Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're misreading the data you shared

> "68 billion dollars worth of sales each year"

TOTAL Retail value (includes markups by wholesalers, retailers and restaurateurs), NOT Sales Revenue.

> "only about a billion dollars of California wine is sold abroad"

That's Sales revenue [1]

> "So 98% of California wine is sold within the US. Only 2% is exported."

The data is right on the page you shared.

  Total shipments 2024 [0] (in millions of 9-liter cases):
  California wine shipments to US and export: 232.3
  California wine shipments to US: 203.5
  --> Export: 28,8

So the export volume in 2024 appears to be >12%, not 2%

There's no data for 2025, but wine exports fell by ~20% in 2025 [1], if TOTAL wine shipments fell equally this is quite a strong dent in volumes already in 2025. So 2026 doesn't look rosy to begin with before any trade-war being added...

> "It's pretty funny if you think about it, you have some Bosnian dude [..]"

Let's not do that please.

[0] https://wineinstitute.org/our-industry/statistics/california...

[1] https://wineinstitute.org/our-industry/statistics/us-wine-ex...

Look at the last column:

Total value of $67.5 Billion

California's exports of wine is about a billion (https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2024-2025_california...)

So by my thinking, one billion is not 12% of 67 Billion. Indeed, it is less than 2%.

> Let's not do that please.

I agree that we shouldn't do it, or rather that commentators shouldn't do it, but I don't agree that we shouln't talk about commentators doing this.

You literally have this situation. Only 2% of California wine goes to the export market at all, and people are literally arguing that their personal boycott of some nation that doesn't even account for a billion in sales is driving California wine export woes. It is a bizarre form of economic narcissism and my example was apt.

> "Total value of $67.5 Billion"

Look at what you're replying to.

As already stated, this is the ESTIMATED RETAIL VALUE of the wine, NOT the Sales Revenue.

You then conflate this with the EXPORT VALUE of Californian wine, which is not the retail value but the price the winery is selling the wine for to a foreign buyer.

Apart from that the value also doesn't matter, in the context of AMOUNT of grapes purchased the QUANTITY of wine produced is more relevant than the VALUE created with it.

> "You literally have this situation. Only 2% of California wine goes to the export market at all, and people are literally arguing that [..]"

Again, it's not 2%. You literally need to read the sources you cited yourself. They provide good data to educate yourself and see where you're trying to force a conclusion without the proper facts.

And nobody is "arguing" what you state. The OP stated "It's a shrinking market, but it surely doesn't help that people are simply boycotting US goods." and you're trying to ridicule him for that without having any leg to stand on...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com