Summary

A Harris poll reveals that 69% of Americans believe Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs would increase consumer costs, with many planning purchases ahead of his inauguration to avoid price hikes.

Trump has championed tariffs as a key policy to boost domestic manufacturing, but economists and corporate leaders warn costs will be passed to consumers, potentially adding $2,600 annually to household expenses.

While Republicans are more supportive of tariffs, only 51% think they will benefit the economy.

The poll highlights widespread concern over tariffs’ economic impact, especially amid lingering inflation and financial uncertainty.

    • sparky@lemmy.federate.ccA
      link
      65 hours ago

      This comment is both fucking hilarious and shittily depressing at the same time. I don’t know which emotion is stronger.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
      link
      fedilink
      97 hours ago

      Tbf, I was very ignorant regarding tariffs as a young adult post highschool. But also, we have the Internet, and Google, and as of now we have fucking AI that can ELI5 literally any topic you are interested in knowing more about if you aren’t an ignorant piece of shit. But here we are, America is full of ignorant pieces of shit. Shocker.

    • @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      107 hours ago

      Well now hold up, a little more than half of the 2/3 knew better but voted for it anyways. Id say they’re pretty braindead too.

        • @Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          06 hours ago

          This has been common for so long and 2020 was a fluke with voter turnout. You’re totally right here, people did just not vote but it’s also a result of not giving people incentives that get them to vote. Voting isn’t really easy in much of the US, especially for those working long hours at the start of the holiday season. Biden ran on stimmy checks and student loan forgiveness, Harris ran on small business tax incentives and building a wall. Just like with plastics, it’s easy to look at individual blame here and get upset with the people who didn’t vote but it’s the system that made them not want to vote.

  • @LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    119 hours ago

    I love how people are debating this as if it’s not a well understood concept. Can’t wait till we get headlines like “1/4 of people belive a bullet to the head might possibly be fatal in some cases”.

  • @rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    58 hours ago

    A Harris poll reveals that 69% of Americans believe Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs would increase consumer costs, with many planning purchases ahead of his inauguration to avoid price hikes.

    Galaxy brain economics.

    • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I mean when they drew it up they showed commuter costs were up hundreds of dollars a piece. If he does what he says he was planning to do every company’s IT budget is shot. If people thought they had old computers before, no chance they are getting upgraded if that happens. Instead of saying new laptops every 3-4 years and desktops 5 years they’ll likely just switch back to desktops and say every 6 years, cutting out paying for docks/port replicators, and having more reasonsl to force users into office to get people to quit and cut payroll costs as well. Bottom line still goes up, CEO and stocks go up, quality of product/service… Goes down

      Note obviously that cuts into the network infrastructure and all software licensing as well. You have to renew licenses, maybe can cut some cost if you cut staff, but it means forcing more users to cheaper software, and likely holding off all wireless access points upgrades/installs, new fiber runs etc

  • Maple Engineer
    link
    fedilink
    5013 hours ago

    GM’s stock price is down 8% today.

    I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate automotive union workers who voted for Trump.

  • @islands@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    43
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    There are 258 million adults in the USA. Almost 77 million people voted for Trump. Which is about 30%.

    I think we can all deduce which 1/3 of Americans are too fucking dumb to understand Trump’s tariffs are a bad idea.

  • @tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4915 hours ago

    It amazes me that Republicans can be supportive of what is a blatant tax grab by the federal government. Trump is basically saying "I’m going to add a federal sales tax on top of the majority of everything you buy to the tune of 25% or more. With China, a lot of that is manufactured consumer goods. But with Canada and Mexico, we’re talking food products, automobiles, natural resources needed by American industries, etc.

    • @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I would guess your amazement is because GOP are understood to be in favor of small government, when actually they are favor of doing w/e the fuck they feel like to enrich themselves because their voter base is so fucking stupid they would vote for a rock if you said it would be thrown through a liberals window once elected.

      My biggest concern is what will happen when the party that runs on christian nationalism and prejudice (redundant), that has majority control of the entire government, and is flush with tax revenue, is going to accomplish over the next 2-4 years…

      • @brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        The plan is to have a disturbing deficit, and interest payments are getting really big now.

