this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
224 points (100.0% liked)

Economics

969 readers
106 users here now

founded 2 years ago
224
There's 'overwhelming evidence' tariffs have raised consumer prices, says Bank of America (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/economics@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Analysts at the Bank of America said tariffs have raised prices for consumers.

They wrote in a note that consumers have covered about 50% to 70% of the cost of levies to date.

This suggests tariffs will continue to put "upward pressure" on inflation, they said.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

I own an e-commerce business. We are an American company. We make and ship goods directly from China.

Our margins are tight, basically we cannot sell in the USA for a lower price. Our suppliers can give a tiny bit of margin back to us, but same story for them too.

So we have 2 options:

A. Stop selling in the US

B. Add a tariff charge, so that if people still want to buy, they can.

We chose option B, direct passthrough of the tariff cost. About 60% still pay, and we lost the rest of our customers.

I don't know where else they shop, because our competition did the same,, but I assume they decided not to buy anything given the higher cost.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

i assume you cant sell it to EU customers?

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Yes we can. That side of the business is growing.

I think a lot of other e-commerce businesses have also shifted away from the US market as well. So US buyers have fewer choices now.

I've searched quite a lot and cannot find factories in the US for the kind of goods we sell. I'm sure we could pay somebody considerably more who would do it but then we would have no customers.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

They probably can’t afford it.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Exactly. There's no demand when the price increases so much.

[–] immobile7801@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

Says anyone who can read a price label

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And when the tariffs go away, prices will remain high - but at least we'll have yet another round of "record profits" and share buybacks for the rich, so we've got that going for us ....

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Worst part is that prices can't go down without causing deflation, and that's economic disaster for all of us.

Even if the top executives voluntarily took a pay cut (LMFAO), that pay is a drop in the bucket vs. any given company's profit and total employee pay.

No way any CEO or board of directors voluntarily takes a hit on stock prices. How can they? They would simply be replaced by the largest shareholders. Even the smallest want a positive return on their retirement accounts. Stock slipping? Then the fund manager pulls that stock from that fund and moves on. It's a monstrous, circular clusterfuck.

Worked at one company where the board applauded the CEO saying we were going in the red for two years. But that included a plan to build staff and products. Bet they're no longer expanding in this uncertain economy. (Funny thing, through a bit of luck and being an awesome group, we made a profit those years anyway.)

Anyway, I don't see the radical system change/shock we need coming without Great Depression 2.0. Taxing the snot out of the rich ain't in the cards ATM. :(

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Import taxes increased imported goods prices. No shit.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

So you’re saying that if you increase prices, prices will increase? I’m no doctor math scientist, but that does seem to check out.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm a bit surprised the importers are eating 30-50% of the cost. I didn't expect 1-to-1 price hikes, which lemmy told us would happen, but this generosity may not last.

Maybe they're eating so much cost in the hopes TACO does his thing and they can quickly get back to normal? No retailer wants to be seen as the "high price" store, or the "they gouged us" store. There was an economist predicting small and steady price hikes and I think we're seeing that.

Only way they could jam 100% cost down our throats would be collusion of obvious and historic levels, across a huge variety of competitors. Not gonna happen. The risk of back stabbing and leaks would be a non-starter.

Also, money says there are a dozen spreadsheets at each company showing that sort of hike would chill consumer spending worse than temporarily eating a chunk of tariff costs.

tl;dr: They'll get to 100%, but it will take some time.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago

Some are betting on the courts forcing Trump to give a refund. Then they can just pocket that money.

[–] doritoshave9sides@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

No shit

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 10 points 1 day ago

Who could have thought !

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

That is the entire premise of tariffs, yes.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

i usually don't post "no shit" comments, because they don't add much, but come on...

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 18 hours ago

There's a lot of constipation in these late-19th-century fictional detectives.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When one of the largest banks in America brings the receipts, that's kind of a big deal. This sort of report nullifies the political aspect.

No way in hell the administration calls The Bank of America woke. I mean, they can, but that particular attack will fall flat. Even the most brainwashed MAGA would simply ignore it like they do other ridiculous proclamations.

So if the best they can do is get ignored by their staunchest supporters, probably be best to STFU and not Streisand Effect the thing.

[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Need an excuse to fire people? Blame tartiffs.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 21 hours ago

its actually AI now, they are blaming AI for the "lack of job growth".

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The retail sector is running as lean as they possibly can ATM. Always have I suspect, but it seems extra tight right now. Nobody wants to pad the staff out in a wildly uncertain economy.

Tech seems the only sector getting hit with lay offs, and that's down to gambling on AI.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If that were true, the Walton family, the Bezos family etc. wouldn’t be obscenely wealthy. There’s clearly margin there that they are hoarding.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I'm talking lean on staff, not profits.

Employee pay is far more than most think. Call it a little less than double your hourly wage, especially with modest benefits. That's why they cut us at every opportunity.

CEO pay is change compared to axing employees. I could go on all night, but each employee has costs way above their hourly pay. SOURCE: Worked IT at a payroll firm, saw the numbers, taxes, etc. You make $15? You cost $30.

Want more money? Want higher stock prices? Axe the employees. We're the top cost center in almost any business.