| |
| ▲ | slipperydippery a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Right... but now that is (arguably) cost competitive with American labor and manufacturing. Or at least it's more cost competitive than it otherwise would be. This won't work for clothes. We'd need Wal-mart shoppers to be spending like $400/outfit (incl. shoes) to even maybe bring those jobs back to the US. For clothes specifically, short of raising prices so much that the poorest few tens of a percent of the population are reduced to wearing shit-tier disposable clothes covered in also-cheap patches and often worn threadbare, shoes fully wrapped in duct-tape because the soles are practically gone, et c, there's no way you're bringing those jobs back. We'll just pay more for the exact same stuff, with few or no extra jobs as a trade-off. Meanwhile, goods partially manufactured here (materials made here, finished elsewhere; materials foreign, construction domestic) will see price increases due to tariffs, which may harm sales, which may reduce employment. Between that and any broader economic down-turn resulting from these policies (can't buy as many things if prices are up, can't spend more on expensive US goods if your basics go up in price) I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bunch of the remaining US clothing manufacturers go out of business in the next few years. I have several brands I like that are already showing visible signs of distress (things like products lines being reduced, no new models showing up) and am worried I'll soon have almost no US clothes to choose from, due to these "protectionist" policies. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This won't work for clothes Says who? Also you're forgetting if we as a country decide hey this really doesn't work for clothing we can just lower the tariffs on clothing. | | |
| ▲ | slipperydippery 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Says who? Uh, labor costs? I guess we could work to lower those, though. Like, a lot lower. Meanwhile if the $2 wholesale-in-China shirt costs $30 on the shelf due to tariffs and the identical-quality US-made one costs $40 because that's just what it costs, the latter won't even be made, zero factories will start up to manufacture them. You'd have to raise prices a lot for it to make sense to even try, clothes are (relatively—still far less than once-upon-a-time, which is why the poor can afford to wear clothes that aren't third-hand and much-mended) labor-intensive despite lots of automation because machines remain terrible at manipulating cloth, despite decades of effort at solving that problem. It's really expensive to make clothes in the US, and skimping on quality doesn't save all that much, percentage-wise. Being that they're also a necessity, we'd truly have to drive quality of life way down for a large chunk of the population to get that industry making low-end clothes. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | American made t-shirts today don't even cost $30. | | |
| ▲ | kalleboo 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does "American made" mean? Is the raw fabric also made in America or is it just cut and sewn together in America? | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here is an example: https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/shirts/produ... According to the website it’s compliant with the Berry Amendment, made in California, $15. From what I understand Berry Amendment “compliance” means all raw material and manufacturing is exclusively US sourced and US manufactured. A quick comparison I saw was this: A “Made in USA” jacket could have fabric from China but still be assembled in the U.S.
A Berry Compliant jacket must have U.S.-made fabric, thread, zippers, and even labels!
There’s a lot of different variations of these products in general and this is just one example. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | donkeybeer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You should trust people who live in countries that tariff a lot. You won't get quality crap. When tariffs cause the imported good to become equal to $200, the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180. Obviously any incentive that remained for local product to improve is now totally dashed too because of state forced back protection from competition. You end up paying multiple times the prices for the same shit sane countries buy much cheaper than you and life turns to shit, and the lower classes don't get better but end up loosing more money on the same crap. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't think we're comparing apples to apples though, and even so it's again just a trade-off we can make. > the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180 Lowering prices isn't the goal, otherwise we could just export everything to (insert low-cost country here) and have products made as cheaply as possible regardless of working conditions or other considerations. The goal in part with tariffs would be to make it so that domestic products or products from friendly countries are cost competitive, not necessarily cheaper. Some folks just want the cheapest possible products and they don't care about any other issue. But that's just one factor among many for the nation. Some think that we should have lunch breaks and 40 hour work weeks and different environmental standards - that costs money and makes labor more expensive in countries like the United States. I would disagree that there isn't an incentive to improve your local products, at least in the United States. The market here is big enough that we generally have competition regardless of whether or not competitors from other countries are participating in the market. But even so, it's not like competitors aren't participating in the market even with tariffs, it just changes the pricing calculations. | | |
| ▲ | donkeybeer a day ago | parent [-] | | And what will you get by making a crappy product artificially competitive? Its the same inferior product still, except you artificially forced the better stuff to be more expensive. Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America. Wrong, as I said just ask countries like Brazil what happens when you tariff everything to shit and beyond. Brazil doesn't have chip fabs still and still has to pay a huge amount for phones and computers. The answer to local industry being shit isn't to coddle it further, it is to scare the living shit out of them. Clearly in-country competition isn't enough, otherwise it'd already have been better than foreign goods. That's how capitalism succeeds, coddling them will only lead to overall crappy product and crappy life everywhere. I find it quite amusing this anti China rhetoric suddenly jumped up after in some areas Chinese getting superior to Americans. Hilarious really how much of a sore loser America is. Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices. The tradeoff is you get fucked in both, in any countries that do tariffs. If one of the goals was to make life better for the lower classes, what will happen is that it won't, they'd be fucked even more being forced to pay more for the same stuff. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > And what will you get by making a crappy product artificially competitive? I disagree with this characterization on at least two points: The first is that you're assuming the product is crappy. Maybe it's actually quite good but just slightly more expensive for whatever reason, maybe that's unionization or something. Many people may opt to pay $6 less for a cheaper "thing" because they're not thinking about quality or wages or other factors. I know plenty of people who opt for buy-and-replace strategies because of "cheaper" products. Second you're assuming that the cheap product isn't also artificially competitive. Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be. > Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America. I'm not sure protectionist policies are inherently communist, but to the extent they are I expect leftists to cheer these policies on. > Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices. Sounds good - stop bothering us about our crappy decisions then? | | |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be. Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier. Its not just about the buyer choosing a quality-price tradeoff. Let us be honest, the USA (or any other country) isn't the best in every sector. Artificial tariffs just mean your people will have to buy worse product. Again, its a slide to Latam style communism, absolutely hilarious. I will even agree that a careful and targeted application of tariffs can help grow certain industries and can be a beneficial thing, but again careful and targeted is key, its a teat that they should be removed from in time. But what Trump is doing isn't remotely targeted or thought out. The fact that you somehow are pegging me as a leftist and reacting emotionally to simple statements of fact show how incredibly stupid people who love tariffs are. Absolute comedy. Tariffs are essentially a signal you are a loser, you can't do better so you force barriers on others. And I will maintain this for all countries that do it, whether its USA, Brazil or China. You are not showing strength by tariffs you are showing how weak you are. If I were thinking of investing in a weakening country, I might think otherwise now. | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >You are not showing strength by tariffs you are showing how weak you are. Why does that matter? | | |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Signals are important to pay attention to. Its not a nice thing to be weak as a country. It's alright if you think you need this or that tariff right now to prop up this or that key industry, but what happens over time if you continuously slide ever weaker. Its just a warning sign that must be paid heed to. A strong sector shouldn't need a tariff to survive. For better or worse your IT/tech sector is one of the good examples of a strong sector, to extent that other countries are trying to shield themselves from it's success. That should be the aspiration for the industry, not living under tariffs forever. |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The fact that you somehow are pegging me as a leftist I didn't mean to do that, and I apologize for that. I just meant that to the extent that you are associating tariffs with communism that those on the left will applaud Trump's tariffs and trade policies as they align with that ideology. Though as an aside, you mention that we're sliding toward LATAM style communism (again I think it's mercantilism and not communism but whatever) but it seems to me that it's more so happening in the political sphere via Trump and his cronyism, not so much because of trade barriers. > Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier. A t-shirt is a t-shirt. At some point we're not really talking about making a better product, but we're instead talking about the costs associated with making that product. Instead of phrasing this as "buy the cheaper product" or "buy the better product" it should instead be looked at as "buy the product that is more environmentally friendly (shipping, environmental standards, etc.)" or "buy the product that supports higher American wages and 40 hour work weeks". These are all just trade-offs and policy decisions. If you gave me the choice between buy American made t-shirt for $20 [1] or buy the made in (insert country) shirt for $5 - I would buy the American one every time because the price isn't the only factor. For a long time we've focused on price only, but the prices on the shelves are not necessarily the only consideration, they're just the easiest one for people to make and we don't have other clear and obvious incentives right at the point of sale to help someone make a decision - was the (insert country here) product made by a despotic regime hellbent on assaulting your way of life - is that on the sticker? Or is it some harmless text hidden away that says "Made in Country X". Efficient markets are great, but they're not the point of society, just another thing we decide how much or how little we want of. [1] https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/shirts/produ... | | |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Quality is to an extent a personal function, each person may have a different idea of what factors to consider in quality. But the word here is personal, I find it highly unpleasant when a state uses its might so transparently to force these choices. You should also not discount price. You can afford to, I can afford to buy something more expensive because we consider some other aspects of the item more important. Again, if you had said this in terms of simply propping up a local even if less efficient industry alive, it makes sense, redundancy is a concept I can understand of course, I could have accepted it even if I don't agree fully. But I feel if it is presented as making the life of lower and middle classes easier, it is a total lie since they will be impacted most by these price increases. Some T-shirt firm in America will start earning more, but then where do the people of that firm spend it on? The other firms are also now higher priced if we fully commit to such extreme and wide ranging tariff programs. I am sorry if I come across as a bit vigorous in this, but I have seen how it is in high tariff countries so I have a strong feeling on this matter. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mlyle 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We will have to pay more, and we should, for those things. No. US labor costs are high and working conditions are better, in large part, because US labor is worth it and US productivity is high. That labor is spent in high value industries and is often highly skilled. We should accept we're better at some things and trade according to the principle of comparative advantage. |
|
