US economy thread (11 Viewers)

[Sand]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

They can market themselves all they want. I don't think that's reality, by any stretch. Europe isn't even in the same universe as far as birthing valuable companies that need this skilled labor. That isn't going to change, nor is the desire for human capital to be where the action is.

 

[Stoneworker]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

They can market themselves all they want. I don't think that's reality, by any stretch. Europe isn't even in the same universe as far as birthing valuable companies that need this skilled labor. That isn't going to change, nor is the desire for human capital to be where the action is.

Exactly. At this point the US human capital advantage is institutionalized and embedded deeply throughout our systems. It would take significantly more than "current realities" to knock the US off its spot

 

[beer 30]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

They can market themselves all they want. I don't think that's reality, by any stretch. Europe isn't even in the same universe as far as birthing valuable companies that need this skilled labor. That isn't going to change, nor is the desire for human capital to be where the action is.

And I would say that if current trends continue, an increased focus on defense spending by European countries, I don't expect there will be as much capitol to spread around birthing valuable companies as mentioned above. There are some hard realities coming in the next 5-10 years.

 

[The Z Machine]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

They can market themselves all they want. I don't think that's reality, by any stretch. Europe isn't even in the same universe as far as birthing valuable companies that need this skilled labor. That isn't going to change, nor is the desire for human capital to be where the action is.

And I would say that if current trends continue, an increased focus on defense spending by European countries, I don't expect there will be as much capitol to spread around birthing valuable companies as mentioned above. There are some hard realities coming in the next 5-10 years.

Interesting... you think that the increased spending on European defense will reduce the available capital for VC? Not sure how that will work...

 

[Desert_Power]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

They can market themselves all they want. I don't think that's reality, by any stretch. Europe isn't even in the same universe as far as birthing valuable companies that need this skilled labor. That isn't going to change, nor is the desire for human capital to be where the action is.

And I would say that if current trends continue, an increased focus on defense spending by European countries, I don't expect there will be as much capitol to spread around birthing valuable companies as mentioned above. There are some hard realities coming in the next 5-10 years.

Interesting... you think that the increased spending on European defense will reduce the available capital for VC? Not sure how that will work...

Would seem like increased European defense spending would tend to mean a higher supply of jobs for high-skilled immigrants worried about capricious changes in their legal status.

 

[Stoneworker]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

 

[Northern Voice]

Interesting... you think that the increased spending on European defense will reduce the available capital for VC? Not sure how that will work...

Would seem like increased European defense spending would tend to mean a higher supply of jobs for high-skilled immigrants worried about capricious changes in their legal status.

Portugal already cancelled their F-35 contract to seek a European alternative, right? There is a lot of pressure on Canada to cancel its purchase as well (beyond the 16 that are to be delivered next year).

The runner up for the contract, Swedish Saab Gripen offered to assemble the jets in Canada (Halifax) which would be a nice boost in terms of jobs given the current state of things but ultimately Canada went with F35's because they didn't want a mixed fleet and have had no issues for the past dozens of years with Lockheed Martin. Now there are questions of whether they should trust American software in Canadian fighter planes, for obvious reasons.

Of course, if they cancel the rest of the Lockheed Martin contract, there would be penalties for that AND a lot of Canadian companies are part of the supply chain for the F-35s, so they would be hurt by the cancellation - while also at the same time those companies are presumably going to be hit with tariffs on the parts they supply if the contract continues, so again, a lot to balance there.

Just an interesting large $$$ example of the calculus that's going back on forth right now in thousands of industries and supply chains from globally integrated economies that are beginning to disintegrate.

 

[Northern Voice]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

 

[Stoneworker]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

Your turn

 

[the moops]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

Your turn

I don't think we will find too many arguments that tariffs are always bad all the time. A well thought out economic policy very well can include the use of tariffs. The haphazard nature of what is going on and the consistent flip flopping is probably very unlike what happened with the solar industry.

 

[Northern Voice]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

Your turn

It's easy enough to find but I don't think anyone in this thread has actually argued that tariffs aren't useful in certain cases and industries, I think what was asked for was proof of blanket tariffs being a net positive, and I don't want to bog this down on whether specific tariffs are ever useful, certainly in some cases they are. Blanket tariffs though...