        This is like climate change, it’s not apparently hurting anyone tomorrow so… no one cares anymore.

    • @DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      813 hours ago

      Pro Tip: If you have any large purchases to make in your life, now is the time.

      Also, probably buy a gun because there’s about to be a lot more desperate people out there.

      • @turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        I mean it’s very simple. A tariff is what you pay the government to get stuff released from the port of entry.

        You buy a $1000 DJI quadcopter that was manufactured in China, if Trump does his “60% on everything from China” tariff the US government says you have to pay them $600 or it goes back on the boat.

        The complicated part of tarrifs is stuff like “are X-men action figures human or non-human toys” because those get different rates. Not what tariffs “are”.

        • @rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          714 hours ago

          It’s not hard, the country’s just full of uninterested idiots.

          The part they refuse to think about is the DJI is just going to raise the price to $1700 to cover. And the fact that there aren’t going to be any local drone manufacturers for competition.

          • @turmacar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            To cover what? DJI isn’t paying anything extra.

            If they raise the price to $1700, then the tariff would be $1020 to the US government, again by you, and you would pay $2720 total to get your thing, split between DJI and the port authority.

            After they put it on the boat DJI doesn’t care. They have their $1000. If they feel like it they can add the tariff charge and handle that for you, that’s how it usually happens now, but they don’t have to. You’ll just get a letter from the port authority about the charges needed to release your item.

            • @dan@upvote.au
              link
              fedilink
              6
              edit-2
              13 hours ago

              You’re talking about direct to consumer from an overseas store, whereas I think the person you’re replying to is talking about the pricing at a US store?

              • @Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                313 hours ago

                What’s the difference?

                Somebody has to pay the tax to get the items off the boat. Spoiler alert, everyone will pass the cost on to the final consumer.

        • @rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          112 hours ago

          They should have heard about it during his last presidency. They’re too busy playing politics like it’s sports.

          shrug

          Let it all burn. The worse it is, maybe they’ll get a clue.

  • @dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    I like how the headline says 2/3 of Americans “think” tariffs will lead to higher prices. The other 1/3 aren’t thinking at all.

    Tariffs are passed on straight to the consumer and the main outcome is that Americans will need to pay more. Demand for products from other countries isn’t going to suddenly disappear. Some things can’t be easily made in the USA, and sometimes the items made overseas are a higher quality product.

    It’s like rebates - they very rarely benefit the consumer. Having a 30% rebate for solar panels is fine, but it means the prices are at least 30% higher than they should be, which is obvious if you compare US prices to European and Australian prices for identical systems.

    • Maple Engineer
      link
      fedilink
      1313 hours ago

      The illegal tarrifs on Canadian softwood lumber raised the price of a single family home in the US by more than $10,000 while Canadian lumber companies enjoyed record profits because demand remained high. The tarrifs are intended to allow less cost effective American companies to charge more by making more cost effective foreign products more expensive. It’s about raising prices.

      Trump voters voted to pay more to make rich people richer.

  • @ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7518 hours ago

    If 2/3 of people seemingly understand the truth, how tf was he voted back in? Can they get rid of the outdated electoral college system yet?

    • @Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4318 hours ago

      Electoral college was irrelevant this election. Trump won the popular vote because people don’t think voting is important. Kamala Harris was a shit candidate, but Democratic voters weren’t given a primary to pick a better one.

      • @orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        5618 hours ago

        While the Electoral College did not directly factor into this election it could have indirectly factored in due to minority voters in solidly controlled states simply deciding not to vote due to their votes having no impact on the outcome. If for instance you were a Democrat in a state that Republicans have won by double digit percentages for the last couple decades you might rightly assume that whether you vote or not the outcome remains unchanged.

        If we had a straight popular vote rather than the EC then literally every vote would count, unlike the current system where that’s only true in battleground states. In this case the EC is just another in a long list of voter suppression tools.

        • @NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2318 hours ago

          Make not voting cause you to be chosen first for jury duty.

          Personally, I’ve never minded jury duty, but people seem to lose their minds over it.

          • @CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            615 hours ago

            I never understood the hatred over jury duty. Except for people who work minimum wage or don’t get paid jury duty.

