Yup, this is what annoys me the most about most of the vinyl crowd. It really wouldn't bother me if most of 'em understood that their format was shit, but as a matter of personal preference they still preferred it. However, there's almost always this insistence that science is wrong, "vinyl is a superior audio reproduction medium!"
The primary reason it was popular in its heyday was that vinyl was easy and cheap to mass produce, making it an ideal high-profit format for distribution and sales of music. Even in its day, vinyl had worse fidelity than reel-to-reel tape.
They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.
Invest a fortune in infrastructure, and then attempt to gain market-share by undercutting the competition in a saturated market? Thing is, at some point you'll want to make your investment back, and a profit on top of that.
Why go through all that expense and trouble, when you can just sit back and start a nice easy cryptocoin ICO?
The are not cheap, but after going through several iterations of "home" routers, Linksys, Belkin, Netgear... you name it. Had to reboot them constantly, only some stuff would successfully connect. None of them were reliable.
A little over a year ago, I decided to set up a Kodi server, and put Amazon Fire Sticks (the 2nd gen ones) on each TV in my home. It was at that point I found out how deficient my shitty Netgear router was. I picked up an Airport Extreme on sale for about the same price as some of the higher-end Linksys models, and it completely solved all my video streaming problems. Damn thing is rock solid too, I never have to reboot it.
It's truly a shame Apple is exiting the WiFi router business. People who are quick to call it "overpriced" have clearly never used one.
by $20-$60 dollars in my area by imposing bandwidth caps
Yup, because all those people shouting "cut the cord!" from the rooftops somehow imagined that the big telco companies would just sit idly by, while their profits dropped. With less fools happily paying $100+/mo for 100s of channels of garbage, the costs of keeping the cable company in the black just gets passed on to the rest of us.
the current (Republican) administration isn't likely to regulate them for abusing their duopoly (yeah, there's one other provider, who's exactly as bad).
At least with the option of another broadband provider, you can take advantage of any "new customer" promotional rates by switching between them. My neighborhood is served by a single land-based broadband provider (Spectrum). They literally have no competition.
Yeah but just think what would happen, in less then a week progressives(aka regressives) would be screaming about how all those old shows are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
No business in their right mind gives a rat's ass about what bleeding heart SJWs whine about on Twitter. Social media is a toxic cesspool in general, and it's best to simply pretend it doesn't exist.
Netflix's selection sucks because they're blowing their wad on "original" content. When you just put shit on your streaming service and don't bother to get the proper licenses from the rights-holders, you get sued (see TFA).
To clarify, AT&T still offers Uverse, and Uverse = DSL according to the settings in AT&T's router.
I'm sure there are regional differences, but I can quite assure you that DSL is not available through AT&T here (they simply will not sell it to you, begging doesn't help). It is considered "legacy" service and you're only allowed to keep it if you're already grandfathered in. They previously branded their higher-speed replacement service as U-verse, it's now called "AT&T Internet". Regardless of whatever they're calling it this week, they have no intention of ever making available in my area.
In other words, that have simply conceded to Spectrum. If you want a different broadband provider, you have to move.
The S8+ has that crappy curved screen, rather than a flat screen.
Yup, far worse display sins are being committed in the smartphone realm. Curved glass which distorts the edges of the screen, rounded display corners (because screw perfect display geometry), aspect ratios pulled out of someone's ass, and those damn "notches".
I'm glad laptops have avoided falling victim to the "fashion industry" mentality of arbitrarily changing shit so it looks "new".
My neighborhood is served by Spectrum (Charter Communications). They have a whole one-and-a-half stars on Yelp. Their prices suck, and they send lots of junk mail, even if you're already a customer. Oh, they also frequently call you on your cell phone and attempt to up-sell you, too (even when you're on the do-not-call list, and have told them repeatedly you do not want marketing calls). Their broadband service is also prone to many random brief outages. Short of starting a cable channel where their executives murder kittens on live TV, I can't imagine their reputation sinking much lower.
We have no other choice of land-based high speed provider. AT&T no longer offers DSL, and they have no plans to ever offer U-Verse. The only other competing providers are cellular networks, which don't offer the kind of data allowance you'd need for a home internet connection. Spectrum literally has a monopoly over the markets they serve. If they decided tomorrow that Netflix is now an extra $5/mo, or online gaming is an extra $15/mo, the choices are "cough it up", or "do without."
