12 ms·

I guess my earlier comment was too long, so let me provide a shorter version: this action actively harms anyone attempting to design, prototype, and manufacture

by luma 8y ago

I guess my earlier comment was too long, so let me provide a shorter version: this action actively harms anyone attempting to design, prototype, and manufacture electronic devices in the US. There isn't a single component in the projects I'm currently working on which isn't impacted by this. My cost of goods just went up by 25% across the board today in an effort to help "protect" American businesses. I don't feel like I've been protected by this. The full list: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/List%201.pdf https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investig... Earlier comment (now hidden) with a list pertinent to hardware developers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17320653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17320653

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
YesThatTom2 8y ago
NO!! Don't you understand?? Yes, we'll suffer for 50 years, BUT in that time the supply chain will be created in the U.S. and our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. And if I'm wrong, I won't be alive to be able to say I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. The best solutions are the ones you won't be around to see fail. By the way... this strategy will work as long as the entire rest of the world doesn't figure it out, keep their tariffs low, and have the supply chain move to them instead. So PLEASE don't let anyone in the EU, Africa, South America, Canada, Central America, or Indonesia see this comment! We only have to keep this secret for another 49.9 years! P.S. I'm not joking. That's is the strategy he's following.
- atomi 8y ago
  But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective? You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?
  - HenryBemis 8y ago
    > And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway? I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).
    - atomi 8y ago
      I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries. We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.
        orf 8y ago
        Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.
- s2g 8y ago
  > Canada too late.
- ljw1001 8y ago
  The strategy he’s following is to throw bones to his base and make the people of the country pick up the tab. If you’re applying an economic lens here, you’re solving the wrong problem.
  - e40 8y ago
    Which is all the more sad, because his base is so stupid they don't see it does them harm. Depressing!
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    This. If anyone doesn't understand why ljw1001's comment is the correct interpretation, I highly recommend Beuno do Mesquita and Smith's "The Dictator's Handbook". https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-...
    - unethical_ban 8y ago
      Is the cover for "The Innovators" a rip-off of this cover on purpose, or by coincidence? https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacson-2014-10-07/dp/B01K3LCHTM/ https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacs...
    - jpao79 8y ago
      Adapted by CGP Grey for people who don't read: The Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
  - aleh 8y ago
    IMHO, the reason is not really to protect US manufacturers. It is about long-running negative balance of trade between US and the rest of the world. Protectionism rhetoric is a sugar-coat for Americans who will have to foot the bill by paying more for imported goods, but honestly, who else should? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade
- omegaworks 8y ago
  >our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. When those products were made here, it led to toxic chemical plumes and widespread soil contamination around the factories that produced semiconductors. [1] >I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. Trichloroethylene contamination produces heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. You are advocating to literally produce a toxic wasteland. [2] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-of-silicon-valley.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiological_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiologica...
  - siddarthd2919 8y ago
    So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is your only concern, yes it is better to have those industries in USA.
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      >So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...
- AngryData 8y ago
  I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disruptive and unstabalizing way possible. We should be going for a firm but gentle push, instead of swinging a sledgehammer around our heads and hoping we don't break the wrong skulls.
