zlacker

>>bobcha+(OP)
> Let’s do the math: Take a kid’s bike that retails at a big box store for $ 150. Let’s assume that bike costs $ 30 to make. The rest of the cost is shipping to the U.S., warehousing, transport to the store, marketing, admin costs, customer service, warranty, retailer profits, etc. Whether the bike is made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia, the new 34-38% tariffs will increase the cost by ‘only’ $ 10-12. (The old tariffs are already part of the pricing.) Add overhead and capital costs on those $ 10-12 (financing and insuring the higher purchase price, etc.). Now the price goes up by $ 15-20, or about 10-13% of the final price of the bike.

That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.

>>whynot+0z
Note two limitations to the maths (I'll admit that I haven't read the OP in detail).

1. That's assuming that shipping, warehousing, transport, etc. do not rely upon foreign imports, including services. Chances are that more than one link in the supply chain will be hit either by the US tariffs or by the actual reciprocal tariffs from the other end [1].

2. That's also assuming that the tariffs will not have an impact on the sales of the company, which might adapt either by decreasing its margin (to increase sales) or by increasing it (either to try and compensate for lost sales or because it feels like the right time to hike prices).

[1] We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by the word "reciprocal tariffs" used by Donald Trump. All these numbers are bogus. In January, EU tariffs on US goods were about 2-3%, not 39%, just as US tariffs on most EU goods.