AI means production and transportation costs for food, housing, clothing, electricity, goods, services, etc etc etc will fall drastically to the point where cost is almost meaningless.
Actually, we already have something today which could cost nearly nothing to produce: cryptocurrency. In fact, you can download Bitcoin's source code and modify it to spit out as many coins as you want (but you won't be able to spend them, since you'd have created a "fork"). The scarcity of Bitcoin is simply an agreed-upon constraint of everyone running the one-true-Bitcoin software.
I think it's far more likely we're in for a future similar to the depiction of Quark's in Star Trek DS9, where people were more than happy to pay for food and beverages, even if they came right out of a replicator.
A lot of welfare benefits evaporate the moment people accept (temporary) work, raising uncertainty while not immediately improving their situation.
If you let people work while receiving benefits (or worse, make the benefits contingent upon employment), you're essentially forcing the taxpayers to subsidize low-paying employers.
This shit flies in the USA, because we've got this collective mentality that if you're not successful, it's your own fault.
UBI is a much cleaner fix, if everyone gets $25k/year you don't need a minimum wage at all, Amazon can offer $5/hour
Ignoring what that would do to inflation and the impossible math of funding the scheme, if people were paid $25k/yr to sit on their ass, businesses (including Amazon) would have to offer some pretty decent salaries to attract workers.
I've yet to see anything resembling a workable implementation of UBI, but the idea of meeting the basic needs of some of the population without them having to work, would tip the supply-and-demand scales into a more favorable position for those who were willing to work (better choice of available jobs, and higher pay).
The catch is, businesses don't want that situation. They want the job applications to come piling in every time a menial, unskilled, entry-level position opens up. From the perspective of a business, cheap labor is a good thing.
Atleast amazon could pay for the food stamps and not society?
If you want the government to stop subsidizing shitty wages, then perhaps being unemployed should be a bona fide requirement to receive government benefits. Sure, you'd have a few lazy people who would rather suck at the government teat than get a job, but their laziness means more job openings and better pay for those who do want to work. Businesses still need workers.
This is the real reason why certain politicians like pushing for work requirements to receive benefits. Gotta keep that unskilled labor nice and cheap, by ensuring there's always huge pool of workers ready to fill those crappy low-paying jobs. Of course, it gets sold to the voters as "kicking the deadbeats off", which resonates well among the "God helps those who help themselves" contingent.
This is one of the main arguments for the left pushing "Fight for $15."
I lean pretty far left on the political spectrum, but this is one area where I agree with the right.
All you accomplish by raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is a huge jump in inflation. Minimum wage should more accurately be called the minimum cost of labor. You wouldn't be happy about the price of fuel going up, or groceries, or smartphones, so why would you be happy that the dollars in your wallet (or bank account) now have significantly less buying power in the form of human labor?
People making minimum wage would be the least affected by this change. They were making crap pay before, and they'd be making crap pay afterwards. For them, we'd have simply just redefined the number associated with crap pay.
For everyone else, they'd feel the typical effects of inflation.
If you let them get away with underpaying employees to increase their own wealth
If people are willing to take the jobs, then Amazon is paying what the market will bear. If Amazon couldn't fill their positions, they'd have to offer higher salaries.
The fact that Amazon is successful is irrelevant. As a business owner, you would not call up your suppliers and say "We've had a really great year, so go ahead and charge us extra for everything we order!" Labor costs work exactly the same way: you pay what the market will bear.
Don't get me wrong, people do need to earn a living, but cherry-picking a few successful businesses and giving them the stink-finger for not paying decent wages isn't the solution.
TFA is about businesses going cashless, not random folks selling stuff out of their front yard, or on Craigslist. Yes, cash is still king for small, person-to-person transactions.
it could be "maxed out" due to fraud or other issues.
I'd imagine most reputable banks will try to call if they suspect unusual activity on the card. I actually experienced this the first time I went on a business trip with a new AmEx card. My phone started ringing even before the waiter came back to tell me the card was declined. Told 'em the transaction was authorized, and told the waiter to go ahead and run it again.
I suppose without a cell phone that would've been a frustrating experience, but anyone living without a cell phone in an era devoid of payphones probably is used to being on the path of most resistance, by now.
Unless you're completely innumerate (unlikely in the Slashdot crowd), correct change is easy to verify.