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda. The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.
  - ravitation 8y ago
    Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.
    - abiox 8y ago
      > "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way if so, what is the right way?
      - ravitation 8y ago
        Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked. But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen. This is just as true for steel manufacturing.
- carapace 8y ago
  > the supply chain will be created in the U.S. Metric or Imperial?
- noobermin 8y ago
  People seriously overestimate the level of intent in Trump's decisions. The people who advise him might be more mindful but he certainly is not.
iteriteratedone 8y ago
You dont feel you have been protected because you dont care about protecting american industry You rather pay 25% less than ensure that we do what we can for americans to have jobs. You are the same type that rater pay 25% less than see chinese workers get a fair wage. Is your whole idea of being protected you paying a little as possible no matter who has to suffer? What is a liberals idea of protecting america. Selling uranium to russia like hillary. Trump 2020
crb002 8y ago
At 5% you would laugh it off as a sales tax. I'm curious if these tariff taxes will meaningfully lower the budget deficit.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > I'm curious if these tariff taxes will meaningfully lower the budget deficit. I think the consensus on this one was that it wouldn't.
handbanana 8y ago
No decision is good for everyone. Unfortunately for you, this one isn’t
- kerbalspacepro 8y ago
  This is one of those "bad for everyone" decisions.
  - handbanana 8y ago
    Care to explain your reason for thinking that?
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      It is actually quite self-explanatory: if an action that is intended to protect one party (US electronics manufacturers) at the expense of another party ends up instead harming the former, then by definition said action is good for no one.
      - ojbyrne 8y ago
        It’s actually good for every country not affected by it.
        chris_wot 8y ago
        Name even one country not adversely affected by increased tariffs? I’m genuinely curious who comes out ahead on this.
        ojbyrne 8y ago
        In this case, where the US imposed tariffs on electronic components from China, every country that imports electronic components from China except the US.
      - 8y ago
Kagerjay 8y ago
Trumps steel and aluminum tariff before this has hurt my industry. Half of our vendors went up between 3 to 5% on finished good prices. We bought raw stainless steel as well for custom fab work and every vendor, imported or not imported, raised prices at 25 to 30%. Even though the policy is not in effect ?yet. It only affected US manufacturers and left chinese finished good imports unaffected
- Kagerjay 8y ago
  Also if anyone wants to know more one of my vendors sent me an official FAQ and their analysis on why they raised prices. The vendor is an industry leader [they build industrial equipment], is not biased, and is reputable on this type of information. I was sent this last month QUESTION: What is your justification for the cost increase? With the pending implementation of the steel tariff under section 232, we have been negatively impacted due to price changes from mills. Mills are primarily focusing in on high profit type grades of material such as 304. QUESTION: Why are the mills' pricing increasing? First, the 25% tariff is to be applied to certain foreign material. Consequently, this has provided an avenue for North American mills to raise pricing. Next, the restriction of material from foreign countries has created a shortage of material. The announcement of Section 232 has stopped/slowed the flow of foreign steel, causing the shortage. QUESTION: Are some countries exempt from the steel tariffs? Yes, however, not completely. For example, Korea has been restricted to 70% of shipments since 2015. Brazil's exemption has not been finalized. The same is true for other countries. Each country needs to negotiate directly with President Trump for all appeals. NAFTA countries (Mexico and Canada) are currently exempt, but will be subject to the new NAFTA rules, currently in negotiations. QUESTION : What other variables are impacting pricing? Nickel has adjusted from the $10K range to the $13K range over the last 4 months. Chrome has adjusted from $1.10 to $1.40 during this same period. Scrap/Iron, which makes up 80% of stainless steel, has adjusted from $325/ ton to $385/ton. Other alloys have had significant adjustments as well. For example, hot rolled steel has adjusted $610/ton in November and $856/ton in March. QUESTION: Are there other material options? With the reduction of imports, U.S. mills are focused on the highest revenue products. This includes primarily heavy gauge (thicker) 304. Material grade 201 and 430 are more difficult to