These plants have nothing to do with tariffs though? They were in development prior to any tariffs and were partially funded by the CHIPS act. If anything, that’s the opposite of tariffs…

▲

linuxftw 5 days ago | parent [-]

My point is, the cost of goods being produced in the US is not dramatically higher, as outlined in the article. Even very basic tariffs would level the playing field and bring economic benefits domestically, without a major impact to the consumer.

	▲	runako 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Context is important here: a 20% increase in price to consumer is not going to be perceived as "not dramatically higher". Focusing on tech for a moment, we are discussing this in the context of a good that normally decreases in price annually suddenly getting more expensive. For the sake of argument, if all goods increase in price by 20%, Americans are going to have the experience of being worse off than they were before. This is the largest tax hike on Americans in modern times (possibly ever?). While it may take a while for people to understand the impact of policy, people generally do not like large tax hikes. I don't think it's a stretch to think people will not like this tax increase, either.
	▲	dagmx 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That assumes you have the means to bring the production domestically first. This is a confluence of the previous administration having the forethought to do this, before the current administration tried to kill the CHIPS act. If they hadn’t done that, you likely wouldn’t have seen domestic production able to satisfy the needs. Tariffs alone are a misguided cudgel. Also your comment about a “major impact to the consumer” ignores that this is an increase in cost just for the silicon. There’s a lot of tariffs on different parts of the actual product.