Originally Posted by Jughed

There is a ton going on with all of this, and I can't claim to understand most of it.

..-It then takes upwards of 2 years for production design
-Typically, 3+/- years before ground is broken, and 4-5+/- years for mechanical completion and operations to begin.

Moving bike production, sporting goods, basic consumer goods - that can be done rather quickly. But - costs will go way up.

4-5+ years for major plants/factories to be built - well, by that time the entire landscape can change, and the investments could be near worthless.

A nuke - 8-10+ years.

So, what are we seeing in the Engineering/A&E space right now? Nothing. Bupkis. Layoffs. Our clients, that span multiple sectors and industries - from "Green" to "Dirty Fossil Fuel" and nasty chemicals - not spending a dime.

Originally Posted by Jan

Originally Posted by mschwett

somebody appears to actually understand the situation. it's unfortunate that nobody in charge either does or cares.

Originally Posted by Koyote

Absent from most of these discussions is the question of whether it is even desirable to move many of these manufacturing jobs back to the US. While there are market inefficiencies and distortions (including some tariffs) in the international trade system, manufacturing and trade largely follows comparative advantage -- a concept we've understood for over 200 years. To put it as simply as possible, the US is a rich country, in part, because we let other countries produce many of the goods (and increasingly services) that require less-skilled workers and less-sophisticated capital equipment, so that we can fully take advantage of our relatively highly-skilled workers and more sophisticated capital by producing more highly-valued items -- and hence to produce more income. In other words, our international trade system makes the US (and our trading partners) ALL better off, even if we do run trade deficits with some of our partners; the corollary is that bringing many of those manufacturing jobs to the US will make us all worse off. (Not that the current policies will bring those jobs back - they won't. But they will cause prices to rise and incomes to fall and thus make us all worse off.)

So, the bike content here is that moving bicycle production back to the US will make them more expensive, which means fewer of us will be able to buy new ones, which means we're worse off. Simple.

Another relevant factor, for anyone who's interested, is the Twin Deficits theory...It's a little more challenging on a technical level, but it suggests that we'll never be able to reduce our overall trade deficit as long as our federal government is running large deficits; and since our current administration is proposing tax policies that will definitively (and substantially) increase the federal deficit and debt, they are actually PROMOTING a larger trade deficits -- even while railing against it.

Originally Posted by tcs

Actually, I believe there is, or if not 100%, 99%. Last time I pointed this out on BF I was greeted with profanity, so we'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by jolly_codger

All excellent points, thank you. Now to play the Devil's Advocate: Moving bicycle production back to the US will only make bikes more expensive if (1) wages remain more or less at existing levels, and, (2) current regulations as pointed out by Jughed stay the same. If anyone hasn't yet, I recommend taking a look at the labor-related goals of Project 2025. No unions, no OT pay, no worker protections, a restructuring of the minimum wage....it isn't too far-fetched to think that if many of the goals of the backers of Project 2025 are realized, the US labor force might not be that much more costlier than that of Asia. Under this (nightmare) scenario the US could be leading manufacturer & exporter of bicycles.

Originally Posted by epnnf

(IMO) the tariffs are TEMPORARY. Some day soon, everyone will realize if they reduce their tariff to ZERO, the US will too. Then, everyone's economy will shoot for the moon.

Originally Posted by tcs

Actually, I believe there is, or if not 100%, 99%. Last time I pointed this out on BF I was greeted with profanity, so we'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Garthr

Everbody's a Nostradamus

Originally Posted by Oldsledz

How is the cost of the tariff determined ? Is it based on the retail value of the item, or what it cost to make it ?

Originally Posted by Oldsledz

How is the cost of the tariff determined ? Is it based on the retail value of the item, or what it cost to make it ?

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

It's based on the value listed on the commercial invoice, which should be the selling price for new items.

Originally Posted by Jughed

4-5+ years for major plants/factories to be built - well, by that time the entire landscape can change, and the investments could be near worthless.

Originally Posted by dedhed

And how much of a "new" manufacturing plant would be automated needing minimal staffing?

Originally Posted by zandoval

The term made in USA used to be an indicator of true quality of manufacture and durability. As we start manufacturing in the USA again I hope that returns.

Originally Posted by zandoval

Well the direction we were headed was not going to do. And the direction we are headed could be unknown, but its a direction.

Originally Posted by Koyote

To clarify, an ad valorem tariff is typically a percentage of the price paid for the good by the importer -- i.e., it is not a % of the retail price.

Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee

In the post Covid years we had higher GDP growth and lower unemployment than pretty much all the other first world nations. In 2023 we reached the lowest unemployment rate in over 50 years. By the end of 2024, we had the highest inflation adjusted median weekly wages since record keeping began in 1979 (except for the Covid era anomaly). What problem exactly are we trying to solve here?

Originally Posted by Koyote

Absent from most of these discussions is the question of whether it is even desirable to move many of these manufacturing jobs back to the US. While there are market inefficiencies and distortions (including some tariffs) in the international trade system, manufacturing and trade largely follows comparative advantage -- a concept we've understood for over 200 years. To put it as simply as possible, the US is a rich country, in part, because we let other countries produce many of the goods (and increasingly services) that require less-skilled workers and less-sophisticated capital equipment, so that we can fully take advantage of our relatively highly-skilled workers and more sophisticated capital by producing more highly-valued items -- and hence to produce more income. In other words, our international trade system makes the US (and our trading partners) ALL better off, even if we do run trade deficits with some of our partners; the corollary is that bringing many of those manufacturing jobs to the US will make us all worse off. (Not that the current policies will bring those jobs back - they won't. But they will cause prices to rise and incomes to fall and thus make us all worse off.)

Originally Posted by mschwett

somebody appears to actually understand the situation. it's unfortunate that nobody in charge either does or cares.

Originally Posted by SoSmellyAir

1. The issue is that those in the USA who are not relatively high-skilled workers using most sophisticated capital equipment to produce more highly-valued goods or services are increasingly left behind.

2. No one is willing to admit that #1 is inevitable to a certain extent. Add those who are willing to foment dissatisfaction for political gains, plus those who are willing to make political decisions that make everyone worse off such that they are comparatively less worse off, and we are where we are at.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

There’s no reason the U.S. shouldn’t lead the world in sweatshops, but it requires bold action to get us there.