            Jury duty is the most direct way a normal citizen can affect democracy.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
            link
            fedilink
            1017 hours ago

            When we don’t get paid because we miss work and are dependent on that money, it can be annoying. In theory, I think it would be cool to be on a jury, but its a luxury to be able to afford to be on a jury.

            • I guess it depends on where you are. In my city, you get 150% of minimum wage/hour of jury duty, so $18 an hour. Though of course if you make more than that and are paid hourly, it’s a definite loss.

              • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                11 hours ago

                My state pays $20/day. The last time I was summoned, the estimated cost of the commute using the IRS average is $35 (granted, that’s a high estimate) and not reimbursed or compensated. Also the $20 is taxed. So it effectively cost me money to go to jury duty in my old county even before accounting for lost wages.

          • TheTechnician27
            link
            fedilink
            English
            9
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            I’d agree, except do we really want to emphasize the least engaged citizens for jury duty? That’s still someone’s freedom on the line, and while for some select few people finding a chance to vote is extremely difficult due to registration fuckery in Republican states, with the rise of early voting and vote by mail, the primary demographic of non-voting adults is people who are apathetic or intentionally ignorant to the political process. My fear is: “This is a waste of my time, and 30 days isn’t that long; just send them to jail.” And there won’t be anyone who cares strongly enough to object because the jury is packed with these apathetic citizens. To clarify, I see this as more of a problem with small-fry misdemeanor or less serious felony cases, not like murder or rape trials. But that’s most trials.

            You could argue that politically engaged Republicans can be much, much worse on a jury, that this could help them develop a sense of engagement with politics, and that they might care if they can see their choice directly affecting someone else, but it seems sketchy.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            I vote in every primary and every election and have never been selected for jury duty.

            Which implies I have no peers.

        • Brokkr
          link
          fedilink
          315 hours ago

          While I too want more people to participate, I think we should also recognize that choosing not to vote is protected speech. That’s probably not why people don’t vote, so we should probably find other ways to encourage voting (holiday, more access to polls, etc.) Unfortunately, some repulsive people prefer it when fewer people vote.

          • @NABDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            212 hours ago

            For protected speech, I’d prefer if people would go in, take a ballot, and submit it blank. Essentially, making a statement that there is no one on the ballot who would represent them. It would be more meaningful than not going to the polling place at all. It sends a more significant message than just staying home.

            I do agree that we need to make it easier, not harder, to vote.

            Automatic registration, election day holiday, laws forcing employers to facilitate voting by their employees.

              • @NABDad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                17 hours ago

                Well, perhaps you should do it in a way that doesn’t appear exactly like you actually can’t be bothered to do anything.

                • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  26 hours ago

                  Matter of perspective. Its not important that you think their action has no effect, its important that they think their action has effect.

                  Neither perspective is really wrong or right absolutely. We won’t know which is right for so many decades that its useless to declare one perspective entirely baseless.

      • TooManyFoods
        link
        fedilink
        -318 hours ago

        The new suppressed it, or the democrats restricted who could run, or anything else, but stop telling me the primary I voted in didn’t happen.

        • @dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1218 hours ago

          It did happen, it was just irrelevant. No serious competition was allowed (Sorry, Dean Phillips).

          • TooManyFoods
            link
            fedilink
            016 hours ago

            I’m not going to say that people were so stupid that they didn’t realize a vote for Biden was really a vote for Kamala.

            • @Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              15 hours ago

              What a weird reality you live in. Especially funny given that Kamala came in almost dead last in the 2020 primary that Biden won.

              Democracy depends on an informed public. The Democrats concealed Biden’s mental decline so, arguably, a vote for Biden wasn’t even a vote for Biden.

              Also, an election without adequate media coverage and no debates makes a mockery of the idea of an informed electorate. That’s how they run elections in Russia or North Korea, not in a functioning democracy. If you don’t have higher standards than that, you don’t deserve democracy.

    • @tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2517 hours ago

      Less than a third of eligible voters voted for him, so it tracks. Close to half the country not voting suggests they understand tariffs, but either just fine paying 20% extra for everything or don’t believe he’ll actually do the things he’s been most vocal about doing.