Comments by "Johanna S. L. Brushane" (@johannas.l.brushane2518) on "Fox Business" channel.

@mcmanpa Indeed. I'm sure Nike have some point where their sneakers become too expensive to be able to sell at the US domestic market (which has the benefit of their size) and I don't think many American workers will line up to work for the average annual salary in Vietnam that is about $7000. Prof G had the example of iPhone. If it is about $1300 today pre tariff. With tariff it could be about $2000-ish but make it completely in USA the cost of production could be near $3500.
3
Is it true that the US government page link to blogs and tabloids with tons of pop up commercials for sources to their conclusions and statements where they previously would have genuine investigative reports by professionals in the various fields.
1
@electricsunshine5402 This is a good point. It is not just the store chains. It is somewhat the same with some products and brand names as well. Even so-called brand names often are of lower quality fabrics with less thread count, the fabric direction is not laid out properly to the pattern construction, the buttons aren't adequately fixed etc. This is not necessarily because they are made in low wage countries per se but rather a function of us as consumer desire to buy clothes more often and thus manufacturers go cheaper where they can. But there's a huge difference in quality in clothes today overall compared to clothes made in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s. But consumers didn't demand/expect to see new stuff in the stores at every week back then. Which can be an annoyance, for instance when you wore out a pair of running shoes you really liked but when to buy the next pair they don't make that model anymore.
1
@bewhimsie1657 I'm not sure that it is that "we" like shiny things but we seem to have become found of buying stuff often. Items we bought some 30 years or more back typically cost more related to our disposable income but we weren't inclined to buy new as often as we are today. Some will claim that the lower quality is the reason for that while I am not sure. The lower quality is perhaps caused by the change in behaviour by us as consumers. A pair of Levi's jeans is of lesser quality because we want to buy a couple of different models every year while the older versions lasted almost a lifetime for people who don't use them for workwear?
1
@bewhimsie1657 I live in Europe so Levi's were somewhat of a brand name here despite I think it is not in USA where it is more of a basic brand. I was a teen in the 80s and clothes were in general more expensive but they were of better quality even in the basic brands. But I would not blame it on the countries where they are fabricated these days though, it is probably to pressure down cost (higher demand for profits, the amount set off for research and development have also gradually diminished in the same time with the companies in general) and consumers tolerate it for them being relatively cheaper
1
@bewhimsie1657 Yes to some degree, but they could get the basics at a blue collar job, like buy a house at a 25 or 30 year mortgage and then it was paid without having to live at the margins so to say and when the house was paid they have quite low cost of living. But I was a bit annoyed with Scott Bessent and his somewhat sapient comment on people becoming too accustomed to cheap goods. As a former hedgefund manager he sure is aware of one part of it is because enterprises that go on the public market typically are hard pressed to go in that direction to sell massive amounts of goods that relatively have become cheaper over the years (and frequently less of quality unfortunately). The family who founded the clothes company H&M are buying up their shares for purpose of delisting it from the stock market. But then again, part of the so-called quarterly report hysteria is also for managing pension payments which probably got a lot tighter because of the age structure in the demography which is problematic in about the whole western world.
1