Would you rather be in a checkout line of people who are going to tap their NFC card/cellphone against a reader, grab their receipt, and leave, or stand there and count their change? Start-to-finish, cash transactions just take longer. It may not inconvenience you, but it might be inconveniencing the people waiting on you.
so you get billed $20 more on your credit card statement than you intended to pay at the restaurant.
While I'm not discounting the possibility of that happening, I've personally never experienced it. I have, however, on numerous occasions been shortchanged by servers who weren't paying attention, when paying in cash. If I have the option, I'll use a restaurant's smartphone app to pay the check (which completes the total + tip purchase as a single transaction).
You also know exactly how much you're spending
I can log into my bank and know what I'm spending on my debit card. Unless I was keeping a ledger, cash just disappears and I'm left wondering what happened to it. It's far easier to look at my purchase history and think "Gee, perhaps I'm spending a bit too much on sushi", rather than look at my empty wallet and assume "High gas prices. Has to be. There's no way I eat that much sushi!"
when dinner is finished, you hand your card to the wait staff and it's denied ?
You run out of the restaurant as fast as you can. Then you get your broke ass to Walmart and buy a box of ramen, because your finances are seriously screwed if you're dining out with a maxed out credit card.
Except the data shows those "millennial hipsters" prefer paying in cash. I mean, it's right in the summary.
I would've assumed it would be aging Boomers and Gen-X'ers who would be clinging to their cash. It's so bizarre that the most digitally connected generation, is using the most archaic form of payment.
Though, I guess I can't be too shocked - I still get cashiers looking at me like I'm using voodoo magic when I use Apple pay.
I hate it when I get cash because I don't have an easy way to get rid of it.
You'd never know this was a technology site, with all the luddites bellyaching over the possibility of businesses not accepting greenbacks. Personally, I find the inverse far more frustrating: when a business will only accept payment in cash. Though, with the advent of Square and PayPal, a business which truly accepts only cash has become rare indeed.
Personally, I find cash to be too limiting. You can't spend it online, you have to manually track your purchases, you have to verify that you've been given correct change, it can be easily lost/stolen, and it offers no buyer protection. Unless you're tinfoil-hat-level paranoid about "big brother" tracking you, there's no good reason to use cash.
We are going to take pristine digital audio, convert to analog and THEN stamp it on lossy, low-capacity, hugely space inefficient, inconvenient, wearable, easily damaged, non-portable material? Yeesh.
If I've learned anything from ignoring Bitcoin back in the day, it's to never underestimate what people are willing to spend money on.
Why do people buy old cars when they make perfectly good new ones?
I like a good car analogy as much as the next guy, but this isn't one.
Listening to digital audio on vinyl isn't like driving a classic clunker, it's like detuning and beating the shit out of a modern vehicle because you feel giving it some "character" is an improvement. Most rational people would find that belief to be rather nutty.
Most music mastered in the last three decades (I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but I'll bet it's pretty close) ends up as digital at some point during the mastering stage. Once you've converted an audio signal to digital, any additional steps in the analog realm are just going to degrade the fidelity. Even if there was some mystical superiority to an analog audio storage medium (ignoring all the inherent flaws intrinsic to vinyl), the original digital source is still going to provide a more accurate reproduction.
If a new package A/C costs significantly more, wouldn't it shift the cost/benefit toward fixing the old one, instead of trashing it?
Most of the complete systems are still assembled in various places throughout North America. Whether Chinese-manufactured components are incorporated into the construction of new systems, or used to repair existing ones, the impact of a tariff will simply be an increase in costs straight across the board.
A lot of people see "Made in USA" on a product and assume every step from mining the raw materials to sending it out the factory door, took place on US soil.
TV - I don't watch enough to care whether it's 19" or 55".
The problem with the argument of "I don't need it, so no one else does either", is that someone in a 3rd world country taking a bath in a lake filled with pig shit could say the same thing about your having access to clean running water.
It's the same mentality that spawned "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." And when someone else gets to decide what your needs are, don't be too surprised if they think there's nothing wrong having you swim in pig shit.
If every Trump-voting flag-waving buy-American Walmart-shopper just stopped buying the low-priced chinese-made crap that Walmart flogs, we'd probably be orders-of-magnatude ahead of where we are now.
They probably will, when it becomes high-priced "Chinese-made crap".
Then they'll whine louder that the reason they can't afford anything anymore is because illegal immigrants are sucking up all the well paying jobs. It couldn't possibly be because glorious leader did a fuck.
Slashdot Mirror
They are true science deniers.
