• Tag Archives protectionism
  • Trump’s Washing Machine Tariffs Cost Consumers $800,000 Per Job Created

    Three economists at the University of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Board studied the effects of Trump’s 2018 tariffs on imported washing machines in a new research paper titled “The Production, Relocation, and Price Effects of US Trade Policy: The Case of Washing Machines” and concluded that (italics added):

    Despite the increase in domestic production and employment, the costs of these 2018 tariffs are substantial: in a partial equilibrium setting, we estimate increased annual consumer costs of around $1.5 billion, or roughly $820,000 per job created.

    Jim Tankersley reviews the new research on Trump’s washing machine tariffs in a New York Times article “Trump’s Washing Machine Tariffs Stung Consumers While Lifting Corporate Profits,” here’s a slice (italics added):

    President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imported washing machines has had an odd effect: It raised prices on washing machines, as expected, but also drove up the cost of clothes dryers, which rose by $92 last year. What appears to have happened, according to new research from economists at the University of Chicago and the Federal Reserve, is a case study in how a measure meant to help domestic factory workers can rebound on American consumers, creating unexpected costs and leaving shoppers with a sky-high bill for every factory job created.

    Research to be released on Monday by the economists Aaron Flaaen, of the Fed, and Ali Hortacsu and Felix Tintelnot, of Chicago, estimates that consumers bore between 125% and 225% of the costs of the washing machine tariffs. The authors calculate that the tariffs brought in $82 million to the United States Treasury, while raising consumer prices by $1.5 billion.

    ……
    The goal of all those moves [tariffs] was to push production….to America. The study authors credit Mr. Trump’s tariffs with 200 new jobs at Whirlpool’s plant in Clyde, Ohio, and a further 1,600 jobs for a Samsung factory in South Carolina and an LG factory in Tennessee. That’s 1,800 new jobs, at the cost—net of tariff revenues—of just under $1.5 billion for American consumers. Or, as the authors calculate, $817,000 per job.

    The researchers’ empirical findings that Trump’s washing machine tariffs cost consumers more than $800,000 per US job created is consistent with previous research including a 2012 study by the Peterson Institute (Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry) that estimated that the 2009 tariffs on Chinese tires cost consumers $926,500 for each of the 1,200 US jobs saved (see CD post on that research here).

    A previous and more comprehensive study by Hufbauer of 26 different case studies of trade protection in the US revealed that the average annual cost to consumers per job saved was more than $500,000 (in 2016 dollars) and in some cases exceeded $1 million per year per job, see related CD post “Yes, protectionism can save some US jobs, but at what cost? Empirical evidence suggests it’s very, very expensive” that featured the table below.

    As the cartoon above by Michael Ramirez illustrates graphically, the tariffs imposed last year on imported washing machines that launched Trump’s insane trade war are imposing YUGE costs on American consumers and businesses that make the US economy worse off, not better off. Assuming the new 1,200 factory workers at Whirlpool and Samsung are making the average annual pay for US manufacturing workers of $43,000, the costs to American consumers exceeds the value of each new job by a factor of 19-to-1.

    If the Dealmaker-in-Chief thinks it’s a good deal to force US consumers to pay $820,000 annually in higher costs to create a new $43,000-per-year factory job, then he might have to re-think his deal-making strategies or take some remedial economics courses in the economics of trade protection. Is that Trump’s idea of the kind of “winning” we’re supposed to get sick of?

    Mark J. Perry

    Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Washing Machine Tariffs Will Hurt Americans

     

    The International Trade Commission recently announced recommendations for the U.S. to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on washing machine imports exceeding a quota of 1.2 million units annually.

    The recommendation has been passed along to President Donald Trump, giving him 60 days to reach a final decision.

    This announcement comes on the heels of the trade commission-backed claim that foreign competitors, Samsung and LG, are “injuring” the domestic washing machine—specifically, Michigan-based manufacturer Whirlpool.

    If Trump decides to take the commission’s recommendation, Americans will quickly begin to see fewer washing machine options and higher prices on the common household appliance.

    The protectionist move against LG and Samsung comes, perversely, just as those companies are set to employ thousands of Americans in Tennessee and South Carolina.

    It may also inadvertently put the final nail in the coffin of one of the longest-standing bastions of the American service industry, Sears Holdings Corp. For more than a century, Sears has employed thousands of Americans, and despite recent store closures, still employs roughly 140,000 people in the U.S. today, with more than 6,000 of those employees in service technician roles for home warranties on appliance products.

    In an attempt to move in the direction of modern and high-tech washing machines, Sears recently awarded a contract to LG for the production of some of Sears’ own Kenmore brand of washers. The washers were previously supplied by Whirlpool. Disagreements over cost contributed to the change of suppliers.

    Making it more expensive for LG to import the washers it produces for Kenmore, one of Sears’ most popular product lines, will jeopardize the retailer’s efforts to revitalize its brand.

