News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
145% isn't even accurate because that's just on the cost of the good. You then have to figure in retailer margin, seller margin etc. Most MSRPs will be 300% of what they were to keep those the same as before.
Not really. If they keep the same % based on what it costs them, then it should increase by the same amount.
If they instead get the same amount (which would effectively mean reduce their margins) the final cost would be a bit less.
Happy to be corrected with some numerical example.
So if you see any price increase greater than the tariff amount, it's plain corporate greed.
I think "corporate greed" is a good explanation for pretty much all our problems.
Given the effect on the climate due to pollution, even rain or lack of can be explained by corporate greed
Less if anything.
You buy something from China for $100. Add packing, staff costs and delivery and you sell it retail for say $200. A nice healthy profit margin.
Now you add the 145%, so it costs $245 from China. None of the rest of it will cost you more. Still an extra $100, for $345 total.
The retail customer pays an extra (345/200=) 72.5% instead.
It's a lot, but not 145%.
So if your retail price goes up by 145% or more, they either weren't making a lot of profit before, or they're greedy bastards.
At the border you pay tariffs on all the costs up to that point, because they are all considered to be part of the value of the shipment as it crosses the border. So the price of good, plus the price of packaging (as far as it was packaged in China), plus the price of the freight shipping are tariffed together, which makes the result of the calculation a little worse, but fundamentally you're right.
I'm thinking more your staff, your shipping from your warehouse to your customers, your retail store and rent, etc.
Which all of course varies depending on the business you are. A small retail store would be affected much less by this than a much larger, more efficient operation that might not have retail locations at all.
It depends on if it is something like a powder that comes raw in a 200 lb jar and you package it yourself into small containers.
Yes, then you only pay tariff for the powder, for the big jar, and the transpacific shipping of the big jar. That's what I meant by "as far as it was packaged in China".
Yes, I was agreeing with you. But especially to say that the bulk powder from China can be incredibly cheap, so for a lot of goods the 20$ bottle won't be affected that much by tariffs even if they're at 150%. It's the type of thing with a lot of goods where you can look it up and the bulk amount is cheap but then you have to deal with an entire pallet of something you only need like 5 times ever. So buying the small relatively expensive bottle is still better, and with a wild guess it could only be like 1-4 dollars per bottle more.
There are also non finished goods, like car components. Components from other tariff regions and US labor costs won't have that much, but there finished product will have a price hike
Learn to math. In your example 72.5% of the higher amount is the same as 145% of the smaller amount (cbf actually mathing it, but you obviously don't grasp the concept of maths very well). Retailers will NOT be happy to make the same $100 profit, if they have to outlay 145% MORE cash to achieve it. Realistically, for many retailers, that extra 145% cash comes from an overdraft, and will have it's own costs associated with it. No-one will use 2 1/2 times more cash to generate the same profit, and be happy with that. Another way to look at it. In your example, $100 item from China generates 100% of cost price, to sell at $200. If that same item now costs $245 but sells at $345 only, then the cost price generated is more like 40% (shipping/handling costs are excluded, for simplicity). Most businesses would lose their bankers if they take such a hit.
BS If an item costs an extra $100 to put on a shelf, the retailer will still want to cover the costs of obtaining and spending that $100. No-one is going to use funds commercially, for free. WTF do you think retailers will be good keeping the same profit, numerically, whilst spending 145% more for it?
I always wonder what compels some people to make so little effort to understand what they are replying to, but make so much effort in proving they have no idea what they are replying to. Can you explain?