produce and/or have higher production costs, along with supply shortage. This results in the mills focusing on higher prof it material. We anticipate further price pressure on certa in grades of materials. QUESTION: Where does [our vendors company] steel come from? Our steel comes primarily from U.S. and Mexico; however, we do get some steel through other processors who purchase mat erial from targeted countries. We are also impacted by U.S. mills' price increase/surcharges in response to the Section 232. Many mills have already announced double digit price increases within days of the president ial announcement. In addition, various surcharges will be effective in 02. QUESTION: Can you purchase your steel from less impacted nations (i.e., European countries)? There are several variables that limit this opportunity. Product mix makes the change more difficult and time consuming. Due to increased demand, lead time has substantially increased, which result in further price increases in less impacted countries. The cost to produce steel is relatively the same. Labor in Europe mirrors costs in the U.S. Add itionally, currency rates adjust constantly, and the U.S. dollar is currently weaker than the Euro. Shipping costs, lead time and availability also play into consideration. QUESTION: What is the impact of steel as a percentage of product? Steel and aluminum amount to a significant% of most of our products. However, we are only passing partial impact to our customer base. QUESTION: What are [insert vendors name] projections regarding costs as we move into next year? Tariffs create uncertainty. It is difficu lt to say what changes domestic mills will implement to add capacity. With the current situation, the U.S. Steel Market will maintain a gap in supply and demand. Additional concerns include how fore ign countries will respond to these tariffs; so, the situation could get worse before it gets better. With all that said, we are doing our best NOT to pass all the cost increases to our customers. Based on current and future projections, we are only passing partial impact to our customers, while working diligently to reduce costs and mitigate supply and lead times thought other means. But, due to the large steel/aluminum content in our products and unprecedented impact and uncertainty in the global supply markets, we are forced to take this measure. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IN SHORT, even though they might not buy the steel / tariff from China, prices went up globally across the board. Normally vendors raise 3 to 5% annually due to inflation, but because of trumps tariff they were forced to raise it 3 to 5% TWICE within a year. Note some of these pieces of equipment range from 5k to 100k in cost, so 3 to 5% is a huge amount.
losvedir 8y ago
Your comment proves too much. It would equally apply in the scenario where the foreign country is dumping goods to destroy local competition (i.e. the "Walmart destroys local stores" story writ large). And yet, in that scenario most people would be in favor of tariffs. More generally, as I understand it, the reason economic orthodoxy is against tariffs is because of "comparative advantage", and the idea that different countries could produce different goods or services more efficiently than others, not just more cheaply, due to subsidization or other distortionary interventions like that. You could make an argument along those lines here, and that would be valid, but the superficial observation that your prices went up isn't really enough to say either way.
- Latteland 8y ago
  The US has higher wages than third world countries for most workers and more than China. So for things that take more human labor, we are disadvantaged if we make them. Those things may be cheaper to but and import. Things with more IP behind them or requiring less labor are more likely to be efficiently produced in the US. So importing those goods that can be much more cheaply in say china or mexico saves everyone in the us from buying a higher made local object. Tariffs might help a very few people, those working in a factory that makes these 'higher human overhead' objects. But everyone else will (1) first pay more for the object that's probably still not made in the us but not imported at higher cost. Things built by using that now higher priced widget will cost 25% more because of the tariff. so they have to lose most/all profit and/or increase their price, kicking it up the food chain. So it's a net negative to have tariffs on things that can be made by basic hourly workers. There must be some people helped, like say a steel producer who makes things that was competing with China. But like coal workers, there aren't that many. Remember there are more Arby's workers than coal miners.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    It's a negative in the short run, but in the long run as China moves further up the value chain it's less clear, at least to me.
  - maxwell 8y ago
