Brace for a bigger dent in your wallet and even less progress on greening the economy, thanks to increasingly insane tariffs

According to Tim Fiore at the Institute for Supply Management increasing tariffs on China 'would lead to a large hike in costs for businesses to stop sourcing from China, at a time when people are already unhappy with high prices.

“If industry hadn’t made these big moves 25 to 30 years ago, you wouldn’t have the quality of life you have in the United States today,” he said, estimating that many product inputs might cost as much as 30 percent to 40 percent more. That would have made everyday goods much more expensive for Americans to buy.

Indeed, there’s some irony that tariffs are more popular at a time when inflation is a leading economic concern and when unemployment has been below 4 percent for more than two years. Tariffs might not raise overall inflation, but they by definition increase costs for the products they’re applied to, and that feeds through to the prices consumers pay.’
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/18/biden-trump-trade-00158499

’ The new 100 per cent levy on EVs carries more bark than bite, since the US imports just 2 per cent from China. But the tariffs will raise costs for battery makers, which are already struggling with expenses. Other manufacturers will be pinched by higher input costs. In the long-run, the tariff ratchet insulates American industry from competition, stymying innovation and raising costs for consumers.

The measures are a blow to the green transition at home and potentially abroad. With households already pressed by the high cost of living, lower prices for EVs and solar panels now look like a missed opportunity.’

Or would US manufacturing not have been hollowed out, keeping millions of people employed in well-paying jobs rather than scratching out a meager living with the switch to low paying service jobs. A much smaller income/wealth disparity may have also resulted, with prices not being that much different from what we’ve seen.

I guess we’ll never really know for sure, but there is an alternate explanation that isn’t quite so glum.

–Peter

5 Likes

I wonder how many of those well paying jobs would have survived in the face of demand destruction due to the relentless price increases needed to offset declining consumption

Japan is a textbook case of how a navel-gazing economy can keep shrinking over decades thanks to a national obsession with keeping foreign competition out at all costs

TANSTAAFL, as always

You can’t expect to enjoy the benefits of improved efficiency and technology while keeping open market forces at bay.

BTW, the only way you could hang on to those well paid jobs of yore would be to keep the US stuck in a pre-digital labor intensive smokestack economy:
“manufacturing output also isn’t the same as manufacturing jobs. The sector as a share of the U.S. economy hasn’t really declined much in the past 70 years, once you’ve factored in inflation. Fewer people work in those jobs because a lot of it is now automated.“

That’s the bit I’m not immediately agreeing to.

If I understand your argument correctly, you claim that the off-shoring of production reduced costs and kept prices low. But that isn’t the whole story.

Going back to microeconomics and it’s X of supply and demand curves, a cost reduction will both reduce the market clearing price AND increase the number of units sold. But, depending on the shape of the demand curve, business profits may increase, decrease, or stay roughly the same.

A well-run business will not outsource production in this way unless it is expected to increase business profits. Of course, not every one will work out as expected, but on the whole, I suspect more of these off-shoring projects performed roughly as expected (or better) than those which did not.

The macro problem is that folks who lose their jobs because production was moved overseas buy less stuff. Working that into the micro econ framework shifts the demand curve down, as there are fewer people willing to buy the product at any given price. That further reduces the market clearing price, but also reduces the quantity sold, which reduces profits.

Again, this is all well understood economics by those running businesses, and is almost certainly worked into the expectations I mentioned above.

Which gets me back to my point. Off shoring production can certainly reduce the price of products. Depending on the specific demand curve for a product, it may or may not reduce business profits. I’d posit that only those instances where business profits are expected to increase would be undertaken.

So on the whole, prices are reduced, but because of the loss of jobs, fewer people can afford to buy the product. Those people (AKA Labor) become worse off, while businesses (AKA Capital) becomes better off.

This lines up quite well with the data on the ground. Capital has enjoyed remarkable returns over the last few decades, while Labor has at best kept up with inflation.

–Peter

11 Likes

Another component of this is that we learned from COVID our supply chains are vulnerable. So if we want a green energy grid/future then we cannot be dependent on China for that infrastructure. If they control our energy, then they control our economy. And that goes quadruple for chips.

7 Likes

Much of this trade war chatter is due to (censored), because China is using the money it receives for exports to challenge (censored) for global hegemony. Bashing China also became popular due to (censored), and became so popular China bashing has become (censored).

