• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Tarrifs on imports?

    So basically jacking up prices on all the things made overseas that are cheapest to buy in the US. That affects everyone, especially the poorer people that tend to shop places where that cheap imported stuff is sold because it’s a bigger percentage of their income. It’s gonna affect the middle class the most because they’re probably the biggest consumers. The rich DGAF because well, they’re rich.

    Quickest way to put even more people below the poverty line.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      things made overseas that are cheapest to buy in the US

      Things that are made overseas because American business owners outsourced the manufacturing jobs to the countries with the cheapest labour (and also the least worker protections)?

        • Ledivin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          What? No, this is the same exact discussion… that is literally one of the primary purposes of tariffs: to give an advantage to local producers.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I think you misunderstand, friend. The ship has already sailed overseas and there aren’t enough “local” producers to make up for the rise in costs faced by the people who shop where the cheap imported goods are and the middle class that consumes the most.

            The only advantage is to the government collecting the tariffs on the poor and middle class. Like I said, the rich won’t care.

            • Ledivin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              25 days ago

              Yes… that’s literally the point? Tariffs both support existing local producers and are an incentive to move production local.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s becoming a problem for Americans because labor leverage abroad (particularly in China and India) have been improving as labor demand eclipses supply.

        African and Latin American states (particularly Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa) were supposed to be the next places to extract labor, but they keep going Woke, with socialist state governments making demands on exports that Western states don’t want to surrender.

        Imperials are running out of countries to exploit.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That affects everyone, especially the poorer people

      That’s a consequence of outsourcing as much as anything. Tariffs don’t have to mean making retail goods unaffordable for the bulk of the population. When you have domestic industry with room to grow, insourcing your demand can simply mean building out more capital and consuming more labor at home.

      But insourcing also means boosting wages and incentivizing immigration, things conservatives hate.

      So Trump’s pitch ultimately amounts to giving domestic producers with no intention of boosting production an opportunity to price gouge their clients with the blessing of the state.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Your assumption that things become unaffordable is incorrect, they just cost more.

        Prove that wages get boosted. That flies in the face of corporate methodology to cheapen wages and benefits along with product quality in the service of quarterly reports and profits.

        Price gouging is already happening. It doesn’t require trump’s ok to allow it.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Prove that wages get boosted.

          Wages rise when demand for labor exceeds supply. That’s Econ 101.

          That flies in the face of corporate methodology to cheapen wages and benefits along with product quality in the service of quarterly reports and profits.

          Wages are kept low by artificially stunting labor demand. That happens either by under-investing in new capital or cartelizing the hiring process.

          Price gouging is already happening.

          Gouging involves monopolizing supply of commodities. If we increase the supply of capital and the number of hiring firms, that monopolization becomes more difficult.

          But if we simply freeze out imports with trade laws, the existing firms can monopolize domestic supply more easily.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            None of your replies have any basis other than broad opinion. It’s devoid of manufacturing ability, profiteering, or the corporate price gouging we already experience.

            You just wave a magic wand and suddenly the US can defray the manufacturing deficit and will suddenly throw money at the workforce. Must be a nice imaginary world you live in.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            While I mostly agree with you, econ101 is a pretty poor argument; early econ courses (like intro to micro and macro) are notoriously not grounded in reality.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              econ101 is a pretty poor argument;

              You can argue about the goals of economic policy, but that’s very different from arguing the effects.

              What is the response to rising labor demand? Do you

              • Independently raise wages to the bid price?

              Or

              • Form a cartel to fix wages below the clearing floor?

              The former is the “natural” response you learn about in 101, assuming a naive approach to the problem. The latter is what you learn works best in 201, when your goal is profit maximization.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Rich people have enough money that a small percent in price increase doesn’t affect them the way it affects a “normal” person. If you make millions vs 100k/yr combined income it does that the same.

        It’s not about quality, it’s about what you’re being sold.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          But right now the cheap stuff is made overseas like in Asia. The expanse stuff is built in Europe or the US. Tariffs would likely be harsher on Asia products. So expensive stuff might not get much more expensive at all. The cheap stuff would get much more expensive.

          Meaning there’d be a bigger cost percentage increase for the people who already can’t afford it. A double whammy.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Tariffs would likely be harsher on Asia products. So expensive stuff might not get much more expensive at all. The cheap stuff would get much more expensive.

            Meaning there’d be a bigger cost percentage increase for the people who already can’t afford it. A double whammy.

            That’s pretty much what I said.