 

[-OZ-]

That isn't going to change,

It would take significantly more than "current realities" to knock the US off its spot

Maybe I’m pessimistic but at one point many Europeans thought the same about their countries.

 

[Stoneworker]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

Your turn

It's easy enough to find but I don't think anyone in this thread has actually argued that tariffs aren't useful in certain cases and industries, I think what was asked for was proof of blanket tariffs being a net positive, and I don't want to bog this down on whether specific tariffs are ever useful, certainly in some cases they are. Blanket tariffs though...

Please explain the difference in economic impact between tariffs that:

a) target a specific industry but are "blanket" applied to all countries (e.g. solar)

b) target a specific country but are "blanket" applied to all industries (e.g. China)

 

[dkp993]

If this thread isn't political, why can I tell which way 90% of the posters lean simply based on their post?

I could take the names off with no prior history to view and nail it the majority of the time.

Ditto with your post.

Interesting Jay. I don’t feel that way at all. Someone’s Economic viewpoint doesn’t necessarily define ones political views. But I don’t make those kind of assumptions biased on a persons beliefs on one specific topic, whatever that topic is.

 

[beer 30]

Interesting... you think that the increased spending on European defense will reduce the available capital for VC? Not sure how that will work...

Would seem like increased European defense spending would tend to mean a higher supply of jobs for high-skilled immigrants worried about capricious changes in their legal status.

Yea kinda do but I don't really know where the industrial military complex resides within the EU so I suppose I could be wrong. The Swedish Saab Gripen example above is an example. Being as most of NATO is outfitted with similar toys, I assume diverging from those platforms to something else would cause a hiccup in the supply chain for a while at least as factories either try to ramp up accordingly or simply come into existence where there isn't one now.

Side note, saw this picture over the weekend and gotta admit, looks pretty bad ***.

 

[Desert_Power]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Hmm, I wonder what the SEIA has to say about the impact of tariffs on these figures:

Study: Solar Tariffs Cause Devastating Harm to U.S. Market, Economy and Jobs​

More than 62,000 jobs, $19 billion in investment and 10.5 GW of solar are lost due to tariffs​

December 3, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tariffs on imported solar cells and modules have led to the loss of more than 62,000 U.S. jobs and $19 billion in new private sector investment, according to a market impact analysis released today by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).


The analysis comes as the midterm review process for the tariffs begins at the U.S. International Trade Commission on Dec. 5, and covers tariff impacts from the beginning of the 2017 trade complaint by Suniva through the end of the tariff lifecycle in 2021.


“Solar was the first industry to be hit with this administration’s tariff policy, and now we’re feeling the impacts that we warned against two years ago,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “This stark data should be the predicate for removing harmful tariffs and allowing solar to fairly compete and continue creating jobs for Americans.”

In addition to its economic impact, tariffs on solar have caused 10.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar installations to be cancelled, enough to power 1.8 million homes and reduce 26 million metric tons of carbon emissions.


KEY FIGURES FROM THE ANALYSIS:

• Solar tariffs are costing the U.S. more than $10.5 million per day in unrealized economic activity
• Each new job created by the tariff results in 31 additional jobs lost, 5.3 megawatts of solar deployment lost and nearly $9.5 million of lost investment
• Reduced solar deployment figures will increase emissions equivalent to 5.5 million cars or 7 coal plants

Tariffs on solar are most harshly affecting nascent solar markets including Alabama,”¯Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas. These markets won’t be able to get off the ground because tariffs make solar uncompetitive.


The Section 201 solar tariffs began at 30% in 2018, and ramped down to 25% in 2019, 20% in 2020 and 15% in 2021.


Read the entire market impact analysis: www.seia.org/TariffImpacts

 

[Stoneworker]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

Your turn

I don't think we will find too many arguments that tariffs are always bad all the time. A well thought out economic policy very well can include the use of tariffs. The haphazard nature of what is going on and the consistent flip flopping is probably very unlike what happened with the solar industry.

There has been an order of magnitude more haphazard approaches and flip-flopping affecting the solar industry over the past 25 years than what we are seeing with tariffs today.

