Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajaimk | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

The original source has slightly more detail (see 2. Tarrif Rates)

https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/ppis-trade-fact-of-t...

The original original schedule is here:

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%

Found this : 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).

> 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."

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.

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

Consider it valuable training to survive the new chatbot age.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com