the biggest risk was having so much of your production concentrated in one place, under one set of political and logistical conditions.
Two words explain the shift: strategic risk.
Apple is, in a weird way, one of the most supply chain obsessed companies on the planet. They don’t just build products, they build systems that can produce those products at ridiculous scale with almost no room for error. And they could see where things were heading earlier than most.
Relying too heavily on one country is a gamble, even if that country is amazing at manufacturing. When the political relationship between the US and China keeps getting more tense, that concentration becomes a vulnerability. Not the kind that necessarily blows up tomorrow, but the kind that can ruin your year if the wrong headline hits at the wrong time.
So Apple started doing what it usually does. Quiet pressure, careful steps, no drama. They began pushing key suppliers like Foxconn, Luxshare, and Pegatron to expand in Vietnam. Not as a full exit from China, but as a second leg to stand on.
And they’ve been methodical about what they move. Start with something relatively contained, like AirPods. Then expand into Apple Watch. Then iPads. And now you’re seeing more serious talk about larger categories, including meaningful MacBook assembly over time.
The scale here matters. If Apple shifts even a slice of iPad production to Vietnam, that is not a symbolic move. Apple ships iPads in huge volumes. A change like that means entire production lines, trained teams, supplier routing, packaging, shipping lanes, and quality processes. Every unit assembled in Vietnam pulls in a web of parts and coordination, and that web is exactly what builds industrial capability.
The most interesting part is how Apple forces the ecosystem to level up. Apple’s quality bar is famously unforgiving. Suppliers can’t just move a line to Vietnam, hire cheaper labor, and call it a day. They have to bring the standards with them. That means training, process discipline, local engineering talent, and eventually local suppliers that can deliver consistently. In other words, Apple isn’t only moving assembly. It’s pushing know-how and operational excellence into the places it expands.
In doing so, Apple is effectively upgrading Vietnam’s industrial capability whether they intend to or not. Workers trained to assemble Apple products to Apple standards become some of the most skilled manufacturing workers in Southeast Asia. That knowledge doesn’t just disappear when they leave the factory—it spreads through the economy.
Nike: The Quiet Giant That Moved Mountains
Tech gets all the attention, but Nike’s shift into Vietnam might be the cleaner, more dramatic story because it’s so total.
More than half of Nike’s shoes are now made in Vietnam. Not a small slice, not a “rapidly growing share.” The majority. Vietnam has overtaken China as Nike’s main manufacturing base for footwear, which is a big deal for a company that basically helped invent the modern playbook for outsourcing production to Asia in the first place.
In a way, it looks like Nike has pulled off a second supply chain revolution. The first was moving large scale production to Asia decades ago. The second is reorganizing that Asian footprint around Vietnam, not as a backup plan, but as the center of gravity.
Footwear manufacturing is interesting because it still depends heavily on people. Even with better machines and smarter systems, making a serious athletic shoe involves skilled hands. Cutting materials, stitching uppers, shaping soles, final assembly, quality checks. You cannot just automate the whole thing and walk away. That is why location matters, and why wages matter.
Nike’s shift toward Vietnam picked up speed in the 2010s as wages in China climbed and Vietnam built out its industrial base. Cost played a role, of course, but that is not the full story. Vietnam developed real competence in footwear production. These factories are not only pushing out low end sneakers. They are producing advanced performance shoes that retail for 150 to 200 dollars in Western markets.
What stands out is how the industry has climbed the ladder without losing its cost edge. Manufacturers in Vietnam can handle complex designs, technical fabrics, premium materials, and limited releases. Work that used to be associated with China or even factories in developed countries is now routine there.
This has created a cluster effect. When Nike invests heavily in Vietnam, Adidas pays attention. When Adidas follows, Puma takes note. Before long, Vietnam has become the global center of footwear manufacturing, with all the supplier networks, logistics expertise, and institutional knowledge that implies.
The Chip Race: Vietnam’s Audacious Leap
Now for the part that really matters long term: semiconductors.
Making the chips themselves is one of the most expensive and technically demanding processes we’ve ever built. It takes billions in equipment, ultra-clean facilities, and know-how that’s accumulated over decades. At the leading edge, only a few places can truly compete: Taiwan, South Korea, and increasingly the United States.