 

[Stoneworker]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Hmm, I wonder what the SEIA has to say about the impact of tariffs on these figures:

Study: Solar Tariffs Cause Devastating Harm to U.S. Market, Economy and Jobs​

More than 62,000 jobs, $19 billion in investment and 10.5 GW of solar are lost due to tariffs​

December 3, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tariffs on imported solar cells and modules have led to the loss of more than 62,000 U.S. jobs and $19 billion in new private sector investment, according to a market impact analysis released today by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).


The analysis comes as the midterm review process for the tariffs begins at the U.S. International Trade Commission on Dec. 5, and covers tariff impacts from the beginning of the 2017 trade complaint by Suniva through the end of the tariff lifecycle in 2021.


“Solar was the first industry to be hit with this administration’s tariff policy, and now we’re feeling the impacts that we warned against two years ago,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “This stark data should be the predicate for removing harmful tariffs and allowing solar to fairly compete and continue creating jobs for Americans.”

In addition to its economic impact, tariffs on solar have caused 10.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar installations to be cancelled, enough to power 1.8 million homes and reduce 26 million metric tons of carbon emissions.


KEY FIGURES FROM THE ANALYSIS:

• Solar tariffs are costing the U.S. more than $10.5 million per day in unrealized economic activity
• Each new job created by the tariff results in 31 additional jobs lost, 5.3 megawatts of solar deployment lost and nearly $9.5 million of lost investment
• Reduced solar deployment figures will increase emissions equivalent to 5.5 million cars or 7 coal plants

Tariffs on solar are most harshly affecting nascent solar markets including Alabama,”¯Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas. These markets won’t be able to get off the ground because tariffs make solar uncompetitive.


The Section 201 solar tariffs began at 30% in 2018, and ramped down to 25% in 2019, 20% in 2020 and 15% in 2021.


Read the entire market impact analysis: www.seia.org/TariffImpacts

You're seriously going to pull up an article from 2019?

 

[Desert_Power]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Hmm, I wonder what the SEIA has to say about the impact of tariffs on these figures:

Study: Solar Tariffs Cause Devastating Harm to U.S. Market, Economy and Jobs​

More than 62,000 jobs, $19 billion in investment and 10.5 GW of solar are lost due to tariffs​

December 3, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tariffs on imported solar cells and modules have led to the loss of more than 62,000 U.S. jobs and $19 billion in new private sector investment, according to a market impact analysis released today by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).


The analysis comes as the midterm review process for the tariffs begins at the U.S. International Trade Commission on Dec. 5, and covers tariff impacts from the beginning of the 2017 trade complaint by Suniva through the end of the tariff lifecycle in 2021.


“Solar was the first industry to be hit with this administration’s tariff policy, and now we’re feeling the impacts that we warned against two years ago,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “This stark data should be the predicate for removing harmful tariffs and allowing solar to fairly compete and continue creating jobs for Americans.”

In addition to its economic impact, tariffs on solar have caused 10.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar installations to be cancelled, enough to power 1.8 million homes and reduce 26 million metric tons of carbon emissions.


KEY FIGURES FROM THE ANALYSIS:

• Solar tariffs are costing the U.S. more than $10.5 million per day in unrealized economic activity
• Each new job created by the tariff results in 31 additional jobs lost, 5.3 megawatts of solar deployment lost and nearly $9.5 million of lost investment
• Reduced solar deployment figures will increase emissions equivalent to 5.5 million cars or 7 coal plants

Tariffs on solar are most harshly affecting nascent solar markets including Alabama,”¯Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas. These markets won’t be able to get off the ground because tariffs make solar uncompetitive.


The Section 201 solar tariffs began at 30% in 2018, and ramped down to 25% in 2019, 20% in 2020 and 15% in 2021.


Read the entire market impact analysis: www.seia.org/TariffImpacts

You're seriously going to pull up an article from 2019?

What a disingenuous reply on your part here.

It is a study of the impacts on tariffs on their industry, which are negative. This is far more useful than the spinet you posted which does not even address that question (it does, however, say positive things about other policies).

Time does not change the question of whether tariffs harm economic output, they do.

 

[FBG Moderator]

People are pushing this into PSF area with the snark back and forth.

Please stop so this thread can stay alive.

 

[foxco]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

This type of post is just fear mongering based on ridiculous extrapolations of speculative theories

I'll respectfully disagree and think this is a legit threat.