Additionally, China isn’t all that cheap to source goods from anymore. When Ford announced they were not going to source the next gen Focus from Mexico, but import from China instead (after that iteration of the plan Ford dropped the Focus from the North American market instead) Ford said that actually, the variable costs of production in China were higher than in Mexico, but leveraging the tooling in China to produce for both markets saved them the half Billion that a second set of tooling to equip a line in Mexico would have cost.

Another article I saw a few years ago, compared autoworker rates across several countries. Labor rates in India made the Mexicans look rich.

So there are plenty of places the US can source goods that are cheaper than China, once the cost of duplicate tooling is overcome. Of course, some company’s sales have fallen so far in China that they may decide to withdraw from that market, which solves the duplicated tooling costs. Jeep withdrew from China a few years ago, for instance.

Steve

3 Likes

I wonder how long that will last as there is a skilled labor shortage in Mexico. Usually a labor shortage drives wage upward.

https://mexicobusiness.news/ecommerce/news/mexicos-labor-shortage-what-does-it-mean-wholesalers

A study by the Employers’ Confederation of Mexico (COPARMEX) found that 75% of employers in Mexico say they are struggling to find workers. This labor shortage is having a significant impact on businesses across all sectors, including manufacturing, wholesale trade, electricity, water, gas and agriculture.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/companies/exclusive-toyota-repeatedly-halted-mexico-plant-after-suppliers-hit-by-worker-shortage-sources-say/ar-BB1myqyb

Toyota Motor was forced to repeatedly halt production at a Mexico plant in February and March after local labour shortages snarled output at suppliers, according to people with knowledge of the automaker’s operations.

The stoppages, details of which were corroborated by documents from Toyota and suppliers reviewed by Reuters, illustrate a potential choke point for the world’s top automaker, which plans to produce 10 million vehicles this year.

Toyota halted production for a total 19 days in February and March at its plant in Tijuana, Mexico, where it makes the Tacoma pick-up truck, according to two of the people. Technical issues at the plant were also a factor in the stoppage, they said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bill-shorten-mexico-work-week-delayed-until-2024-2023-12-08/
A bill to cut the working day in Mexico by eight hours to 40 hours a week is unlikely to be approved this year, pushing debate on it back into early 2024 when Congress reconvenes, five lawmaking sources involved in discussions told Reuters.
Work week reduction still has not passed.

1 Like

I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. Mexicans are already paid more than Indians.

This article is getting a bit old, 2017. At that time, the average Mexican auto worker made $6,240 per year. The average Indian, $2,275. Thus, Indian wages make Mexicans look rich.

Some more numbers of immediate interest:

China $10,836

Japan $31,320

Korea $80,000 (the article explains that whacking big payday. base wage is about $13/hr)

US $51,000

2 Likes

This post is necessarily concerned with politics, but I limit myself to politics as it directly relates to critical macroecomic issues as Mexico becomes ever more economically critical to the USA.
The 40 hour work week is all about the upcoming June 2 national Mexican elections, including for President, but more critically, about the sickness and impending deaths of the old almost hopelessly corrupt Mexican Parties (PRI and PAN), and the future evolution of the relatively new and currently triumphant MORENA party.

A 40 hour work week is definitely coming to Mexico, and probably within the next six years. But it will only be possible if a lot of other reforms and changes happen somewhat concurrently.

MORENA is mostly a creation of the current president, “AMLO”

who is aging out of both office and his considerable power. The crux issues macroeconomically depend on which factions within MORENA gain power in this election and during the 6 year term of the next president, and also on politics of Mexico’s powerful northern neighbor.

d fb

4 Likes

Thing is, at least according to USian media, there is a wealth of manpower passing through Mexico, that has somehow been convinced it is better to be styled as a criminal, and hunted, in the US, that be welcomed in Mexico.

Steve

2 Likes

Yep, I started to notice this about 1985 or so and decided that " personal financial portfolio management" was likely to have a far higher return than “kissing up to the boss in the hope of promotion” I readjusted my efforts accordingly. {{ LOL }}

intercst

Hi Peter thanks for your thoughtful response :slight_smile:
The US economy is mainly driven by consumer spending.
It has delivered ~2.3% real GDP growth since 1980 - which is about where its long term growth potential is estimated to be - despite the jobs lost due to offshoring production over that span. (Apart from two negative growth years -2009 and 2020)

So, not only has offshoring not damaged domestic consumption, US per capita GDP has jumped dramatically from $12,575 in 1980 to $76,330 in 2022!