    American trade rules should make the process of buying and selling easier, not more difficult.

    Restricting washer imports may help Whirlpool but will hurt other American companies—and American consumers as well.

    Trump should reject the remedy proposal put forth by the International Trade Commission. Doing so would keep the government’s thumb off the scale in the washer industry and allow consumers to purchase the products they prefer at the best prices possible.

    Reprinted from The Daily Signal


    Logan Kolas

    Logan Kolas is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.




  • Trump’s Lumber Tariffs Hurt Hurricane Recovery

    As the flood waters from Hurricane Harvey dry up, the residents of affected areas are turning to the task of rebuilding their storm-ravaged communities.

    Early estimates of the damage suggest they have their work cut out for them. The Texas Division of Emergency Management reports that the storm destroyed 9,407 single family homes. Another 44,013 experienced major damage. Moody’s Analytics estimates that the cost of the hurricane will be in the $51–$75 billion range.

    President Donald Trump has pledged $1 million of his own money to Harvey relief efforts, along with a $15 billion aid package for areas affected by the storm. But he’s also pushing protectionist policies that will raise the cost of the basic building materials, making recovery a longer, more difficult, and more expensive process.

    The Price of Protectionism

    In April, the Trump administration imposed countervailing trade duties averaging 20 percent on imported softwood Canadian lumber, a common material in home construction. In June, he hit them again with anti-dumping duties of 6 percent.

    The initial application of these tariffs aggravated consumers of Canadian lumber, says Kevin Mason, managing director of ERA Forest Products Research (a timber market analyst firm), and the damage done by the storm has only made those consumers’ situation worse.

    “Some people who’ve just gone through this devastation—they’ve had their house flooded or it’s been destroyed,” Mason says. “To the degree that they’ve got to go out and get lumber to do some repairs, they’re going to be paying close to record high prices. And part of the reason prices are as high as they are is because of these duties.”

    Tariffs Are Hurting Importers

    The U.S. has imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber imports periodically since the mid-1980s. What makes the latest round of tariffs unusual, Macon says, is the degree to which U.S. consumers have eaten the costs of those trade barriers.

    “Historically the Canadians have had to absorb half if not the bulk of the duties,” says Mason. “This time the U.S. consumer has borne the entire brunt.”

    According to a pricing index put out by the timber market publication Random Lengths, lumber prices hit a peak of $430 per thousand feet of board in April, the month countervailing duties were first imposed. That’s 20 percent over where lumber prices were in January, and nearly 25 percent higher than where prices were in April 2016.

    The increase has not gone unnoticed by builders, including those in areas affected by Hurricane Harvey.

    “A lot of our distributors, and lumber companies that we deal with, were buying a lot of that imported lumber because they got a much better price, and that rolls over into the prices that we pay,” says Patrick Mayhan, vice president of purchasing for the Houston-area company Westin Homes.

    That dependence on cheaper Canadian lumber meant that Mayhan’s company was particularly vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs.

    “It was a significant hike at the time. It was a 20 percent increase,” he tells Reason, adding that “we had no choice but to pass that along to our retail pricing for the home. And that’s a significant amount, because lumber is a big part of the cost of building a home.”

    Adding Insult to Injury

    Increased demand from the storm would push up prices regardless. But thanks to the tariffs, that price increase is starting from an artificially inflated baseline. For some, that could be the difference between a new home and no home at all.

    “Currently for each $1,000 that you tack on to the price of a new home, about 150,000 people nationwide can no longer afford homeownership,” says David Logan, director of tax policy analysis for the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Logan says the tariffs have increased the costs of lumber for NAHB members by 15 to 20 percent, increasing the cost of a new home by some $1,700.

    Zoltan van Heyningen, executive director of the pro-tariff U.S. Lumber Coalition, disputes the numbers coming from the NAHB, saying the impact of tariffs on home prices and homeownership has been overhyped.

    “The impact on consumers is negligible to none. The impact on producers is life or death,” he tells Reason.

    But builders like Mayhan are quickly approaching the point where they cannot pass added costs onto the purchasers of homes. Though it’s still too early to tell, the expected price increases coming in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma might push them past that point.

    For some builders, that pressure to contain retail prices will lead them to compensate for higher lumber prices with lower profit margins. For others, particularly those operating at lower margins, reduced returns might mean forgoing new construction projects.

    That’s particularly true for people planning to rebuild in the aftermath of Harvey and Irma. In addition to near-record-high lumber prices, the costs of other materials—drywall, sheetrock, siding—have gone up as well.

    Trump told reporters recently that the response to the recent storms is “gonna cost a lot of money.” Without his tariffs on imported lumber, the cost could be considerably less.

    Reprinted from Reason


    Christian Britschgi

    Christian Britschgi is a reporter for Arizona Watchdog.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.