wintom 8y ago
I am reading a lot of comments like this. Guys, so what? You think middle America gives a shit your high tech biz is getting hit? The fact that everyone is building all of this out of China is a terrible sign. The fact that China has grown incredibly quickly by cheating is also terrible. They are number two not because they truly invented, fairly competed, or did anything useful for humanity. They stole all sorts of trade secrets, they continue to do that, didn’t license anything, pushed all of our companies out etc.. I didn’t vote for Trump, but listen to yourselves. I might vote for Trump on the next one because I really do agree with him on this. EDIT: downvote me it’s ok, it does not change the fact that you are out of touch and not really looking to hear the other side at all. EDIT, EDIT: Keep down voting me guys, calling me a racist but it does not change the fact that you aren’t looking to have a dialogue about this.
- 282883392 8y ago
  Yes, because China being lower on the developmental scale than the US is a bad thing. Also, copying isn't cheating. Copying/imitating is the free market at work.
  - wintom 8y ago
    Copying isn’t cheating but they have spies in the top tech firms in this country. Everywhere in the world that’s cheating. Stealing confidential proprietary anything anywhere in the modern world will send you to jail, whose sending China to jail? Donald Trump and your mad about it.
    - prebrov 8y ago
      Many would love to see a single US official going to jail for starting wars under false premise, installing puppet regimes and ruining whole ecosystems to support business interests, from banana imports to oil and gas, and cheap clothes.
- DownVoteFuckers 8y ago
  This kind of worthless comment is not welcome here on HN. Blindly attacking a country with no evidence backing it up is the worse than Nazi. Go vote for your racist Nazi president Trump. From your comment, I sense insecurity and fear. You fear that a developing country would exceed you and threaten your monopoly of power.
crunchlibrarian 8y ago
I understand your point and am not in favor of these tariffs, but does anyone else think it's kind of silly that every single chip and component and interface comes out of China? How much of the tech industry goes poof if they decide to stop exporting to the US entirely? Seems like a precarious position. Put another way that might make more sense to your average HN reader: what if all software came out of China like all hardware does? Wouldn't that concern you? I'd imagine some folks here would struggle to pivot to a new field outside of development.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  >How much of the tech industry goes poof if they decide to stop exporting to the US entirely? Seems like a precarious position. How much of china's goes puff.
  - crunchlibrarian 8y ago
    Yes they are more dependent on us than we are them, but this is irrelevant and does not actually address the question at all.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      It is very relevant: the fear that china would immolate to cause us harm is deterred by the same reason all the people that surround you don't pick up a knife and stab you to death. Its not in their interest. Trade wars are reasonable tools of diplomatic negotiations, and china does break some rules that harm the interests of the U.S.
- WhitneyLand 8y ago
  It’s a double edged sword. It is a factor that’s considered somewhat in policy but at the same time it very hard to predict and generalize such conclusions because things can also land the other way. For example it’s possible some permutation of trade war impacted US tech in the short term yet had the long term effect of reestablishing more manufacturing in the US. This kind of thing has happened, lots of examples. Remember, China is not a manufacturing leader simply because people are working cheaply. There is a masssive ecosystem, self-reinforcing, supporting new growth, and in general making it easy to get things built there. These elements are critical yet not fundamentally tied to wage discussions. They have fantastic systems and infrastructure in place to make it all possible at this point, that are mostly independent of what salaries are. I don’t mean to imply wages don’t matter, they do influence things of course. It’s just that they are a highly visible point of contention compared other extremely important enablers that are not very visible to casual observers, who may still be very vocal on these debates.
SpikeDad 8y ago
The effort is not to protect American businesses. Real business information is readily available to the Trump administration. The effort is to get revenge on industries and/or countries that piss off Trump. We're being governed by reasons of revenge and personal animosity by a single person.
leereeves 8y ago
Are there no American sources of these components? The tariffs seem to be targeted at protecting such companies.