Yup, this is what annoys me the most about most of the vinyl crowd. It really wouldn't bother me if most of 'em understood that their format was shit, but as a matter of personal preference they still preferred it. However, there's almost always this insistence that science is wrong, "vinyl is a superior audio reproduction medium!"
The primary reason it was popular in its heyday was that vinyl was easy and cheap to mass produce, making it an ideal high-profit format for distribution and sales of music. Even in its day, vinyl had worse fidelity than reel-to-reel tape.
They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.
Invest a fortune in infrastructure, and then attempt to gain market-share by undercutting the competition in a saturated market? Thing is, at some point you'll want to make your investment back, and a profit on top of that.
Why go through all that expense and trouble, when you can just sit back and start a nice easy cryptocoin ICO?
The are not cheap, but after going through several iterations of "home" routers, Linksys, Belkin, Netgear... you name it. Had to reboot them constantly, only some stuff would successfully connect. None of them were reliable.
A little over a year ago, I decided to set up a Kodi server, and put Amazon Fire Sticks (the 2nd gen ones) on each TV in my home. It was at that point I found out how deficient my shitty Netgear router was. I picked up an Airport Extreme on sale for about the same price as some of the higher-end Linksys models, and it completely solved all my video streaming problems. Damn thing is rock solid too, I never have to reboot it.
It's truly a shame Apple is exiting the WiFi router business. People who are quick to call it "overpriced" have clearly never used one.
by $20-$60 dollars in my area by imposing bandwidth caps
Yup, because all those people shouting "cut the cord!" from the rooftops somehow imagined that the big telco companies would just sit idly by, while their profits dropped. With less fools happily paying $100+/mo for 100s of channels of garbage, the costs of keeping the cable company in the black just gets passed on to the rest of us.
the current (Republican) administration isn't likely to regulate them for abusing their duopoly (yeah, there's one other provider, who's exactly as bad).
At least with the option of another broadband provider, you can take advantage of any "new customer" promotional rates by switching between them. My neighborhood is served by a single land-based broadband provider (Spectrum). They literally have no competition.
Yeah but just think what would happen, in less then a week progressives(aka regressives) would be screaming about how all those old shows are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
No business in their right mind gives a rat's ass about what bleeding heart SJWs whine about on Twitter. Social media is a toxic cesspool in general, and it's best to simply pretend it doesn't exist.
Netflix's selection sucks because they're blowing their wad on "original" content. When you just put shit on your streaming service and don't bother to get the proper licenses from the rights-holders, you get sued (see TFA).
To clarify, AT&T still offers Uverse, and Uverse = DSL according to the settings in AT&T's router.
I'm sure there are regional differences, but I can quite assure you that DSL is not available through AT&T here (they simply will not sell it to you, begging doesn't help). It is considered "legacy" service and you're only allowed to keep it if you're already grandfathered in. They previously branded their higher-speed replacement service as U-verse, it's now called "AT&T Internet". Regardless of whatever they're calling it this week, they have no intention of ever making available in my area.
In other words, that have simply conceded to Spectrum. If you want a different broadband provider, you have to move.
The S8+ has that crappy curved screen, rather than a flat screen.
Yup, far worse display sins are being committed in the smartphone realm. Curved glass which distorts the edges of the screen, rounded display corners (because screw perfect display geometry), aspect ratios pulled out of someone's ass, and those damn "notches".
I'm glad laptops have avoided falling victim to the "fashion industry" mentality of arbitrarily changing shit so it looks "new".
My neighborhood is served by Spectrum (Charter Communications). They have a whole one-and-a-half stars on Yelp. Their prices suck, and they send lots of junk mail, even if you're already a customer. Oh, they also frequently call you on your cell phone and attempt to up-sell you, too (even when you're on the do-not-call list, and have told them repeatedly you do not want marketing calls). Their broadband service is also prone to many random brief outages. Short of starting a cable channel where their executives murder kittens on live TV, I can't imagine their reputation sinking much lower.
We have no other choice of land-based high speed provider. AT&T no longer offers DSL, and they have no plans to ever offer U-Verse. The only other competing providers are cellular networks, which don't offer the kind of data allowance you'd need for a home internet connection. Spectrum literally has a monopoly over the markets they serve. If they decided tomorrow that Netflix is now an extra $5/mo, or online gaming is an extra $15/mo, the choices are "cough it up", or "do without."