 

[FarFromHome]

A planet earth tariff standard would be nice. A flat tariff for everyone. We are like 140th in the world in tariff rate. That just doesn't seem fair with as much importing and exporting we do. Imo

Tariff Rates by Country 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Chaz McNulty]

A planet earth tariff standard would be nice. A flat tariff for everyone. We are like 140th in the world in tariff rate. That just doesn't seem fair with as much importing and exporting we do. Imo

Tariff Rates by Country 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

That article could be used as an anti-tariff advertisement. Look at the economies of the top 75 in the article.

 

[FarFromHome]

A planet earth tariff standard would be nice. A flat tariff for everyone. We are like 140th in the world in tariff rate. That just doesn't seem fair with as much importing and exporting we do. Imo

Tariff Rates by Country 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

That article could be used as an anti-tariff advertisement. Look at the economies of the top 75 in the article.

I thought the same thing. I'm not necessarily for or against tariffs at all. I just think they should be fair and not lopsided depending on the country. Imo

 

[Tau837]

Interesting... you think that the increased spending on European defense will reduce the available capital for VC? Not sure how that will work...

Would seem like increased European defense spending would tend to mean a higher supply of jobs for high-skilled immigrants worried about capricious changes in their legal status.

Portugal already cancelled their F-35 contract to seek a European alternative, right? There is a lot of pressure on Canada to cancel its purchase as well (beyond the 16 that are to be delivered next year).

The runner up for the contract, Swedish Saab Gripen offered to assemble the jets in Canada (Halifax) which would be a nice boost in terms of jobs given the current state of things but ultimately Canada went with F35's because they didn't want a mixed fleet and have had no issues for the past dozens of years with Lockheed Martin. Now there are questions of whether they should trust American software in Canadian fighter planes, for obvious reasons.

Of course, if they cancel the rest of the Lockheed Martin contract, there would be penalties for that AND a lot of Canadian companies are part of the supply chain for the F-35s, so they would be hurt by the cancellation - while also at the same time those companies are presumably going to be hit with tariffs on the parts they supply if the contract continues, so again, a lot to balance there.

Just an interesting large $$$ example of the calculus that's going back on forth right now in thousands of industries and supply chains from globally integrated economies that are beginning to disintegrate.

It would be more costly to have 16 F-35s and some other number of a "European alternative" platform... that means having to have support work forces who understand two platforms rather than one. They would be better off in the long run to cancel all F-35s and fully commit to the Euro alternative, or vice versa (i.e., stick with F-35).

 

[the moops]

A short history of tariffs, domestic mfg incentives and their impact on the growth of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

2017: - U.S. is 14th in global solar mfg market share at about 1GW capacity (<1% market share).

2018: - 30% tariffs are imposed on all imports of solar modules and panels ("Section 201" tariffs).

2021-2024: - Section 201 tariffs are extended and additional tariffs of 25-50% are placed on various solar mfg components (e.g. cells and raw materials). Additional domestic mfg incentives introduced (primarily tax credits).

2025: - Domestic U.S. solar panel mfg capacity currently stands at >50 GW (approx. 27 Hoover Dams), which is more than a 50x increase in U.S. mfg capacity in seven years. The U.S. is now the 3rd largest global solar module producer and has enough productive capacity to meet all current solar demand in the U.S.

2025-2033 - U.S. solar manufacturing jobs are expected to triple (SEIA). Several tax and other domestic U.S. mfg incentives expected to be introduced for companies that do not "outsource, offshore or replace American workers" (e.g. corporate tax rate reduced from 21% to 15% for domestic mfg cos, 100% bonus depreciation, etc).


Primary Source: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Do steel next.

Your turn

I don't think we will find too many arguments that tariffs are always bad all the time. A well thought out economic policy very well can include the use of tariffs. The haphazard nature of what is going on and the consistent flip flopping is probably very unlike what happened with the solar industry.

There has been an order of magnitude more haphazard approaches and flip-flopping affecting the solar industry over the past 25 years than what we are seeing with tariffs today.

I admit that I am a noob on this stuff and in general do not really follow tariffs of any kind. But I find this hard to believe. Were we having daily/weekly battles over unrelated things that lead to retaliatory solar tariffs?

