• cub Gucci@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Steel is extremely cheap compared to the car.

    A metric ton of hrc steel costs like $800 - that’s $400 added value to the end product.

    A car costs like $30k. 15% is like $4.5k of the added value. The argument doesn’t stand

    What’s really the problem is that the supply chain might cross the border a few times. That’s what was the intent for the tarifs.

    Stop thinking about the orange clown’s government as the dumb villains from done kind of comedy. They are our political opponents

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s still a losing proposition, even if you don’t already have a factory in [insert country]. Steel is cheap yes, the value add comes from labor and capex payback yes, but there’s more than just metal that makes a car go vroom .

      25% tariff on car parts

      Ca parts could be anything from plastic fan ducting or the infotainment screen, or major components like engines and drivetrains. The majority of which is plastics/polymers and aluminum. The engine has steel sure, but the aluminum block is the most expensive part, while steel con-rods, crankshafts, and gears aren’t exactly an easy thing to set up a new factory in order to duck tariffs - tariffs that have been proven to come and go over social media beef.

      So while it’s impossible to truly know the full BoM cost without seeing each component category’s HTS codes and how each maker sources their parts, I’d still wager that the 15% is the better pathway. Especially if you already have a factory, a known and trained labor pool, established transit and vendor links, etc

      What it’ll definitely have more impact upon is expensive or luxury brands, because the material cost doesn’t scale with the sticker price the consumer sees.