AI means production and transportation costs for food, housing, clothing, electricity, goods, services, etc etc etc will fall drastically to the point where cost is almost meaningless.
Actually, we already have something today which could cost nearly nothing to produce: cryptocurrency. In fact, you can download Bitcoin's source code and modify it to spit out as many coins as you want (but you won't be able to spend them, since you'd have created a "fork"). The scarcity of Bitcoin is simply an agreed-upon constraint of everyone running the one-true-Bitcoin software.
I think it's far more likely we're in for a future similar to the depiction of Quark's in Star Trek DS9, where people were more than happy to pay for food and beverages, even if they came right out of a replicator.
A lot of welfare benefits evaporate the moment people accept (temporary) work, raising uncertainty while not immediately improving their situation.
If you let people work while receiving benefits (or worse, make the benefits contingent upon employment), you're essentially forcing the taxpayers to subsidize low-paying employers.
This shit flies in the USA, because we've got this collective mentality that if you're not successful, it's your own fault.
UBI is a much cleaner fix, if everyone gets $25k/year you don't need a minimum wage at all, Amazon can offer $5/hour
Ignoring what that would do to inflation and the impossible math of funding the scheme, if people were paid $25k/yr to sit on their ass, businesses (including Amazon) would have to offer some pretty decent salaries to attract workers.
I've yet to see anything resembling a workable implementation of UBI, but the idea of meeting the basic needs of some of the population without them having to work, would tip the supply-and-demand scales into a more favorable position for those who were willing to work (better choice of available jobs, and higher pay).
The catch is, businesses don't want that situation. They want the job applications to come piling in every time a menial, unskilled, entry-level position opens up. From the perspective of a business, cheap labor is a good thing.
Atleast amazon could pay for the food stamps and not society?
If you want the government to stop subsidizing shitty wages, then perhaps being unemployed should be a bona fide requirement to receive government benefits. Sure, you'd have a few lazy people who would rather suck at the government teat than get a job, but their laziness means more job openings and better pay for those who do want to work. Businesses still need workers.
This is the real reason why certain politicians like pushing for work requirements to receive benefits. Gotta keep that unskilled labor nice and cheap, by ensuring there's always huge pool of workers ready to fill those crappy low-paying jobs. Of course, it gets sold to the voters as "kicking the deadbeats off", which resonates well among the "God helps those who help themselves" contingent.
This is one of the main arguments for the left pushing "Fight for $15."
I lean pretty far left on the political spectrum, but this is one area where I agree with the right.
All you accomplish by raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is a huge jump in inflation. Minimum wage should more accurately be called the minimum cost of labor. You wouldn't be happy about the price of fuel going up, or groceries, or smartphones, so why would you be happy that the dollars in your wallet (or bank account) now have significantly less buying power in the form of human labor?
People making minimum wage would be the least affected by this change. They were making crap pay before, and they'd be making crap pay afterwards. For them, we'd have simply just redefined the number associated with crap pay.
For everyone else, they'd feel the typical effects of inflation.
If you let them get away with underpaying employees to increase their own wealth
If people are willing to take the jobs, then Amazon is paying what the market will bear. If Amazon couldn't fill their positions, they'd have to offer higher salaries.
The fact that Amazon is successful is irrelevant. As a business owner, you would not call up your suppliers and say "We've had a really great year, so go ahead and charge us extra for everything we order!" Labor costs work exactly the same way: you pay what the market will bear.
Don't get me wrong, people do need to earn a living, but cherry-picking a few successful businesses and giving them the stink-finger for not paying decent wages isn't the solution.
Do you visit a lot of yard sales or garage sales?
TFA is about businesses going cashless, not random folks selling stuff out of their front yard, or on Craigslist. Yes, cash is still king for small, person-to-person transactions.
it could be "maxed out" due to fraud or other issues.
I'd imagine most reputable banks will try to call if they suspect unusual activity on the card. I actually experienced this the first time I went on a business trip with a new AmEx card. My phone started ringing even before the waiter came back to tell me the card was declined. Told 'em the transaction was authorized, and told the waiter to go ahead and run it again.
I suppose without a cell phone that would've been a frustrating experience, but anyone living without a cell phone in an era devoid of payphones probably is used to being on the path of most resistance, by now.
Unless you're completely innumerate (unlikely in the Slashdot crowd), correct change is easy to verify.