Vietnam isn’t trying to beat them at that game. That would be a losing battle. But there’s another piece of the semiconductor chain that’s nearly as critical: packaging and testing.
Once a chip is fabricated, it has to be packaged, tested, and prepared to be integrated into devices. It’s still highly technical work, but it’s more labor-intensive and less capital-heavy than fabrication. That combination makes it a natural fit for a country like Vietnam.
That’s where companies like Amkor and Hana Micron come in. They’ve put serious money into building out packaging and testing capacity in Vietnam in 2025 and 2026, reportedly totaling over $1.6 billion. These aren’t symbolic projects. They’re large facilities meant to take on real volume and plug into global production.
Why Vietnam? It’s the same mix of factors we’ve already seen: lower costs, proximity to existing Asian supply chains, and a government that’s willing to back strategic industries. But there’s another driver too. The chip crunch in 2021 and 2022 made one thing painfully clear: it’s risky to have so much of the semiconductor chain concentrated in a handful of places. Vietnam offers diversification in an industry where concentration has become a liability.
If Vietnam pulls this off, the shift is bigger than most people realize. It moves from being a country that mainly assembles finished products to being a country that handles critical parts of the component pipeline. That is a different role in the global economy. It tends to mean better paid work, more technical positions, stronger spillover into education and skills, and more influence.
And it raises Vietnam’s strategic value. Semiconductors are central to modern power, the way oil once was. Countries that sit inside the chip supply chain have leverage. Vietnam is clearly trying to become one of them.
The Youth Advantage: A Demographic Dividend in Action
Here’s something that still doesn’t get enough attention: Vietnam is a country of roughly 100 million people, and more than half are under 35.
Pause on what that implies. In the US, Europe, China, and Japan, the story is aging. Workforces are tightening. The share of retirees keeps rising relative to workers, which strains public finances and tends to dull growth over time. That demographic drag is going to shape the next few decades.
Vietnam is on the other side of that curve. It has what economists call a demographic dividend: a large, young working-age population with fewer dependents. It’s the same basic advantage that helped fuel the Asian Tigers in the late 20th century and China in the 2000s.
What makes it more interesting is that Vietnam’s young population is not only large, it’s getting better prepared. The country has invested hard in education over the past couple of decades. Literacy is high, and performance in math and science is often compared favorably with richer countries. And young Vietnamese are growing up online, with smartphones, internet access, and a clear view of the wider world.
The result is a workforce that is not only affordable, but capable. People can be trained to handle complex manufacturing processes. They can meet the quality demands of companies like Apple and Samsung. And more and more, they are stepping into technical roles, not just working on assembly lines.
Visit a modern factory in Vietnam and you will see young employees running advanced equipment, tracking performance on digital systems, and fixing issues in real time. This is not the low skill, low oversight model people associated with Asian manufacturing decades ago. It is far more structured and technically demanding.
There is also a mindset factor that matters. Many young workers have grown up during a period of rapid national progress. They have seen living standards rise within their own families. That shapes expectations. When people believe that effort can translate into real improvement in their lives, it changes how they approach work and opportunity. That belief can be a real economic asset.
The FTA Superpower: Trade Agreements as National Strategy
Most people switch off the moment you bring up trade agreements. Fair enough. They’re technical, full of acronyms, and usually explained in a way that makes your brain leak out of your ears. But in Vietnam’s case, these deals are not trivia. They’re one of the country’s biggest advantages, and it’s worth understanding why.
Vietnam sits inside a unusually strong web of free trade agreements, including CPTPP, EVFTA, and RCEP. Here’s what that means in plain language.
If something is made in Vietnam, it can often be exported into major markets like the US, the EU, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and much of Southeast Asia with reduced tariffs or none at all. That is not just “access.” It’s a built in edge across a huge share of global demand, often described as covering a big chunk of world GDP.
Now compare that with India. India manufactures plenty, but it is not in CPTPP, and it does not have the same kind of broad trade deal with the EU. So Indian exporters can end up paying higher tariffs in markets where Vietnam gets a better rate. That matters when margins are tight and buyers have options.
China is the other obvious comparison. Chinese exports face tariffs in the US, sometimes steep ones, and Europe has been getting tougher too. A product made in China might get hit with a 25 percent tariff entering the US. Make that same product in Vietnam and the tariff can be zero, or at least much lower. That difference alone can decide where a factory line goes.
