Bikes in the age of tariffs
renehersecycles.com
renehersecycles.com
That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.
Without introducing the tariffs as a long term position businesses will be less inclined to do the capital expenditure to manufacture in the US, even for businesses within the margin (mostly manufacturing with high energy inputs and low supply chain requirements) where it would be economical.
Just based on the words that Trump actually says and writes, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than Trump strongly believes that trade imbalances are unfair, that tariffs will reshore manufacturing, and that reshoring manufacturing will make America “wealthier.”
But if Trump is bluffing, it’s not clear there’s anything these other countries could give that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam could remove all tariffs against the US and in all likelihood not even make a dent in their trade surplus. It’s very hard for a small, developing country like Vietnam to import lots of stuff from a rich, expensive country like the US. Many of the countries whacked with massive tariffs by the administration already have very open trade policies with the US. What is there to negotiate?
In fact, it's the opposite. Those industries are much more polluting per dollar GDP created, and that externality is something you are happy to not have on your own soil.
1. That's assuming that shipping, warehousing, transport, etc. do not rely upon foreign imports, including services. Chances are that more than one link in the supply chain will be hit either by the US tariffs or by the actual reciprocal tariffs from the other end [1].
2. That's also assuming that the tariffs will not have an impact on the sales of the company, which might adapt either by decreasing its margin (to increase sales) or by increasing it (either to try and compensate for lost sales or because it feels like the right time to hike prices).
[1] We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by the word "reciprocal tariffs" used by Donald Trump. All these numbers are bogus. In January, EU tariffs on US goods were about 2-3%, not 39%, just as US tariffs on most EU goods.
This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.
The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms.
Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/29/florida-repu...
Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
I did not have any specific countries in mind; I’m just pretty sure that there are such countries. I’d have to look it up to get any references.
> Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
Nobody knows why they are doing it, since nobody can read their minds. But I was not talking about them, I was addressing your implied argument that all tariffs are bad and abolishing them will lead to global prosperity. I would think that abolishing tariffs would at least give other countries huge incentives to exploit their own populations (including children) in order to get money from countries where such exploitation is illegal.
I think when you get into the realm of extremes, you are no longer debating another human but a strawperson in your mind.
And, while Mexico is trying to limit forced labor, they’re still one of our bigger exporters of forced labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-la...
So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth?
As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.
That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be.
> for what little the UN does
People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms.
> [China and Mexico]
If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico.
Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.
Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders.
The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
"Brain drain" is a always hot topic in my country. Many people from here move to the US for access to certain industries, tech included. They aren't going there to do whatever arbitrary work they can find.
Those in the US who love manufacturing aren't moving to China, but that's the issue: They, unless they have something really unique to offer, are going to find it difficult to. Hence why they want to see that work "brought home".
That's a good point; I wasn't thinking of that. Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small, and Trump supports them to some degree - he likes wealthy immigrants, including in tech. Remember the recent (H-1B?) visa controversy.
> Those who love manufacturing
Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? I've read about it as a necessary job to pay the bills that almost nobody likes, and they want their kids to have someting better, etc.
Some people do enjoy assembly line work, and in fact I would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead. There’s a lot more industry wants though: welders, safety personell, repair techs, engineers, chemists, programmers, electricians, hydraulic specialists, all just depends on the company. A car manufacturer for instance prioritizes robotics, but a steel plant would prefer welders and machinists. Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.
That's completely different than working on an assembly line.
> Some people do enjoy assembly line work
Who? How many? I don't think I've ever heard it (though I'm sure someone must). Do you like it? Why don't you work on assembly line.
> would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead
That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work. You'll need some evidence of this great mass of people, "I would say" isn't evidence.
> Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.
That's not the case - American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
Manufacturing isn't defined by the assembly line, of course. Good data is hard to find, so take from it what you will, but the internet loosely suggests that only around 30% of manufacturing jobs are on the assembly line or adjacent to an assembly line. Anecdotal observation aligns with that, so I expect it is in the right ballpark.
