To avoid potential tariffs under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Honda is shifting production of its CR-V and Passport SUVs from Ontario, Canada, to plants in Indiana and Alabama. The move aims to ensure the vehicles qualify for preferential tariff treatment within North America, as the USMCA stipulates a higher percentage of North American-made parts for tariff-free trade. This relocation impacts thousands of Canadian jobs and highlights the influence of trade agreements on international manufacturing decisions.
The estimated manufacturing cost of a pair of Nike shoes in Asia is around $25-$50, according to a breakdown by a supposed industry insider. This includes roughly $12-16 for materials, $8-10 for labor, $2-3 for factory overhead, and $3-5 for freight/shipping. These figures are presented as educated guesses based on experience and don't account for research and development, marketing, or other business expenses which significantly contribute to the final retail price. The author emphasizes the difference between manufacturing cost and the retail price, highlighting the significant markup driven by brand value, marketing, and other factors.
HN commenters discuss the complexities of calculating the true cost of Nike shoe production. Several point out that the $20 figure cited by the original Twitter thread likely only represents direct labor and material costs, neglecting significant expenses like R&D, marketing, shipping, tariffs, and retail markup. Some commenters with manufacturing experience suggest a factory cost closer to $30-40, while others argue the true cost, including all associated expenses, could be much higher. The thread also touches upon the difficulties in accurately assessing factory conditions and worker treatment based solely on cost estimates. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the overall business model of high-priced athletic shoes.
Ruth Tillman's blog post "All Clothing is Handmade (2022)" argues that the distinction between "handmade" and "machine-made" clothing is a false dichotomy. All clothing, whether crafted by an individual artisan or produced in a factory, involves extensive human labor throughout its lifecycle, from design and material sourcing to manufacturing, shipping, and retail. The post uses the example of a seemingly simple t-shirt to illustrate the complex network of human effort required, emphasizing the skills, knowledge, and labor embedded within each stage of production. Therefore, "handmade" shouldn't be understood as a category separate from industrial production but rather a recognition of the inherent human element present in all clothing creation.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the article—that all clothing involves human labor somewhere along the line, even if highly automated—and discussed the implications. Some highlighted the devaluing of human labor, particularly in the fashion industry, with "fast fashion" obscuring the effort involved. Others pointed out the historical context of clothing production, noting how technologies like the sewing machine shifted, rather than eliminated, human involvement. A compelling comment thread explored the distinction between "handmade" and "hand-crafted", suggesting that the latter implies artistry and design beyond basic construction, and questioned whether "machine-made" is truly a separate category. Some users argued the author's point was obvious, while others appreciated the reminder about the human cost of clothing. A few comments also touched on the environmental impact of clothing production and the need for more sustainable practices.
The blog post contrasts the creative approaches of "Bluey" and "Cocomelon." "Bluey" emphasizes nuanced storytelling, drawing from real-life parenting experiences and fostering imaginative play with minimal reliance on dialogue. This allows for deeper emotional connection and encourages children to engage creatively with the narratives. Conversely, "Cocomelon" is criticized for its simplistic, repetitive songs and overstimulating visuals, designed to capture attention rather than foster meaningful engagement. The author argues "Cocomelon" prioritizes algorithmic appeal over educational value, resulting in passive consumption rather than active learning and imaginative development.
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise that Bluey is superior to Cocomelon due to its nuanced portrayal of family dynamics, realistic parenting, and engaging storylines. Several highlighted Bluey's focus on imaginative play and emotional intelligence, contrasting it with Cocomelon's perceived simplistic and repetitive nature. Some discussed the business models behind each show, attributing Cocomelon's formulaic approach to its algorithm-driven creation process. A few questioned the article's negativity towards Cocomelon, suggesting it serves a different purpose for a younger audience and can be a valuable tool for parents. Others pointed out the cultural differences in Australian vs. American children's programming. A recurring theme was the importance of quality children's media and its impact on development.
Summary of Comments ( 9 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43974064
Hacker News commenters generally express skepticism about the narrative that tariffs solely caused Honda to shift SUV production. Several suggest the move is likely driven by a confluence of factors, including streamlining North American operations, potentially reducing logistics costs, and positioning themselves for the growing electric vehicle market (as the US offers more EV incentives). Some also highlight the increasing integration of the North American auto industry, rendering simple explanations based on tariffs inadequate. Others point out that tariffs are often ultimately paid by consumers, and question whether this move will truly benefit American workers in the long run. A few commenters also critique the NYT article for lacking depth and failing to explore these alternative factors more thoroughly.
The Hacker News post titled "Tariffs Drive Honda to Move SUV Production from Canada to U.S." linking to a New York Times article has generated several comments discussing the implications of tariffs and Honda's decision.
Several commenters express skepticism about the NYT article's claim that tariffs are the primary driver of Honda's decision. They suggest other factors, such as wanting to be closer to the larger US market, streamlining supply chains, and potentially taking advantage of US-based incentives, likely play a more significant role. Some even speculate that Honda might be using the tariff narrative as a convenient justification for a move they intended to make anyway.
One commenter highlights the increasing trend of "onshoring" or "nearshoring," bringing manufacturing back to or closer to the home country. They argue this trend is driven by a desire for greater control over supply chains and reduced reliance on potentially volatile international relationships, rather than solely being a result of tariffs.
Another commenter points out the complexity of global supply chains and how difficult it is to isolate any single factor, like tariffs, as the sole cause of a major corporate decision like this. They suggest a confluence of factors likely contributed to Honda's move.
There's also discussion about the potential impact on Canadian workers and the Canadian economy. While acknowledging it's a loss for Canada, some commenters downplay the overall effect, suggesting it's a relatively small portion of Honda's overall operations.
Finally, some comments focus on the broader implications of protectionist trade policies. Some argue that tariffs are ultimately harmful to consumers and distort markets, while others defend them as a necessary tool to protect domestic industries and jobs. There's a general sentiment that the long-term effects of such policies are complex and difficult to predict.