by luma 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

YesThatTom2 8y ago

NO!! Don't you understand?? Yes, we'll suffer for 50 years, BUT in that time the supply chain will be created in the U.S. and our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. And if I'm wrong, I won't be alive to be able to say I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. The best solutions are the ones you won't be around to see fail. By the way... this strategy will work as long as the entire rest of the world doesn't figure it out, keep their tariffs low, and have the supply chain move to them instead. So PLEASE don't let anyone in the EU, Africa, South America, Canada, Central America, or Indonesia see this comment! We only have to keep this secret for another 49.9 years! P.S. I'm not joking. That's is the strategy he's following.

atomi 8y ago
But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective? You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  > And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway? I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).
  - atomi 8y ago
    I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries. We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.
        orf 8y ago
        Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.
s2g 8y ago
> Canada too late.
ljw1001 8y ago
The strategy he’s following is to throw bones to his base and make the people of the country pick up the tab. If you’re applying an economic lens here, you’re solving the wrong problem.
- e40 8y ago
  Which is all the more sad, because his base is so stupid they don't see it does them harm. Depressing!
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  This. If anyone doesn't understand why ljw1001's comment is the correct interpretation, I highly recommend Beuno do Mesquita and Smith's "The Dictator's Handbook". https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-...
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Is the cover for "The Innovators" a rip-off of this cover on purpose, or by coincidence? https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacson-2014-10-07/dp/B01K3LCHTM/ https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacs...
  - jpao79 8y ago
    Adapted by CGP Grey for people who don't read: The Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- aleh 8y ago
  IMHO, the reason is not really to protect US manufacturers. It is about long-running negative balance of trade between US and the rest of the world. Protectionism rhetoric is a sugar-coat for Americans who will have to foot the bill by paying more for imported goods, but honestly, who else should? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade
omegaworks 8y ago
>our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. When those products were made here, it led to toxic chemical plumes and widespread soil contamination around the factories that produced semiconductors. [1] >I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. Trichloroethylene contamination produces heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. You are advocating to literally produce a toxic wasteland. [2] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-of-silicon-valley.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiological_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiologica...
- siddarthd2919 8y ago
  So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is your only concern, yes it is better to have those industries in USA.
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    >So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...
AngryData 8y ago
I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disruptive and unstabalizing way possible. We should be going for a firm but gentle push, instead of swinging a sledgehammer around our heads and hoping we don't break the wrong skulls.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda. The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.
- ravitation 8y ago
  Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.
  - abiox 8y ago
    > "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way if so, what is the right way?
    - ravitation 8y ago
      Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked. But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen. This is just as true for steel manufacturing.
carapace 8y ago
> the supply chain will be created in the U.S. Metric or Imperial?
noobermin 8y ago
People seriously overestimate the level of intent in Trump's decisions. The people who advise him might be more mindful but he certainly is not.

iteriteratedone 8y ago

You dont feel you have been protected because you dont care about protecting american industry You rather pay 25% less than ensure that we do what we can for americans to have jobs. You are the same type that rater pay 25% less than see chinese workers get a fair wage. Is your whole idea of being protected you paying a little as possible no matter who has to suffer? What is a liberals idea of protecting america. Selling uranium to russia like hillary. Trump 2020

crb002 8y ago

At 5% you would laugh it off as a sales tax. I'm curious if these tariff taxes will meaningfully lower the budget deficit.

saagarjha 8y ago
> I'm curious if these tariff taxes will meaningfully lower the budget deficit. I think the consensus on this one was that it wouldn't.

handbanana 8y ago

No decision is good for everyone. Unfortunately for you, this one isn’t

kerbalspacepro 8y ago
This is one of those "bad for everyone" decisions.
- handbanana 8y ago
  Care to explain your reason for thinking that?
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    It is actually quite self-explanatory: if an action that is intended to protect one party (US electronics manufacturers) at the expense of another party ends up instead harming the former, then by definition said action is good for no one.
    - ojbyrne 8y ago
      It’s actually good for every country not affected by it.
      - chris_wot 8y ago
        Name even one country not adversely affected by increased tariffs? I’m genuinely curious who comes out ahead on this.
        ojbyrne 8y ago
        In this case, where the US imposed tariffs on electronic components from China, every country that imports electronic components from China except the US.
    - 8y ago

Kagerjay 8y ago

Trumps steel and aluminum tariff before this has hurt my industry. Half of our vendors went up between 3 to 5% on finished good prices. We bought raw stainless steel as well for custom fab work and every vendor, imported or not imported, raised prices at 25 to 30%. Even though the policy is not in effect ?yet. It only affected US manufacturers and left chinese finished good imports unaffected

