Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#361

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:05 PM UTC

Eextra953 wrote: post #188

I'm not sure why so many comments think this is a bad idea. I think it's a great idea and should be adopted by all retailers. We already do the same thing with sales tax. Tarriffs are close to sales tax in there effect to consumers so it makes sense to show it up front. It lets customers see just how much more they have to pay due to the, ever changing, tariffs. Good for Amazon.

Here's a few good reasons that have been thrown out. First is that they're unlikely to implement it accurately, applying a percent to the retailers and Amazon's profit, instead of the cost of goods. Another is that it reveals a lot of business information about margins.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#362

Post by gruez » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:07 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #322

dylan604 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of that wealth is tied directly to the store chain vs investments they have made elsewhere?

The chain, itself, did $11B in revenue in 2020 for its ~100 stores. It's privately held, largely by the family and their friends. I certainly don't doubt they've purchased other investments with the proceeds over time, but they're making plenty.

>The chain, itself, did $11B in revenue in 2020 for its ~100 stores.

Revenue =/= profit. OpenAI has similar amount of revenue, but is nowhere near profitable.

>I certainly don't doubt they've purchased other investments with the proceeds over time, but they're making plenty.

The point isn't what they did with the profits, it's whether the profits are commensurate with the capital they put in (ie. return on equity).

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#363

Post by gruez » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #285

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't had 49 cent bananas in my market for a longtime, so I'm wondering if they were adjusting for tariffs as well as just general inflation at the same time (but the sign wouldn't be honest in that case).

is truth in marketing still a thing?

It would hinge on the wording. "impacted by tarrifs" or "caused by tarrifs" probably won't be illegal, even if they're arguably misleading.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#364

Post by rlpb » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

gherkinnn wrote: post #109

profmonocle wrote: post #76

I'm fine with this as long as they include the tariff in the listed price. I'm worried businesses are going to use tariffs as an excuse to have a fake list price, then hit you with massive hidden fees at the point of sale. Some sectors have been doing this for years - "service fees" at restaurants, "regulatory response fees" in the telecom industry, all sorts of nonsense in event ticketing. Physical goods have mostly…

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.

Of course businesses charge the maximum the market will tolerate. That’s how it’s supposed to work. No need to treat this as surprising, nefarious or unexpected.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#365

Post by gruez » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #333

crazygringo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about being used to it. There's good reason sales tax isn't included in the price, which is that sales tax varies locally. It isn't even the same per ZIP code. You couldn't advertise a statewide or nationwide price if you had to include sales tax. You couldn't display prices online at all until you entered your full address, which seems antithetical to privacy. This is different from most other countries, wh…

This is a distraction. The regional supermarket chain in new england that is owned by kroger ALREADY localizes their weekly sales flyer TO THE STORE despite every store in the state having the exact same tax rates. They STILL don't include the tax in the price listed because fuck you, this is america

>The regional supermarket chain in new england that is owned by kroger ALREADY localizes their weekly sales flyer TO THE STORE despite every store in the state having the exact same tax rates.

Do they actually "localizes their weekly sales flyer TO THE STORE", or you only think that way because they ask for the exact store location to view their flyers? It could very well be that they ask the exact store for analytics purposes, but all the stores have the same flyer.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#366

Post by gruez » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #141

profmonocle wrote: post #76

I'm fine with this as long as they include the tariff in the listed price. I'm worried businesses are going to use tariffs as an excuse to have a fake list price, then hit you with massive hidden fees at the point of sale. Some sectors have been doing this for years - "service fees" at restaurants, "regulatory response fees" in the telecom industry, all sorts of nonsense in event ticketing. Physical goods have mostly…

It’s kind of petty to list tariffs as a separate line item and not all the other costs that contribute to the final price. Why just the tariffs, unless Amazon is trying to make a political point? It strikes me as just as petty as when restaurants started listing “Living Wage Fee” on their bills. They’re bitching and moaning directly to the customer just because they need to pay their staff more and they’re butthurt a…

>It’s kind of petty to list tariffs as a separate line item and not all the other costs that contribute to the final price.

Like sales taxes? Or environmental disposal fees? Both are listed separately in my experience.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#367

Post by sorcerer-mar » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:19 PM UTC

DrillShopper wrote: post #354

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. He's just a very unintelligent person surrounded by sycophants. Trump almost certainly doesn't even have an ulterior motive here. He has loudly proclaimed for decades his belief that trade deficits are the same as a subsidy or giveaway to the other country.

I never said it was explicitly Trump's goal, just that it was (with his knowing or not, and him not knowing is much more concerning) the goal of his administration (the people who really run the economic policy) here.

I think that may be their goals, but also that the policy is not actually being driven by their goals. The tariff rates were calculated by trade deficits. That's it. That has "following stupid dictate from Dear Leader" written all over it.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#368

Post by ModernMech » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:33 PM UTC

taytus wrote: post #324

beloch wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's apparently a partisan issue. Take a look at the White House's response. > * White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she had discussed the Punchbowl News report with Trump, and his message about it was: "This is a hostile and political act by Amazon." * [1] The Trump administration has expressed a clear expectation that businesses like Amazon should pretend tariffs are paid by foreign countries. Transpa…

Just because the White House say it is a partisan issue, doesn’t make it one.

Huh? They are the partisans. If they make it an issue, it’s a partisan issue.

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#369

Post by dh2022 » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:43 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #319

ceejayoz wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to eat.

Calories are cheap. You can get 2,000 calories for a couple bucks. Everything after that is preference substitution. This doesn't invalidate consumer demand. People judge society and ultimately governments based on if they are able to obtain their preferences.

Re: "You can get 2,000 calories for a couple bucks." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you please let us know how can you get 2,000 calories for $2?

Re: Amazon to display tariff costs for consumers

#370

Post by hollerith » Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

dh2022 wrote: post #369

s1artibartfast wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calories are cheap. You can get 2,000 calories for a couple bucks. Everything after that is preference substitution. This doesn't invalidate consumer demand. People judge society and ultimately governments based on if they are able to obtain their preferences.

Re: "You can get 2,000 calories for a couple bucks." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you please let us know how can you get 2,000 calories for $2?

Rice bought in bulk can certainly be had for that price per calorie with some left over for a little protein. I don't recommend anyone follow such a diet though.