> I don't think I've ever heard it
It is not so much the hot topic it once was, but when manufacturing was really in its decline you would frequently see in the news interviews with former manufacturing labour expressing such things as they lamented no longer being able to work in the industry.
It may not be sipping margaritas on the beach enjoyment, but on the spectrum it is unsurprising that many find it to be more enjoyable than other types of jobs. For as bad as you can imagine the assembly line to be, there is undoubtedly someone doing a job that is far worse.
> That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work.
If these kinds of feelings are flooding your head, you have not considered the statement logically. That is not in good faith. Rationally, where do you find error in the statement?
> American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
There is definitely an information problem. Manufacturing by and large happens in small town/rural areas (70% of it, according to the BLS), while people by and large live in large urban areas. The urban dwellers exclaim "Where are the jobs???" and the rural dwellers exclaim "Where are the workers???" It is a fascinating disconnect – something we see outside of manufacturing too.
You are right that this isn't apt to fix that problem. However, it is important to remember that the people calling for this aren't running complex mathematical models to ensure that moving manufacturing to the USA will be better for the world or whatever you think should be driving. They are simply in the mindset of: "I think I want to work in manufacturing. Give me that!" It is not a solution with well-considered grounding. It is an attempt to appease emotions.
Right, but it's the converse that is the issue: Americans wanting to do jobs that aren't found (or only found in a limited way) in America. Trump also supports them. The intent is to see things like manufacturing jobs happen more often on American soil so that Americans can do those jobs.
> Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line?
The idea of it is, at least. I know a lot of people who have impressive manufacturing facilities in their garages just to support it as a hobby. Manufacturing is clearly a relatively common passion. You may have a point that they might come to hate the work if it became their daily reality, but the emotions that drive this sort of thing are never grounded in logic. Besides, it is not like they love the burgers they are flipping right now.
Much manufacturing labor can be physically hard and damaging over the years. Many people spend their old age crippled from lifting heavy things all their lives, repetitive stress, and the associated serious injuries that eventually happen during tens of thousands of hours. You are pushed to work faster and harder for the entire day, with fewer breaks, etc. That's your life for decades.
My impression is that most people working in manufacturing - as labor - would retire immediately if they could (and spend time in their garage). Many engineers probably are happy to keep working.
You believe it is only the people currently working in manufacturing that want to see America create more manufacturing jobs? Surely any desire they might have to work in manufacturing is already fulfilled?
That has certainly never been my impression. As far as I can see it is those who dream of working in manufacturing who make the case for the need for manufacturing jobs. They are tired of flipping burgers and want something else – something they think will be fulfilling. As such, it is unlikely that they are in-tune with the realities of it.
I think working people [edit: a very general, loaded term] want higher-paying jobs, and some of them think manufacturing is good solution. I doubt their dream is working on the assembly line - that's not what people grow up dreaming of, or quit their higher-paying jobs to do.
Political leaders push manufacturing jobs for one reason or another. And I expect much of the support is from unions that want more jobs for their members - so yes, that's people currently in manufacturing.
Is there really demand for manufacturing jobs from the rest of the labor force, rather than any higher-paying, stable job? I don't know.
Not all manufacturing is on an assembly line either, of course. That is especially true of the manufacturing Americans still see taking place in America.
That very well may be what new jobs will look like, should they be created, but emotions are not logical.
You've never heard of the term "brain drain"?
However, you must remember the bit about limiting who is allowed in the country. If you were a German with a hypothetical burning desire to flip burgers at In-N-Out Burger, what are the chances of you getting a work visa? I would say effectively nil. So you're not going to see those people even if they would arrive in a world without borders.
That's a great point. Legal immigration (to somewhere desireable) is not an option for much of the population. What interest do they have in preserving it?
A good question. It is quite possible that they don't – that a different segment of the population has that interest.
They use it to get around EU customs and tariffs, dunno how but it works.