Would you rather be in a checkout line of people who are going to tap their NFC card/cellphone against a reader, grab their receipt, and leave, or stand there and count their change? Start-to-finish, cash transactions just take longer. It may not inconvenience you, but it might be inconveniencing the people waiting on you.
so you get billed $20 more on your credit card statement than you intended to pay at the restaurant.
While I'm not discounting the possibility of that happening, I've personally never experienced it. I have, however, on numerous occasions been shortchanged by servers who weren't paying attention, when paying in cash. If I have the option, I'll use a restaurant's smartphone app to pay the check (which completes the total + tip purchase as a single transaction).
You also know exactly how much you're spending
I can log into my bank and know what I'm spending on my debit card. Unless I was keeping a ledger, cash just disappears and I'm left wondering what happened to it. It's far easier to look at my purchase history and think "Gee, perhaps I'm spending a bit too much on sushi", rather than look at my empty wallet and assume "High gas prices. Has to be. There's no way I eat that much sushi!"
when dinner is finished, you hand your card to the wait staff and it's denied ?
You run out of the restaurant as fast as you can. Then you get your broke ass to Walmart and buy a box of ramen, because your finances are seriously screwed if you're dining out with a maxed out credit card.
Except the data shows those "millennial hipsters" prefer paying in cash. I mean, it's right in the summary.
I would've assumed it would be aging Boomers and Gen-X'ers who would be clinging to their cash. It's so bizarre that the most digitally connected generation, is using the most archaic form of payment.
Though, I guess I can't be too shocked - I still get cashiers looking at me like I'm using voodoo magic when I use Apple pay.
I hate it when I get cash because I don't have an easy way to get rid of it.
You'd never know this was a technology site, with all the luddites bellyaching over the possibility of businesses not accepting greenbacks. Personally, I find the inverse far more frustrating: when a business will only accept payment in cash. Though, with the advent of Square and PayPal, a business which truly accepts only cash has become rare indeed.
Personally, I find cash to be too limiting. You can't spend it online, you have to manually track your purchases, you have to verify that you've been given correct change, it can be easily lost/stolen, and it offers no buyer protection. Unless you're tinfoil-hat-level paranoid about "big brother" tracking you, there's no good reason to use cash.
We are going to take pristine digital audio, convert to analog and THEN stamp it on lossy, low-capacity, hugely space inefficient, inconvenient, wearable, easily damaged, non-portable material? Yeesh.
If I've learned anything from ignoring Bitcoin back in the day, it's to never underestimate what people are willing to spend money on.
Why do people buy old cars when they make perfectly good new ones?
I like a good car analogy as much as the next guy, but this isn't one.
Listening to digital audio on vinyl isn't like driving a classic clunker, it's like detuning and beating the shit out of a modern vehicle because you feel giving it some "character" is an improvement. Most rational people would find that belief to be rather nutty.
Most music mastered in the last three decades (I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but I'll bet it's pretty close) ends up as digital at some point during the mastering stage. Once you've converted an audio signal to digital, any additional steps in the analog realm are just going to degrade the fidelity. Even if there was some mystical superiority to an analog audio storage medium (ignoring all the inherent flaws intrinsic to vinyl), the original digital source is still going to provide a more accurate reproduction.
If a new package A/C costs significantly more, wouldn't it shift the cost/benefit toward fixing the old one, instead of trashing it?
Most of the complete systems are still assembled in various places throughout North America. Whether Chinese-manufactured components are incorporated into the construction of new systems, or used to repair existing ones, the impact of a tariff will simply be an increase in costs straight across the board.
A lot of people see "Made in USA" on a product and assume every step from mining the raw materials to sending it out the factory door, took place on US soil.
TV - I don't watch enough to care whether it's 19" or 55".
The problem with the argument of "I don't need it, so no one else does either", is that someone in a 3rd world country taking a bath in a lake filled with pig shit could say the same thing about your having access to clean running water.
It's the same mentality that spawned "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." And when someone else gets to decide what your needs are, don't be too surprised if they think there's nothing wrong having you swim in pig shit.
If every Trump-voting flag-waving buy-American Walmart-shopper just stopped buying the low-priced chinese-made crap that Walmart flogs, we'd probably be orders-of-magnatude ahead of where we are now.
They probably will, when it becomes high-priced "Chinese-made crap".
Then they'll whine louder that the reason they can't afford anything anymore is because illegal immigrants are sucking up all the well paying jobs. It couldn't possibly be because glorious leader did a fuck.