 

[Stoneworker]

I don't think we will find too many arguments that tariffs are always bad all the time. A well thought out economic policy very well can include the use of tariffs. The haphazard nature of what is going on and the consistent flip flopping is probably very unlike what happened with the solar industry.

There has been an order of magnitude more haphazard approaches and flip-flopping affecting the solar industry over the past 25 years than what we are seeing with tariffs today.

I admit that I am a noob on this stuff and in general do not really follow tariffs of any kind. But I find this hard to believe. Were we having daily/weekly battles over unrelated things that lead to retaliatory solar tariffs?

I honestly don't understand your question.

The U.S. solar industry has been heavily policy-driven literally for decades. Both tariffs (since 2018) and tax credits (since 2019) are at risk of getting completely overhauled and/or flip-flopped every few years. Uncertainty is a way of life and yet the industry has still experienced exponential growth

Of course uncertainty in the economy is suboptimal. But nor is it a death knell to a degree that matches the current outrage.

IMO the vast majority of tariff uncertainty will be resolved well before the end of the summer. The stock and bond markets won't allow it to go any further

 

[the moops]

I honestly don't understand your question.

Did solar tariffs see daily or weekly flip flopping like we have seen in the past month? It seems that the current tariff, no tariff, tariff again, tariff because you insulted me, no tariff because you retaliated, etc seems to be completely new

 

[Max Power]

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity​

• March Madness could result in $20 billion in lost productivity for the U.S. economy. A recent survey showed the tournament could shave 2.4 hours of work per day per fan.
• The average worker loses $1,801.30 in productivity during the tournament, and 40% of fans have called in sick to watch games.
• Over 11 million workers are expected to spend significant time watching basketball during work hours, according to a survey by the Action Network.

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity

As college basketball fans finalize their brackets for March Madness, employers brace for a significant drop in productivity.

san.com

 

[Sand]

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity​

• March Madness could result in $20 billion in lost productivity for the U.S. economy. A recent survey showed the tournament could shave 2.4 hours of work per day per fan.
• The average worker loses $1,801.30 in productivity during the tournament, and 40% of fans have called in sick to watch games.
• Over 11 million workers are expected to spend significant time watching basketball during work hours, according to a survey by the Action Network.

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity

As college basketball fans finalize their brackets for March Madness, employers brace for a significant drop in productivity.

san.com

Worth it.

 

[Ridgeback]

Another long term economic concern is how some of our current, let’s say realities, will impact our ability to attract the best quality talent to train and work in our country. That probably won’t be felt right away but I’ve already ready seen some stories about EU and Canada making a push to market themselves as the top international destination for the world’s most skilled workers.

Seems hard to believe that we're going to throw away one of the biggest human capital advantages we have had as a nation but here we are.

They can market themselves all they want. I don't think that's reality, by any stretch. Europe isn't even in the same universe as far as birthing valuable companies that need this skilled labor. That isn't going to change, nor is the desire for human capital to be where the action is.

Exactly. At this point the US human capital advantage is institutionalized and embedded deeply throughout our systems. It would take significantly more than "current realities" to knock the US off its spot

It's already started, and at this rate, will happen sooner than you think.

 

[Max Power]

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity​

• March Madness could result in $20 billion in lost productivity for the U.S. economy. A recent survey showed the tournament could shave 2.4 hours of work per day per fan.
• The average worker loses $1,801.30 in productivity during the tournament, and 40% of fans have called in sick to watch games.
• Over 11 million workers are expected to spend significant time watching basketball during work hours, according to a survey by the Action Network.

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity

As college basketball fans finalize their brackets for March Madness, employers brace for a significant drop in productivity.

san.com

Worth it.

I like to consider it "team building". March Madness and the Olympics are the few times we get to put sports up on the big screen on our watch floor. Its a nice break from the News.

I've never called out of work to watch march madness though. That seems silly to me.

 

[SWC]

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity​

• March Madness could result in $20 billion in lost productivity for the U.S. economy. A recent survey showed the tournament could shave 2.4 hours of work per day per fan.
• The average worker loses $1,801.30 in productivity during the tournament, and 40% of fans have called in sick to watch games.
• Over 11 million workers are expected to spend significant time watching basketball during work hours, according to a survey by the Action Network.