Kagerjay 8y ago
Also if anyone wants to know more one of my vendors sent me an official FAQ and their analysis on why they raised prices. The vendor is an industry leader [they build industrial equipment], is not biased, and is reputable on this type of information. I was sent this last month QUESTION: What is your justification for the cost increase? With the pending implementation of the steel tariff under section 232, we have been negatively impacted due to price changes from mills. Mills are primarily focusing in on high profit type grades of material such as 304. QUESTION: Why are the mills' pricing increasing? First, the 25% tariff is to be applied to certain foreign material. Consequently, this has provided an avenue for North American mills to raise pricing. Next, the restriction of material from foreign countries has created a shortage of material. The announcement of Section 232 has stopped/slowed the flow of foreign steel, causing the shortage. QUESTION: Are some countries exempt from the steel tariffs? Yes, however, not completely. For example, Korea has been restricted to 70% of shipments since 2015. Brazil's exemption has not been finalized. The same is true for other countries. Each country needs to negotiate directly with President Trump for all appeals. NAFTA countries (Mexico and Canada) are currently exempt, but will be subject to the new NAFTA rules, currently in negotiations. QUESTION : What other variables are impacting pricing? Nickel has adjusted from the $10K range to the $13K range over the last 4 months. Chrome has adjusted from $1.10 to $1.40 during this same period. Scrap/Iron, which makes up 80% of stainless steel, has adjusted from $325/ ton to $385/ton. Other alloys have had significant adjustments as well. For example, hot rolled steel has adjusted $610/ton in November and $856/ton in March. QUESTION: Are there other material options? With the reduction of imports, U.S. mills are focused on the highest revenue products. This includes primarily heavy gauge (thicker) 304. Material grade 201 and 430 are more difficult to produce and/or have higher production costs, along with supply shortage. This results in the mills focusing on higher prof it material. We anticipate further price pressure on certa in grades of materials. QUESTION: Where does [our vendors company] steel come from? Our steel comes primarily from U.S. and Mexico; however, we do get some steel through other processors who purchase mat erial from targeted countries. We are also impacted by U.S. mills' price increase/surcharges in response to the Section 232. Many mills have already announced double digit price increases within days of the president ial announcement. In addition, various surcharges will be effective in 02. QUESTION: Can you purchase your steel from less impacted nations (i.e., European countries)? There are several variables that limit this opportunity. Product mix makes the change more difficult and time consuming. Due to increased demand, lead time has substantially increased, which result in further price increases in less impacted countries. The cost to produce steel is relatively the same. Labor in Europe mirrors costs in the U.S. Add itionally, currency rates adjust constantly, and the U.S. dollar is currently weaker than the Euro. Shipping costs, lead time and availability also play into consideration. QUESTION: What is the impact of steel as a percentage of product? Steel and aluminum amount to a significant% of most of our products. However, we are only passing partial impact to our customer base. QUESTION: What are [insert vendors name] projections regarding costs as we move into next year? Tariffs create uncertainty. It is difficu lt to say what changes domestic mills will implement to add capacity. With the current situation, the U.S. Steel Market will maintain a gap in supply and demand. Additional concerns include how fore ign countries will respond to these tariffs; so, the situation could get worse before it gets better. With all that said, we are doing our best NOT to pass all the cost increases to our customers. Based on current and future projections, we are only passing partial impact to our customers, while working diligently to reduce costs and mitigate supply and lead times thought other means. But, due to the large steel/aluminum content in our products and unprecedented impact and uncertainty in the global supply markets, we are forced to take this measure. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IN SHORT, even though they might not buy the steel / tariff from China, prices went up globally across the board. Normally vendors raise 3 to 5% annually due to inflation, but because of trumps tariff they were forced to raise it 3 to 5% TWICE within a year. Note some of these pieces of equipment range from 5k to 100k in cost, so 3 to 5% is a huge amount.

losvedir 8y ago

Your comment proves too much. It would equally apply in the scenario where the foreign country is dumping goods to destroy local competition (i.e. the "Walmart destroys local stores" story writ large). And yet, in that scenario most people would be in favor of tariffs. More generally, as I understand it, the reason economic orthodoxy is against tariffs is because of "comparative advantage", and the idea that different countries could produce different goods or services more efficiently than others, not just more cheaply, due to subsidization or other distortionary interventions like that. You could make an argument along those lines here, and that would be valid, but the superficial observation that your prices went up isn't really enough to say either way.

Latteland 8y ago
The US has higher wages than third world countries for most workers and more than China. So for things that take more human labor, we are disadvantaged if we make them. Those things may be cheaper to but and import. Things with more IP behind them or requiring less labor are more likely to be efficiently produced in the US. So importing those goods that can be much more cheaply in say china or mexico saves everyone in the us from buying a higher made local object. Tariffs might help a very few people, those working in a factory that makes these 'higher human overhead' objects. But everyone else will (1) first pay more for the object that's probably still not made in the us but not imported at higher cost. Things built by using that now higher priced widget will cost 25% more because of the tariff. so they have to lose most/all profit and/or increase their price, kicking it up the food chain. So it's a net negative to have tariffs on things that can be made by basic hourly workers. There must be some people helped, like say a steel producer who makes things that was competing with China. But like coal workers, there aren't that many. Remember there are more Arby's workers than coal miners.
- mistermann 8y ago
  It's a negative in the short run, but in the long run as China moves further up the value chain it's less clear, at least to me.
- maxwell 8y ago