This is why companies are leaning into Vietnam so hard. It opens up a kind of legal, structural arbitrage that is hard to ignore.
You source parts in China, where the supplier base is deep and the expertise is unmatched. Then you ship those components to Vietnam for final assembly. From there, you export the finished product under Vietnam’s trade terms. Same product category, similar quality, smoother risk profile, and often a much lower tariff bill. At scale, that is not a rounding error. It can be millions.
Vietnam’s leadership saw this earlier than a lot of countries did. They chased trade deals with real intent, even when the negotiations were painful. And they were willing to give ground on issues Western partners care about, like labor rules and intellectual property, in exchange for market access. It was a deliberate trade. And right now, it looks like a trade that’s paying off.
The Infrastructure Problem: Growing Pains of Success
But there’s an obvious constraint here, and it’s not politics or labor. It’s infrastructure. Vietnam’s growth has been so fast that the physical system is struggling to keep up.
Imagine you’re a logistics manager at a big electronics company. Your factory is running smoothly, output is strong, quality is stable, costs are fine. Everything looks great. Then the finished goods hit the port.
Cat Lai in Ho Chi Minh City is one of the busiest ports in the country, and congestion has become a recurring headache. Ships can end up waiting. Containers stack up. What should be a predictable export flow turns into delays that ripple through the whole chain. If you rely on just-in-time logistics, you suddenly have to build in extra buffer days you never wanted.
Or take something as basic as moving components between factories. On paper, a trip might be three hours. In practice, it can stretch to six because roads are packed with industrial traffic and the network wasn’t built for this volume. Schedules slip, planning gets harder, and costs creep up.
None of this is a collapse. It’s friction. And in modern manufacturing, friction is expensive.
Vietnam is throwing serious money at infrastructure: new highways, port expansions, upgraded logistics hubs. But this is not the kind of thing you can fix with a quick policy change. A deep-water port is not a software update. It takes years of planning, huge capital, and solid execution.
So there’s a real race underway. Can Vietnam expand capacity fast enough to match the pace of industrial growth, or do bottlenecks start acting like a speed limit? So far, it’s holding, but it’s tight. When an economy keeps growing at 7 to 8 percent, the strain shows up everywhere, especially in transport and logistics.
The government understands what’s at stake. If manufacturers start running into persistent delays and unpredictability, they will start shopping around. Malaysia, Thailand, and India would love to absorb that investment. Vietnam’s opportunity is real, but it’s not endless.
The China Paradox: Independence Through Dependence
One of the biggest ironies in Vietnam’s rise is this: the boom still leans heavily on Chinese inputs.
Think back to the whole “final assembly in Vietnam” idea. The parts still have to come from somewhere, and “somewhere” is very often China. Textile factories in Vietnam import fabric from China. Electronics plants import components from China. A lot of the machinery is Chinese, too.
So you end up with this slightly weird setup. Vietnam is supposed to help companies reduce their exposure to China, but Vietnam itself can end up quite exposed to China. In many cases, the supply chain hasn’t been reinvented. It’s been stretched across a border.
Is that a problem? Depends what you care about.
If you’re looking at pure efficiency, it makes total sense. China has decades of experience, huge scale, and a supplier network that’s hard to match quickly. Using Chinese inputs is often the smartest, cheapest, least risky operational choice.
If you’re thinking about resilience and geopolitics, it’s a softer spot. If relations ever sour, or if China restricts exports of key components, Vietnam-based production could get hit. “China + 1” doesn’t fully remove China risk if the “+1” still relies on Chinese suppliers.
Vietnam knows this, and they’re trying to build out more local supply chains. But that’s not a quick fix. Creating a deeper domestic supplier base takes serious capital, technology transfer, and years of learning. Realistically, it’s a long project.
For now, the arrangement works well enough. China keeps selling into the ecosystem. Vietnam keeps growing with access to good components at competitive prices. And companies still get a degree of diversification, even if it isn’t total.
It’s not perfect. But the goal was never perfection. The goal was “less fragile than before,” and on that measure it’s an upgrade.
The Green Transition: ESG as Competitive Advantage
Here’s a trend that’s getting far less attention than it deserves, but it’s going to matter a lot in the next few years: Vietnam is trying to brand itself as a cleaner, more sustainable place to manufacture.