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity

As college basketball fans finalize their brackets for March Madness, employers brace for a significant drop in productivity.

san.com

Worth it.

I like to consider it "team building". March Madness and the Olympics are the few times we get to put sports up on the big screen on our watch floor. Its a nice break from the News.

I've never called out of work to watch march madness though. That seems silly to me.

this is me 100 percent it is on but i keep working and it is nice to have it on and it makes the day go by super fast take that to the bank brohans

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I've never called out of work to watch march madness though. That seems silly to me.

I've never called out sick - but I have taken vacation days on opening Thursday/Friday before to watch the games all day and enjoy some beverages.

 

[Instinctive]

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity​

• March Madness could result in $20 billion in lost productivity for the U.S. economy. A recent survey showed the tournament could shave 2.4 hours of work per day per fan.
• The average worker loses $1,801.30 in productivity during the tournament, and 40% of fans have called in sick to watch games.
• Over 11 million workers are expected to spend significant time watching basketball during work hours, according to a survey by the Action Network.

March Madness costs US economy $20 billion in lost productivity

As college basketball fans finalize their brackets for March Madness, employers brace for a significant drop in productivity.

san.com

Worth it.

I think these studies are always silly because they assume everyone actually works the whole time every day to begin with. I think we wouldn't actually lose any productivity at a 30-hour work week, so the 2.4 hours is already mostly time wasting anyway if I had to bet.

 

[beer 30]

Can one of you smart economists types explain to me what back floating rate debt is in relation to private equity holdings like I'm @SWC, TIA

 

[culdeus]

Can one of you smart economists types explain to me what back floating rate debt is in relation to private equity holdings like I'm @SWC, TIA

PE needs to hit certain earnings to get their fees so they gamble on debt with floating rates vs a fixed rate not unlike people getting a fixed vs floating mortgage. They then capitalize this saving on interest if it floats right as profit they can 2&20 you on. Needless to say PE really really needs the interest rate environment to flip.

 

[beer 30]

Can one of you smart economists types explain to me what back floating rate debt is in relation to private equity holdings like I'm @SWC, TIA

PE needs to hit certain earnings to get their fees so they gamble on debt with floating rates vs a fixed rate not unlike people getting a fixed vs floating mortgage. They then capitalize this saving on interest if it floats right as profit they can 2&20 you on. Needless to say PE really really needs the interest rate environment to flip.

That helps, thanks. I was trying to understand this somewhat disjointed post on X was about. Makes more sense now, so $3.8 trillion of these loans sitting in PE is probably a bad thing with high interest rates right now, yea?

 

[MAC_32]

I've never called out of work to watch march madness though. That seems silly to me.

I've never called out sick - but I have taken vacation days on opening Thursday/Friday before to watch the games all day and enjoy some beverages.

Last year was the first year I've worked Thu / Fri afternoon of March Madness...possibly ever. Started a new job and vacation hadn't accrued yet. It has now, but most of our days have already been eaten up. That said, I scheduled an off site at noon Thu and am not returning to the office after- how the first 2 games are going will decide if I try to wrap us up ~2 or let it end organically. Then we'll see how Fri shakes out. Early slate's not interesting, but I want to at least see the 2nd half of Memphis / Colorado St. If the firewall's working, I may go to the joint around the corner.

 

[dkp993]

If the firewall's working, I may go to the joint around the corner.

I read this as “Fireball”. And the Fireball is always working. Cinnamon for the win.

 

[MTskibum]

I work for a fortune 500 company, big oil, and layoffs have been continuous this year. Every few weeks it is a different group going through the process.

My group has already gone through 2 rounds of layoffs, once a couple months ago and one last week. I have lost different coworkers in each round.

In a meeting this morning I was talking with a work-friend that i have been on various projects for close to a decade. Before the meeting started he told me his position has been eliminated and he is desperately trying to find a transfer. He is good at his job, so i hope they can make it work.

Layoffs suck.

 

[MAC_32]

If the firewall's working, I may go to the joint around the corner.

I read this as “Fireball”. And the Fireball is always working. Cinnamon for the win.

My acid reflux activated just reading this reply.

