[HN Gopher] The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket nea...
___________________________________________________________________
The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your
waistline (2019)
Author : thetopher
Score : 107 points
Date : 2024-09-19 16:12 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.marketplace.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.marketplace.org)
| kube-system wrote:
| Even better is the shoes (like chucks) that have fuzzy soles to
| be classified as slippers.
| nosrepa wrote:
| Or how about the seats in Ford's transit vans?
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-p...
| Detrytus wrote:
| We had a scam in Poland decades ago, where companies could
| buy a station wagon with this metal grating between rear
| seats and the trunk [0], which was enough to classify the
| whole vehicle as a truck, which gave you tax breaks not
| available for passenger vehicles.
|
| [0] https://ocdn.eu/pulscms-
| transforms/1/QCvk9kpTURBXy83N2RiNjQ1...
| ahoka wrote:
| Wait until you hear about the cars in Sweden that are
| "converted" to tractors so children can drive them without
| a license.
| criddell wrote:
| I've never understood why that works. They clearly aren't
| slippers. They aren't sold as slippers. Nobody looks at them
| and says "nice slippers". Chuck Taylor importing their shoes as
| slippers feels fraudulent.
| toast0 wrote:
| The tarrif document defines slippers and having fuzzy soles
| meets the definition.
|
| Saves a bunch of money, so I'm not sure why any (imported)
| shoes are sold without fuzzy soles.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Tariff law doesn't just look at the label on the box.
| Otherwise there would be bigger problems.
| imp0cat wrote:
| Wow, I had no idea! That is kinda clever and horrible at the
| same time.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aUnF80WY8R8
| xnx wrote:
| > certain women's garments with "pockets below the waist" get
| lower duty rates than those without. Because of that, a number of
| the women's shirts Columbia Sportswear makes are intentionally
| designed with tiny pockets near the waistline, which lowers the
| cost of importing them.
| nicbou wrote:
| Thank you
| justusthane wrote:
| Of course the circumvention of the "chicken tax" is probably the
| most well-known example of tariff engineering:
|
| > Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect
| models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear
| seats, and rear seat belts. The vehicles are exported from Turkey
| on ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrive in
| Baltimore, and are converted back into light trucks at WWL's
| Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. facility by replacing rear
| windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seat
| belts. The removed parts are not shipped back to Turkey for
| reuse, but shredded and recycled in Ohio. The process exploits
| the loophole in the customs definition of a light truck; as cargo
| does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, presence of
| those items automatically qualifies the vehicle as a "passenger
| vehicle" and exempts the vehicle from "light truck" status. The
| process costs Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but saves
| thousands in taxes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimated
| that between 2002 and 2018 the practice saved Ford $250 million
| in tariffs.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax#Circumventing_the_...
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| There was a Radiolab story fight about dolls vs toys
|
| https://radiolab.org/podcast/177199-mutant-rights
|
| Little blurb ...who noticed something
| interesting while looking at a book of tariff classifications.
| "Dolls," which represent human beings, are taxed at almost
| twice the rate of "toys," which represent something not human -
| such as robots, monsters, or demons. As soon as they read that,
| Sherry and Indie saw dollar signs. it just so happened that one
| of their clients, Marvel Comics, was importing its action
| figures as dolls. ... So Sherry and Indie went down
| to the customs office with a bag of XMEN action figures to
| convince the US government that these mutants are NOT human.
| throwup238 wrote:
| As if Marvel canon wasn't confusing enough already, now
| customs is involved? Sheesh.
|
| Are we going to get a Troy Miller origin story? Bit by an
| improperly declared radioactive package, he dedicated his
| life to defending our borders from the Guild of Calamitous
| Import.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Life Contradicts Art?
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| That was mentioned in the show. X-men is all about wanting
| to be accepted as equal human beings and now the creators
| are going to classify them as non human to save a buck.
| radpanda wrote:
| I'd also note that Ford's attempt to dodge the tariff here
| wasn't successful. The US DOJ sued and Ford coughed up $365
| million to settle the lawsuit:
| https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2024/03/11/ford-...
| uberman wrote:
| See also "The Subaru Brat"
| https://www.wired.com/2014/12/subaru-brat/
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I'm going to start compiling a list of stories to reply with
| when people say "environmental activists are too
| preachy/emotional about their work" and the Ford motor company
| manufacturing seats, seat belts, and windows, shipping them in
| vans to get out of a few thousand dollars in taxes per vehicle,
| and then shredding those things without them seeing a single
| ass in their entire existence after removing them from the
| vehicles for "recycling" is a great first item.
|
| This legit made me ill and the people responsible for it, the
| people who permitted it, and the executives who oversaw it
| should all be in prison.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yes me too. It's the first thing I thought of. The "and
| recycled" part is clearly an afterthought/greenwashing of
| this horrible practice. It's important to realise too that
| even when fully recycling a product) and it's very doubtful
| to be the case here) its definitely not zero impact on the
| environment.
|
| These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion kits,
| even put into other new cars.
|
| I think this behaviour should be criminalised and I'm not
| taking about the tax evasion.
| jordanb wrote:
| It's also an indictment of our legal and regulatory system
| that allows this interpretation to go forward (no doubt on
| the advice of very expensive lawyers and lobbyists hired by
| Ford).
|
| People may disagree on if the truck tariff is good policy
| nor not. But allowing Ford to go through with this weird
| kabuki dance pageant of waste when it's blatantly clear
| that their _intent_ is to import a truck is absurd and
| corrupt.
| alwa wrote:
| As a sibling comment points out, the American legal and
| regulatory system in fact did not allow this
| interpretation. It came down rather heavily on Ford for
| trying to pull this:
|
| https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2024/03/11/fo
| rd-...