As for protecting domestic jobs with tariffs, look how well that has worked for major industries once dominated by the US

Autos: US tariffs tried to prevent cheap Japanese cars from undercutting domestic auto giants like GM, Chrysler
Not only did they have to be bailed out in 2008, they aren’t even pretending to compete against relentless Japanese dominance of Vehicle Dependability rankings
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2024-us-vehicle-dependability-study-vds

Even better, Musk himself thinks Chinese EVs like BYD are capable of wiping out US brands, so the latest tariffs are obviously to protect his Tesla from further meltdown

Steel: US has been hitting China with successive tariffs on steel since 2018
Today’s US steel employment is down 25% since then

Never mind how much higher US steel prices also are since then

Steel spreads analysis: US-China HRC price difference hits historic high | S&P Global Commodity Insights (spglobal.com)

1 Like

What you’re actually getting instead is the same Chinese products relabeled as made in Vietnam/ Malaysia/ India etc., plus a juicy markup depending on how many degrees of separation from Mainland China you settle for

Chinese manufacturers (and their equally dodgy Western customers) have been playing these shell games for too long to be stymied by any US restrictions - many of them have promptly moved their plants to US whitelisted locations to carry on business as usual, just a t a higher premium

How else do you think Russia is happily enjoying ample revenues from selling as much oil as it can produce in the face of ‘wink wink’ US/EU sanctions?

2 Likes

How completely ignorant. We have $34 trillion in government debt because our industrial base in this country was depleted.

When you have debt you do not really have profits. Just getting things cheap is not the solution.

The Boomers have been wholesale dumb enough to support supply-side economics. The group has a very strong belief in lower pay and cheap things in life.

If the Boomers had kept the pace of things with pay increases it would have been just to 80% of American workers. Instead, the Boomers are broke if they are not in the top 10% of asset holders in retirement.

Frankly my dear I do not give a damn.

Cheating people has ended. The brown women in the nursing home will cost you all your money. Get over it. You did not pay the bills so you did not earn it. Just being cheap is not earning anything.

Supply-side economics is deadbeat economics. Mom and Pop businesses waste resources that would be better allocated to more efficient corporations.

If you do not want to pay someone honestly for their labor it is best your business bankrupt. You are in the way.

Honesty is the income ladder beginning with a living wage.

Economies of scale will bring down the price of goods and energy.

We are shipping a lot of energy to the EU and UK. The prices of fossil fuels are softening. More supply is not supply-side economics. It is demand-side economics that baffles the fat couch boys.

People are being asked to be stupid.

A growing industrial base towards global domination of manufacturing has economies of scale.

News for 2025 Factory Production

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+factory+production+2025&sca_esv=5b3e3c896995265c&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1062US1062&biw=2560&bih=1271&tbm=nws&ei=nC1MZoivKPP_ptQP8OWXqAc&ved=0ahUKEwiI7e6X_p2GAxXzv4kEHfDyBXUQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=us+factory+production+2025&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiGnVzIGZhY3RvcnkgcHJvZHVjdGlvbiAyMDI1MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI_B9QoA5Y_RtwAHgAkAEAmAFboAHxA6oBATa4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgagAokEwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgWGB6YAwCIBgGSBwE2oAebNg&sclient=gws-wiz-news

That anemic growth is because of supply-side economics and low taxes on the wealthy.

From 1949 to 1980 there were 12 years with growth of over 5% and another 4 with close to 5% growth. That was with demand-side economics.

From 1981 to 2020 there was one year 1984 with over 5% growth. Reagan turned up the deficit spending in an election year.

Clinton came close to balancing the budget depending on the counting methods. That lengthened the ignorant supply-side policies.

The projection is meaningless in the chart.

The deficit spending went up into 1980. But that did not matter if you read the chart.

There are a bunch of reasons not including climate change (although that is a good reason too) why electrifying a state’s transportation system is good policy. This is why we are seeing a global push in that direction. China is heavily subsidizing its EV industry in order to capture the global market in an attempt to gain permanent market share. There are internal domestic reasons too, including a very high youth unemployment rate.

There is a 0.00000% chance China will subsidize EVs in India or Vietnam.

3 Likes

We feel the heat or threat of China taking a huge global market share in EVs but most Chinese EV companies are about to fail.

The main reason for China to ship those cars sold or unsold is to employ people. Xi needs to watch his back.

1 Like

An increasingly world wide macro factor.

d fb

1 Like