The other thing is that customers buying high end items care about where it was made, so you need to inform them. (Passing off the bikes as being manufactured in Japan but in fact the frame was made in China, would be a big blunder.)
It could be cheaper? Could also be more expensive as well.
In any case, if too many people play that game, then it only raises the tariff on Japan. I wouldn't assume these tariffs are fixed. They seem to be tied to trade deficit. So..
yeah.
No real way around them over time.
Might even piss the US government off if you try that. Which is kind of like playing with fire right now. It's not clear to me that this administration believes in rule of law in the strict sense that everyone adhered to in the past.
Strange days ahead.
That was my point.
> It could be cheaper?
Why would it be cheaper? Wouldn't they do that without tariffs?
I'm trying to figure out what the real story is.
When I read this I wonder if everything is a negotiating tactic:
"Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regu... (wow, long url)
I would like to think this is some kind of 4-d chess game to avoid rate hikes and to devalue the dollar, but on implementation it will accomplish none of the above with a sprinkle of recession.
Generally, many brands like e.g. Trek manufacture their highest end in Taiwan, but a lot of the mid- to high-level frames are still made in China, admittedly things might have changed since I last looked into this ~5 years ago.
I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would be at least $5K.
Those are cool bikes for sure - I used to work right next door - but I can't afford that.
I was/am going to buy an Otso titanium frame, but they're made in Taiwan. Depending on the final price adjustment due to tariffs, it might actually be more cost effective for me to buy a Moots (made in America) frame to build.
The method of enshittification, as I understand it, is to create businesses with a moat that prevents competition, cheapen the product in every way possible, and squeeze as much rent out as possible. Also, extract as much as possible via debt.
The tariffs are the moat. The debt I don't need to explain (though Dems aren't great with it either).
It's all the opposite of competitive business and free markets.
They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace - crisis seems necessary to their movement.
Tanking the economy does the same thing, but it is a much bigger step that impacts many of their supporters. What is their exit plan?
I expect part of their plan is to blame others: They will blame Democrats somehow, and other political enemies - it doesn't need any basis because the Dems don't have any effective means of refuting it to the public; whatever the GOP says becomes reality. I suspect they'll use it to ramp up hatred and fear, blaming their current objects of hatred such as immigrants, minorities, certain religions (a traditional object of blame, the right has already been normalizing antisemitism and general prejudice - which makes antisemitism inevitable. Rogan recently hosted a conspiracy theorist blaming Jewish people for 9/11, for example - how long before does he blames them for the economy, 'undermining President Trump'), liberals, etc.
Edit: I did some rewording
Making America "stand on its own two feet" would give it a lot of freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.
The idea that relationships reduce your independence is almost childish, like a 18 year old who things they tie you down and they'll go it alone in life. It's through relationships that people - and nations - have power. The US by itself can't afford to do much. Now the, again, vast network of US allies - including in that theater Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, to an extent India - share the burden.
> freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.
The US has disconnected itself from China for years now. China has little influence politically in the US.
What happened was China became extremely nationalistic, threatened and abused everyone, and the US moved in and allied with all its new enemies.
However, as the US becomes extremely nationalistic, threatening and abusing everyone, China is now moving in and building relationships. It's their own back yard, so it is hard to compete if you act like just another nationalistic dicatatorship.
In that context, a lot of it does not make sense. Why the threats about annexing Canada or Greenland? Why the tariffs and extremely hostile rhetoric towards all allies? If you are preparing for a war, the stupidest thing you could do is to alienate your allies and push them toward your adversary. China is already approaching the EU, and I am sure they are negotiating with other key players too. China even agreed on a joint response to the tariffs with Japan and South Korea. Let that sink in - China, together with Japan and South Korea!
Logically this may well push many to greater trade with China.
China has a growing middle consumer class already greater in number than the total population of the USofA. China already has global scale manufacturing in place, now looking for fresh markets as US markets lower demand due to tariffs.
Smaller countries, say Australia, can trade their wagyu beef to China now that the US has tariff'd the US demand down towards zero .. in a number of ways the US has removed itself from global trade which will continue on with or without it.
