5 ms·

The article doesn't actually explain the why or the math behind this. It arbitrarily tells us to believe the headline is true with no sources or math formula sh

by ajaimk 4y ago

The article doesn't actually explain the why or the math behind this. It arbitrarily tells us to believe the headline is true with no sources or math formula showing how this came to be. I feel like I just wasted 5 mins of my life.

kube-system 4y ago
> It's not clear exactly why women's undergarments are taxed at a higher rate. "The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras," Rampell writes. > "In the garment industry, U.S. manufacturers might have felt most threatened by foreign competition on more labor-intensive products, which were disproportionately women’s products."
galaxyLogic 4y ago
Yes, except you exercised your brain in critical thinking, which is not wasted effort. Too many articles have no references and that makes people lulled into accepting that that is just so.
- jfengel 4y ago
  This article had lots of references. It was full of links, practically one per sentence.
qclibre22 4y ago
Found this : https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasic https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasi... Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2023) ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES, KNITTED OR CROCHETED. First mention of "women's" and "men's" : Men's or boys' wool overcoats : 61.7¢/kg + 16% Women's wool coats: 55.9¢/kg +16.4% Looks like they do have differing tariffs for various items. ( edit: see ksherlock reply at same level for cotton underpants info).
ffhhj 4y ago
Consider it valuable training to survive the new chatbot age.
ksherlock 4y ago
The original source has slightly more detail (see 2. Tarrif Rates) https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/ppis-trade-fact-of-the-week-u-s-underwear-tariffs-are-unfair-to-women/ https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/ppis-trade-fact-of-t... The original original schedule is here: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasic https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasi... eg, 6108.91.00 - Women's Cotton underpants: 8.5% 6107.11.00 - Men's Cotton underpants: 7.4%
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by ajaimk 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

> It's not clear exactly why women's undergarments are taxed at a higher rate. "The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras," Rampell writes. > "In the garment industry, U.S. manufacturers might have felt most threatened by foreign competition on more labor-intensive products, which were disproportionately women’s products."

galaxyLogic 4y ago

Yes, except you exercised your brain in critical thinking, which is not wasted effort. Too many articles have no references and that makes people lulled into accepting that that is just so.

jfengel 4y ago
This article had lots of references. It was full of links, practically one per sentence.

qclibre22 4y ago

Found this : https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasic https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasi... Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2023) ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES, KNITTED OR CROCHETED. First mention of "women's" and "men's" : Men's or boys' wool overcoats : 61.7¢/kg + 16% Women's wool coats: 55.9¢/kg +16.4% Looks like they do have differing tariffs for various items. ( edit: see ksherlock reply at same level for cotton underpants info).

ffhhj 4y ago

Consider it valuable training to survive the new chatbot age.

ksherlock 4y ago

The original source has slightly more detail (see 2. Tarrif Rates) https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/ppis-trade-fact-of-the-week-u-s-underwear-tariffs-are-unfair-to-women/ https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/ppis-trade-fact-of-t... The original original schedule is here: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasic https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2061?release=2023HTSABasi... eg, 6108.91.00 - Women's Cotton underpants: 8.5% 6107.11.00 - Men's Cotton underpants: 7.4%

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]