wintom 8y ago

I am reading a lot of comments like this. Guys, so what? You think middle America gives a shit your high tech biz is getting hit? The fact that everyone is building all of this out of China is a terrible sign. The fact that China has grown incredibly quickly by cheating is also terrible. They are number two not because they truly invented, fairly competed, or did anything useful for humanity. They stole all sorts of trade secrets, they continue to do that, didn’t license anything, pushed all of our companies out etc.. I didn’t vote for Trump, but listen to yourselves. I might vote for Trump on the next one because I really do agree with him on this. EDIT: downvote me it’s ok, it does not change the fact that you are out of touch and not really looking to hear the other side at all. EDIT, EDIT: Keep down voting me guys, calling me a racist but it does not change the fact that you aren’t looking to have a dialogue about this.

282883392 8y ago
Yes, because China being lower on the developmental scale than the US is a bad thing. Also, copying isn't cheating. Copying/imitating is the free market at work.
- wintom 8y ago
  Copying isn’t cheating but they have spies in the top tech firms in this country. Everywhere in the world that’s cheating. Stealing confidential proprietary anything anywhere in the modern world will send you to jail, whose sending China to jail? Donald Trump and your mad about it.
  - prebrov 8y ago
    Many would love to see a single US official going to jail for starting wars under false premise, installing puppet regimes and ruining whole ecosystems to support business interests, from banana imports to oil and gas, and cheap clothes.
DownVoteFuckers 8y ago
This kind of worthless comment is not welcome here on HN. Blindly attacking a country with no evidence backing it up is the worse than Nazi. Go vote for your racist Nazi president Trump. From your comment, I sense insecurity and fear. You fear that a developing country would exceed you and threaten your monopoly of power.

crunchlibrarian 8y ago

I understand your point and am not in favor of these tariffs, but does anyone else think it's kind of silly that every single chip and component and interface comes out of China? How much of the tech industry goes poof if they decide to stop exporting to the US entirely? Seems like a precarious position. Put another way that might make more sense to your average HN reader: what if all software came out of China like all hardware does? Wouldn't that concern you? I'd imagine some folks here would struggle to pivot to a new field outside of development.

conanbatt 8y ago
>How much of the tech industry goes poof if they decide to stop exporting to the US entirely? Seems like a precarious position. How much of china's goes puff.
- crunchlibrarian 8y ago
  Yes they are more dependent on us than we are them, but this is irrelevant and does not actually address the question at all.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    It is very relevant: the fear that china would immolate to cause us harm is deterred by the same reason all the people that surround you don't pick up a knife and stab you to death. Its not in their interest. Trade wars are reasonable tools of diplomatic negotiations, and china does break some rules that harm the interests of the U.S.
WhitneyLand 8y ago
It’s a double edged sword. It is a factor that’s considered somewhat in policy but at the same time it very hard to predict and generalize such conclusions because things can also land the other way. For example it’s possible some permutation of trade war impacted US tech in the short term yet had the long term effect of reestablishing more manufacturing in the US. This kind of thing has happened, lots of examples. Remember, China is not a manufacturing leader simply because people are working cheaply. There is a masssive ecosystem, self-reinforcing, supporting new growth, and in general making it easy to get things built there. These elements are critical yet not fundamentally tied to wage discussions. They have fantastic systems and infrastructure in place to make it all possible at this point, that are mostly independent of what salaries are. I don’t mean to imply wages don’t matter, they do influence things of course. It’s just that they are a highly visible point of contention compared other extremely important enablers that are not very visible to casual observers, who may still be very vocal on these debates.

SpikeDad 8y ago

The effort is not to protect American businesses. Real business information is readily available to the Trump administration. The effort is to get revenge on industries and/or countries that piss off Trump. We're being governed by reasons of revenge and personal animosity by a single person.

leereeves 8y ago

Are there no American sources of these components? The tariffs seem to be targeted at protecting such companies.