And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.
As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.
I don't think he has any such belief, and would abandon those 'beliefs' in an instant if it suited the only thing he cares about, himself.
The Peter Thiels of the world are who this move is for, not us plebes who spend time posting on HN.
“How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
“It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
Certainly, always compassion and empathy for compassionate people. I am a very empathetic and compassionate person myself, I will give you the shirt off my back. For everyone else? Hard times ahead, as compassion and empathy have limits. Kindness is not weakness.
As they say, hatred is like drinking a poison and then waiting for the other person to die.
A lot of hateful people out there eagerly guzzling poison these days.
> “It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
What was done when the steel belt became the rust belt? Mostly finger wagging. I'm sure a lot of free traders would have the same response about all the harm their chosen polices caused.
But of course, more compassion is expected from some poor guy in a rust belt town, even after he's gotten very little compassion himself. How dare he not think about the rich coastal software engineers when he's in the ballot box!
I am not unsympathetic to someone in the rust belt, anywhere really, who needs help. I don’t expect them to be a software engineer. We should provide robust social safety nets, guarantees of remote work in some fashion, whatever it takes to help these people live good lives until they retire or die. Tax me more, I insist. But, I don’t think that’ll make them happy nor what is on offer with this administration. It’s certainly not what they’re voting for. To reconfigure domestic manufacturing will take 5-10 years at least, and the evidence is robust the electorate is too unsophisticated and impatient for that.
That's kind of an asshole move. Did people react to having their communities and livelihoods damaged by neoliberalism, in a way not approved by economically advantaged software engineers? Don't try to solve their problems in a better way, try to fuck them even harder instead! We should teach 'em to get fucked and not complain!
If you want to target anyone, you should target the people who made a shit-ton of money off of neoliberalism, in a way that paved the path for Trump.
No. The post I was responding to literally was talking about personally taking advantage of conservative voters, not their representatives. The post above that talked about "punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent. It's pretty clear it's just a "fuck you," aimed at regular people.
No introspection, no proposals for solving the problems that would cause people to give tariffs a chance, just punishment. It's neoliberals saying, "we don't give two shit about you, if you resist our beatings, we'll just beat your harder for being uppity."
One party had a message and large portion of it's voter base focused on messages and policies that can only be described as hateful and harmful. Now that it seems like that harm is transpiring and surprise surprise just as the "we don't give two shits about you" liberals warned that harm is at best indiscriminate and at worst going to impact those spiteful voters the most.
Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do, tariff all the things, these people proudly and loudly voted for the (self-inflicted) punishment you're describing.
Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians.
I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.
Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.
It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.
Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.
> Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers
That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba?
> once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide
How about the people in those communities paying higher prices for worse goods - the extra money going into the pockets of large domestic corporations.
> Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses
That's not what it means. It means the significant, widespread reduction or elimination of national borders. As a result, a business or consumer can buy something from a supplier in Vietnam as well as from Italy or Kansas. And businesses can use multiple sources to build international supply chains.
In businesses where scale matters, it makes multinationals bigger. For example, where economies of scale exist (e.g., cars) or where network effects exist (e.g., social media).
But in other things, it empowers small businesses. A small business also can have something made by a manufacturer in Shenzen and also can sell it all over the world. If yours is the best or fills a niche, the Internet will connect you to customers.
> the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound
I don't see why that would be true. It will drive up everyone's prices, and undermine the supply chains that all businesses rely on. Fruit at the local supermarket uses international supply chains.
Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?
And, unlike the US, none of them the envy of the world because of it. It is fascinating that the US has decided it wants to give up what it has to be become like them. It is akin to watching a supermodel get surgery to make themselves uglier because everyone they saw around them wasn't nearly as beautiful as they were. Likewise, we no doubt would come up with some kind of catchphrase to recognize that surprising event.
It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.
At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta.
For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.
Is it really that pejorative ?