Honda isn’t expected to make that move until May of 2028. Is there any assurance that tariffs will still be in force then and if so, for how much longer?
Plus, Honda denies it was due to tariffs:
Honda’s move will likely take effect in May 2028 and over 200,000 vehicles are expected to be produced annually at the location.
Despite these reports, Honda has issued a statement:
“Honda has made no such announcement and will not comment on this report. The Honda Civic has been made in our Indiana Auto Plant since the facility opened in 2008 based on our longstanding approach to build products close to the customer. We have the flexibility to produce products in each region based on customer needs and market conditions.”
Eric Mauk, American Honda Communications
So no, I don’t think they are making a move, over three years from now, to avoid current and likely transitory tariffs.
Evidence I shared with you illustrates that tariffs cost more jobs than they save.
How do you know they will be good paying jobs? The job market is tight now and they are trying to find people to work and can’t get them. They keep saying that people do not want to work for what they are paying. So, why don’t they raise the wages until they get someone to do the job? That is the way it is supposed to work right?
That isn’t true. Some unions support the tariffs like the UAW but the IAM does not support them. The UAW is probably going to lose their membership in Canada.
It is clear that unions have been asking for tariffs for at least a decade. Their support is probably a major factor in Trump’s win in key blue states. No its not a perfect solution but it fits with the administrations plan.
Long-term investment in manufacturing requires long-term certainty. Tariffs and trade policies that can change willy-nilly will not boost domestic production.
The price level rises by 1.0-1.2%, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $1,600–2,000 in 2024$.
Real GDP growth is 0.6 lower in 2025. In the long-run, the US economy is persistently 0.3-0.4% smaller, the equivalent of $80-110 billion annually in 2024$.
The tariffs to date raise $1.4-1.5 trillion over 2026-35 conventionally-scored, and $300-360 billion less if dynamic revenue effects are taken into account.
Tariffs are regressive taxes. Losses for households at the bottom of the income distribution would range between $900–1,100.
Tariffs have been supported by the Republican party.
High tariffs were a means not only of protecting infant industries, but of generating revenue for the federal government. They were also a mainstay of the Republican Party, which dominated the Washington political scene after the Civil War.
Ya, up until the 1930s when they finally learned their lesson. Largely since then they have been opposed. Free trade has been the mantra of the Rep party for as long as I have been alive (and probably most everyone reading this).
One of the best things about Clinton was his willingness work join with Reps on further expansion of free trade - and the country prospered for it.
As recently as 2003 Republicans have supported Tariffs. That is when Bush found out his steel Tariffs really didn’t work. Also not all unions support Tariffs. I think you all are lumping everyone into one class. I already showed you the machinist were against it and Afscme, the biggest union in the country, has never said they support them. If you were to ask their leadership I am sure they would be against them. Generally the unions that support them are the ones in the Steel, Auto, and Lumber industry Ie USW , UAW, and Carpenters.
Edit: But this is all Moot now because Republicans do like tariffs and they support them because that is exactly what they voted for. Anyone that says they dont that voted for Trump is living in la la land.
“Free trade” is great for the first mover, the guy who moved his production to Korea, while his competition was still building in the US, so he matched the competition’s pricing, and made a lot more profit. It was good for the second mover, and the third. But, when everyone made the same move, the profit margin advantage vanished, because one company’s Chinese microwave oven was competing with everyone else’s Chinese microwave oven. Meanwhile, there are a lot of USians that can’t make a middle class living, on a high school education, by building microwaves.
So, now the party flips the script: railing about “globalists” and embracing blue collar workers.
What I am suggesting is it depends on whether the policy impacts them, specifically.
I suspect most labor union members will give this the stink-eye.
I remember the controversy over giving TSA employees the right to organize and bargain collectively, when the agency was founded, twenty years ago.
As suggested before, the entire body of US labor law, including the right to demand that “JCs” recognize unions and bargain with them, is on pretty shaky ground.
Sure it will be tough but Trump just broke the law again and I am sure the TSA will get their union back. But it is interesting how some people will say this isn’t a big deal and laws are meant to be broken. Principles, some just mouth them others stand by them.
If the workers don’t show up for work, not much the govt can do except…fire them? Then who will handle security at the airports (and elsewhere)? Gonna run out of military personnel to man all the TSA positions–unless they start a draft. ALL RIGHT !!
Not really. There are about 50,000 TSA agents. It would be relatively trivial to replace them with military, who (by definition) cannot strike. Same playbook Reagan used at the outset of his administration. Yeah, it would be a little slower, and it might take some time to bring them up the speed, but it certainly could be done. There are military outposts all over the country, if there happens to be a place where there isn’t, they just pt them up at the local Motel 6 or whatever; there are accommodations at every airport someplace.
I’m not advocating it, just noting that it wouldn’t be hard to play the game given the outline that Reagan used 45 years ago.
Oh boy, wouldn’t that give us a sense of security! NOT! Untrained, newbies just about guaranteeing incidents, and lines that would go forever… With he current FAA firings, on top of it, flight risks would be even greater… Experience, trying matter, to all the world’s travelers… And now we don’t share or can’t be trusted to share real intelligence! This is a sick, sick situation… And with RFK Jr, likely even sicker!