Western companies, especially in Europe, are under growing pressure to prove they’re not outsourcing pollution. Regulators are tightening rules, investors are asking harder questions, and consumers are less patient with vague promises. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBAM, is part of that shift. In practice, it pushes importers toward lower carbon supply chains by attaching real cost to high emissions.
Vietnam can see where this is heading, and it’s adjusting. The government is pushing the idea of “green industrial parks,” meaning manufacturing zones designed around cleaner power, better waste handling, lower emissions, and certifications that global buyers actually care about. This is not feel good branding. It’s positioning for a world where sustainability affects who wins contracts.
Some big companies are already paying attention. LEGO is investing in Vietnam and has strong reasons to care about the sustainability story given the scrutiny it faces. Nestle is also expanding in Vietnam, partly because it helps them argue for a lower footprint compared to other options.
This is a smart angle for Vietnam because it fits the country’s natural strengths. Vietnam has strong conditions for renewables: plenty of sun, good coastal winds, and large areas where solar and wind projects can actually make economic sense. As the cost of renewable energy keeps dropping, sustainability could turn into a competitive edge, not just a compliance headache. That’s a rare setup where “greener” can also mean “cheaper.”
It’s not going to be smooth, though. Vietnam still gets a lot of its power from coal, and the grid is not yet built to move renewable electricity around at the scale industry would need. But the direction is clear.
A few years from now, being able to say “Made in Vietnam using renewable energy” could genuinely help sell products, especially in Europe, and it could translate into better pricing power or stronger margins.
What This Means for the World
Zoom out and the scale of what’s happening is hard to overstate.
Vietnam, a country that was ravaged by war within living memory and was still desperately poor not that long ago, has become part of the backbone of global commerce. If Vietnamese ports suddenly stopped moving goods, Apple would feel it fast. Nike would run into shortages. Samsung would be dealing with a real operational emergency.
That is a stunning shift. Vietnam is not just “benefiting from globalization.” It has become one of the places globalization now depends on. A key node, not a side story.
For the US and Europe, Vietnam is a practical piece of the China puzzle: how to keep access to efficient manufacturing while reducing strategic exposure to a rival. It’s not a full answer, but it’s meaningful.
For China, Vietnam is both a competitor and a customer. China still profits from selling components and machinery into Vietnam’s factories, but it also has to watch as investment that might have gone to Chinese regions gets redirected across the border.
For other developing countries, Vietnam is both motivating and threatening. It shows what’s possible, but it also raises the bar. If Vietnam is winning the next wave of factories, what does everyone else need to change to stay in the game?
And the effects spill outward. They show up in the price of everyday electronics, in the political balance across Southeast Asia, and in the question of whether globalized manufacturing can stay as efficient as it has been, without becoming too fragile to shocks.
The Road Ahead
Vietnam in 2026 is at a turning point. It has already pulled off the jump from cheap assembly to more capable, more demanding manufacturing. The next question is whether it can climb again, into higher value work like design, research, and innovation.
A lot of things are going for it. The demographics help. The trade deals help. The state clearly wants to push the economy upward. But none of that guarantees success. Plenty of countries hit the so called middle income trap: wages rise enough that you stop being the cheapest option, but the economy never quite builds the innovation engine needed to compete with richer countries.
The optimistic path looks a bit like South Korea: fast industrial growth, then a steady move up the value chain, eventually producing strong homegrown companies and real technological strength in a few areas.
The darker path is that Vietnam gets squeezed by its own progress. Infrastructure lags, costs rise faster than productivity, and manufacturers start chasing the next bargain location. Vietnam ends up with a lot of industrial capacity, but less momentum than it expected.
Reality will probably land somewhere between those two. Vietnam is likely to keep growing and keep attracting investment, and it will keep moving upward over time. But it won’t be a straight line. There will be bottlenecks, policy tweaks, and a few hard lessons along the way.
What’s certain is this: Vietnam matters now in a way it didn’t a decade ago. Anyone trying to understand global trade, supply chains, manufacturing, or economic development needs to understand Vietnam.
The invisible architect of your daily life isn’t so invisible anymore. You just need to know where to look.
Stay connected, Follow Gandalv
CVD 