Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

punchbowl.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 443 posts

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#211

Post by ceejayoz »

danesparza wrote: post #191
ceejayoz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. My grocery store raised bananas from 49¢/pound to 55¢/pound this week, with a sign about 10% tariffs… but the tariff would be on their wholesale costs, not the shelf costs. They're probably paying 1-2¢/pound extra. People have a hard enough time understanding who pays tariffs. Stores'll be able to muddy the waters this way pretty much at will.

Pretty sure those bananas are grown elsewhere. Hopefully we'll still be able to get bananas in the near future. At some point, buyer demand will drop so much it may not make sense to ship them.

> Pretty sure those bananas are grown elsewhere.

Yes. But the tariffs are on the import price, not the shelf price.

The shelf price went up as if it were on the shelf price, because consumers won't realize/understand the distinction. (Hell, a good proportion of the population still thinks someone else eats the costs entirely.) We saw the same thing during COVID - "it's because of COVID / supply chain issues" was the magic wand you could wave around to raise prices. Some of those increases were warranted, for sure. But all? Almost certainly not.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#212

Post by conductr »

SecretDreams wrote: post #170
conductr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the product was made in US but used a dozen raw materials to create it, Amazon doesn’t know where you sourced them from or how much you paid for them or even how much of each your product consumed in a per unit basis.

The only tariff Amazon needs to display is the one they need to collect. You are right that more tariffs might've been applied along the way - but it's not relevant for what Amazon has to do.

The article being discussed isn’t about what Amazon has to do. It’s about them trying to expose the cost of tariffs so consumers know more than they typically do. It’s completely voluntary and intentional on their part. They’re basically quantifying the impact of trumps policies, probably in a way that will change people’s ideas about how it affects their pocketbook. In a way, they’re playing politics with this.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#213

Post by SecretDreams »

crazygringo wrote: post #180
SecretDreams wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only tariff Amazon needs to display is the one they need to collect. You are right that more tariffs might've been applied along the way - but it's not relevant for what Amazon has to do.

Does Amazon collect any tariffs at all? That would be unusual for a retailer. Unless they're registered as an importer? I could see that as a service they might provide to certain sellers, just like warehousing and other logistics. But generally, they will receive their merchandise from a corporate entity who paid the tariff already.

I'll say regardless of it's Amazon or the last party in-line prior to the final sale, my point is the same. They're just displaying the last tariff that was collected before it enters into the hands of the consumer.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#214

Post by danesparza »

ceejayoz wrote: post #202
danesparza wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can increase demand as high as you'd like. If people don't have money to buy it, they're not going to buy it.

People need to eat.

From https://www.newsweek.com/walmart-loses-22b-consumer-confiden...

"You can see that the money runs out before the month is gone, you can see that people are buying smaller pack sizes at the end of the month," McMillon said.

They do need to eat, but they are eating less - and not by choice. They don't have the money to buy what they want to. No amount of advertising will fix that.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#216

Post by Aurornis »

fallinghawks wrote: post #123
gherkinnn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect businesses to bump prices. Bump em because of tariffs, bump em some more to pad the margins because what is an extra 5%, bump em even when they're not affected by tariffs because everyone else is doing so, and delay un-bumping them once tariffs fall again.

Back when the price of crude oil was in the news a lot, if a rise was announced, gas stations would immediately hike prices, even though it takes like a month for the oil to be refined into gas and delivered to the station.

Inventory is priced and sold according to market conditions, not the cost of goods.

Everyone does this. If someone was trying to sell their old car and they saw news of upcoming tariffs on cars, they’d expect to sell their car at a higher price even though the tariffed cars haven’t arrived yet.

A second factor is that volatility and unpredictable policy raises risk, which increases prices. There will be a lot of price increases in excess of base tariff rates simply because everything is changing rapidly on the whims of this administration and businesses need more buffer for unexpected shocks.

If you’re a company who set up manufacturing in China, placed orders 4 months ago, and you’re watching the tariff rate change from 65% to 125% or more in the span of days with threats of more, you have to increase your prices a lot to have more buffer. Those parts you ordered now have an unpredictable price tags attached when they arrive at the port. It’s completely out of control.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#217

Post by ceejayoz »

danesparza wrote: post #214
ceejayoz wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to eat.

From https://www.newsweek.com/walmart-loses-22b-consumer-confiden... "You can see that the money runs out before the month is gone, you can see that people are buying smaller pack sizes at the end of the month," McMillon said. They do need to eat, but they are eating less - and not by choice. They don't have the money to buy what they want to. No amount of advertising will fix that.

Smaller pack sizes cost more per unit!

People think they're saving money that way. They often aren't.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#218

Post by sorcerer-mar »

ericmay wrote: post #204
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually the exact reason for the existence of brands. You absolutely should buy brands, and stop buying random "RANDOMCAPITALLETTERS Product 1" But yeah, what people think of as good, high-quality brands often are not.

It's a little difficult for me to make the point I want to make here because I don't disagree with you, but the usage of the word "brand" is not as descriptive as I'd like it to be. If you're buying good copper cookware the manufacturer "brand" matters, they build a reputation for having quality products, ideally continue to make those quality products at a fair price, etc. and life is good. But then there are brands…

I get it - there are brands that are well-known for being brands (i.e. famous for being famous) and there are brands that are well-known for making legitimately good products.

Avoid the former like the plague, but the latter is one of the best methods to find legitimately great stuff.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#219

Post by reverendsteveii »

jl6 wrote: post #4

Presumably they can determine this for items directly imported, but for all other cases (such as a made-in-the-USA product that is built using made-in-China tools, or from made-in-China components), surely the cost impact on the final product could be extremely complex to work out, if they even have access to that level of supply chain detail?

Let's POSIWID this for a second. Perfect accuracy isn't the goal here, nor does it meaningfully contribute to the goal. The goal is messaging, it's about drawing a line in consumers' brains between the price increases and Trump. If it were me I'd just take the pre-tariff price, work out a post-tariff price and then assign the blame for the difference between them to Trump. No one is gonna check up on this, and it has the narrative on its side. Even Trump's supporters acknowledge that his tariffs are gonna raise prices, they're just integrating that fact by saying it's for the greater good and it'll bring manufacturing back home and put a chicken in every garage and a car in every pot and all of that. Amazon just wants to hammer him on this because even after Lord Bezos bent the knee, donated tons of money and used his power to manipulate the media in favor of Trump Trump still went ahead with moves that will consolidate his own power but cost his nobles a ton of money.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#220

Post by bluGill »

myrmidon wrote: post #104
paulcole wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can blame Trump but in the US, we’re all to blame here. Blaming somebody who’s not me just make it easier to feel good about myself and like I’m less of the problem. I mean call them the Democrats tariffs. 2024 was a gift-wrapped election victory and the Democrats (shockingly) bungled it in staggeringly impressive fashion.

What do you think the democrats did wrong-- what should they have done to win? I'm curious; I currently don't think that election was so easy for them, with having to run a different candidate, and the overton window shifting right (not just US; EU too).

For starters they more or less blindly went with their candidate until forced to change. I don't know who should have seen Biden was no longer competent, but the signs should have been there - those people should have made Biden resign a year before the primary season started.

Of course the republicans are just as guilty as democrats in letting their people keep running as they get old in office.

I have a personal policy of never voting for someone who has held the office more than 1 time. If more people would do this we would solve a bunch of problems. (2 terms is a good number if you like the person since they have some experience in the second term). This also means I oppose too small districts in local issues - if there are not several people interested in running for the office than either it shouldn't be elected (why do I elect my country treasurer - it shouldn't have any power), or the district is too small.

Post reply on HN