 

[Stoneworker]

Stagflation has entered the chat...

The Federal Reserve extended its wait-and-see posture on interest rates while marking up its forecasts for inflation and revising down its outlook for growth this year. - WSJ

 

[The Z Machine]

Stagflation has entered the chat...

The Federal Reserve extended its wait-and-see posture on interest rates while marking up its forecasts for inflation and revising down its outlook for growth this year. - WSJ

You say that like it's a bad thing...

 

[Stoneworker]

Stagflation has entered the chat...

The Federal Reserve extended its wait-and-see posture on interest rates while marking up its forecasts for inflation and revising down its outlook for growth this year. - WSJ

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Nah. Who wants low inflation and robust economic growth. That would be horrible

 

[culdeus]

Can one of you smart economists types explain to me what back floating rate debt is in relation to private equity holdings like I'm @SWC, TIA

PE needs to hit certain earnings to get their fees so they gamble on debt with floating rates vs a fixed rate not unlike people getting a fixed vs floating mortgage. They then capitalize this saving on interest if it floats right as profit they can 2&20 you on. Needless to say PE really really needs the interest rate environment to flip.

That helps, thanks. I was trying to understand this somewhat disjointed post on X was about. Makes more sense now, so $3.8 trillion of these loans sitting in PE is probably a bad thing with high interest rates right now, yea?

Loan rates had been lagging perhaps what they should be, plus they do tend to mess with off shore lending which is even worse now with currency markets going funky.

 

[Stoneworker]

Who wants low inflation and robust economic growth.

Approximately 48% of the country?

Is there nothing this forum can't turn into a blatantly political pot shot?

Oh, the irony.

This was my post. Please explain exactly how it is political and not an objective economic assessment from a reputable source.

"Stagflation has entered the chat...

The Federal Reserve extended its wait-and-see posture on interest rates while marking up its forecasts for inflation and revising down its outlook for growth this year. - WSJ"

 

[Stoneworker]

Who wants low inflation and robust economic growth.

Approximately 48% of the country?

Is there nothing this forum can't turn into a blatantly political pot shot?

Oh, the irony.

This was my post. Please explain exactly how it is political and not an objective economic assessment from a reputable source.

"Stagflation has entered the chat...

The Federal Reserve extended its wait-and-see posture on interest rates while marking up its forecasts for inflation and revising down its outlook for growth this year. - WSJ"

My comment was in regards to the pot shot comment. I know better than to get into it with the hall monitor. Carry on.

So then you've got nothing substantive to contribute about the actual economy or stagflation? Just looking to troll other posters?

 

[Nugget]

People are still buying houses. Easier if you are rich

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/20/february-home-resales-jump-more-than-expected-despite-mortgage-rates.html

Sales of previously owned homes in February rose 4.2% from January to 4.26 million units on a seasonally adjusted, annualized basis, according to the National Association of Realtors. Industry analysts had expected a drop of 3%.

Sales were 1.2% lower compared with February of last year.

This count is based on closings, so contracts signed in December and January, when mortgage rates were rising and briefly held in the 7% range on the 30-year fixed. Rates today are in the high 6% range.

“Home buyers are slowly entering the market,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, in a release. “Mortgage rates have not changed much, but more inventory and choices are releasing pent-up housing demand.”

Sales were only higher annually in the highest price categories, above $750,000. Sales around the median price were down 3% year over year.

 

[Sand]

People are still buying houses. Easier if you are rich

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/20/february-home-resales-jump-more-than-expected-despite-mortgage-rates.html

Sales of previously owned homes in February rose 4.2% from January to 4.26 million units on a seasonally adjusted, annualized basis, according to the National Association of Realtors. Industry analysts had expected a drop of 3%.

Sales were 1.2% lower compared with February of last year.

This count is based on closings, so contracts signed in December and January, when mortgage rates were rising and briefly held in the 7% range on the 30-year fixed. Rates today are in the high 6% range.

“Home buyers are slowly entering the market,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, in a release. “Mortgage rates have not changed much, but more inventory and choices are releasing pent-up housing demand.”

Sales were only higher annually in the highest price categories, above $750,000. Sales around the median price were down 3% year over year.

750k doesn't buy what it used to. (And everything is a bit easier when you're rich!)