Okay. I did say "far fetched" and "remotely possible" not "it can't happen." You do have a leg to stand on by citing an economic basis but again I will emphasize that it will take a lot more than this to convince the US to negotiate with Japan to end the Pacific War.
I respectfully suggest that it would be a good habit to always keep in mind that the US is involved in more than one theater of war and is involved with other Allies, thus the US is politically inhibited from acting unilaterally, even for a peace initiative. If one mentions "late in the war," the Allies already have the upper hand. Victory is already in sight or just over the horizon. With this in mind, it means the US taxpayer would tend to believe that the economic costs are worth it.
Now, if the reverse was happening (Germany actually winning against the Allies and conquering Russia; Japan's buffer zone successfully defeating repeated Allied attempts to penetrate it and effectively isolating Australia), then the economic cost would not be worth it. That, I think, would be the only time the US would be decide to sue for peace. The best, I think, that the Axis would be able to achieve is a stand off with the US. Germany nor Japan could've won in their respective theaters but they won't have enough strength to physically invade the US (of course unless some nation in South America actively sides with the "victorious" Axis powers. That hypothetical nation would be a late comer but would provide the Axis the necessary physical foothold to access the North American continent plus a fresh manpower pool.)