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion
| kits, even put into other new cars.
|
| Or even just shipped the fuck back to the factory! Like
| good god. If you're gonna have like a thousand seat and
| window combos that just get shipped back and forth between
| these factories, that's still wasteful, but I dunno, maybe
| it's purely an emotional point, but the fact that they're
| manufactured, fitted, shipped, and destroyed just hits so
| much harder.
|
| Doing this as a dodge this way would be shitty, but at
| least make an ounce of sense. Doing it the way they
| actually did, just making and destroying who knows how many
| products for literally no reason apart from skating by
| customs is fucking OBSCENE to me.
|
| Edit: A sibling comment here pointed out the FTC "came down
| hard" on Ford, which some quick back of napkin math
| translates to roughly 20% of their Q2 2023 profits to
| account for ten years of this tom-fuckery, covering
| hundreds of thousands of vans which doubtlessly contained
| hundreds of thousands if not millions of parts that never
| served a day of use and were sent to landfill, oh sorry
| "recycled," by Ford's partner in Ohio. Granted, more than
| most corporate fines I've done that kind of math for, but
| also incredible ROI on the part of Ford motor company.
| Meanwhile mother nature takes another for the team.
|
| I feel sick.
|
| Edit to edit: I maintain that as long as the "penalties"
| for this kind of horseshit are fines that go to the company
| and no further, we will never make an ounce of progress on
| this. I challenge anyone who feels inclined to take it on
| to explain to me why every Ford executive that oversaw the
| company while it was doing this should not be personally
| financially liable for it, in addition to the company
| itself paying fines. There is no fucking way Ford motor
| manufactured, shipped, and destroyed millions of van seats
| and windows without the executives knowing about it.
| flyingpenguin wrote:
| If it makes you feel better, there is a miniscule that the
| people responsible for it, the people who permitted it, and
| the executives who oversaw it could possibly go to prison for
| not doing it. fiduciary duty baby!
| jameslk wrote:
| > This legit made me ill and the people responsible for it,
| the people who permitted it, and the executives who oversaw
| it should all be in prison.
|
| In prison for what crime? Perhaps feel sick about those
| writing the laws, instead of those who are following them?
| supportengineer wrote:
| Wasting non-renewable resources.
| Suppafly wrote:
| It's also why converse shoes have a little fuzzy later of
| material on the bottom, they import them as slippers instead of
| shoes.
| somat wrote:
| I that what that is. It confused me, I thought it was some
| strange misguided variant of the felt sole wading boot. when
| I first saw it.
|
| https://thewadingkit.com/felt-sole-wading-boots/
| raldi wrote:
| Does anyone have a picture of the pocket? The item linked from
| the article no longer exists.
| edm0nd wrote:
| I looked as well. There is a "Women's PFG Tamiami(tm) II Short
| Sleeve Shirt"
|
| https://www.columbia.com/p/womens-pfg-tamiami-ii-short-sleev...
|
| which has two small pockets on the side but it seems above the
| waist.
|
| they describe them as "Two zip pockets on the side seams secure
| small items like keys, hair ties, and lip balm."
|
| I think the original line mentioned in OP is completely gone
| and now we are on the Tamiami II style atm.
| raldi wrote:
| I think the waist is defined as the narrowest part of the
| garment
| edm0nd wrote:
| ah that would make sense then!
| quasse wrote:
| I work in a different industry (but still manufacturing) and it's
| mind boggling how much brain power and employee time is devoted
| to "correctly" interacting with the customs and importing system.
| I wouldn't be surprised if 30% to 40% of the total man hours at
| some companies are spent directly or indirectly related to the
| HTS system. This includes products built in North America - you
| still need to do a huge amount of accounting to show that you're
| meeting [one of the] the definition[s] of substantial
| transformation.
|
| I can't really frame this as a global criticism either, the
| system has clearly evolved around the fact that importers of
| cheap overseas goods are constantly trying to game the rules to
| pay lower tariffs than competitors (see Ford with the Transit
| Connect).
|
| The most frustrating part is political, and two parts:
|
| * US politics have destabilized so much in the last decade that
| the rules are constantly changing, exceptions being granted and
| taken away, etc. This has dramatically increased the amount of
| brain share devoted to tariff engineering rather than product
| engineering.
|
| * The tariff exclusion process (especially the recent Section 301
| tariffs) is heavily lobbyist based. Small players are basically
| crushed while larger competitors are granted exclusions.
| worik wrote:
| > US politics have destabilized so much in the last decade that
| the rules are constantly changing
|
| Multiplying, too
| LaffertyDev wrote:
| I worked on my first (and my company's first) hardware product
| and the HTS regulations were absolutely eye opening. I lived my
| entire life without knowing about it until I had to actually
| deal with import/export of a product. It is mind numbing
| dealing with it. Correctly discovering, interpreting,
| understanding, categorizing, and conforming with the worldwide
| process is its own form of career specialization (and hell). No
| thank you, never again.
| tomcam wrote:
| A bit related: In the early aughts we bought a Porsche 911, which
| had a ridiculously tiny back seat. According to the dealer, it
| existed because two-seaters were considered sports cars and were
| therefore costlier to ensure.
|
| Worked out perfectly for us because our children were young, we
| lived at the beach, and driving them to school on the freeway was
| an absolute blast.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I highly doubt actuaries are dumb enough to allow this
| arbitrage at the insurance company's expense.
| worik wrote:
| > I highly doubt actuaries are dumb enough...
|
| Sweetly naive
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Remember that there are also insurance regulators that must
| be satisfied. It might not be worth fighting them on
| something like this.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That makes it even more suspect. Regulators are
| incentivized to ensure prices are proportional to the risk.
| They would have nothing to gain by asking insurers to have
| all other drivers subsidize sports car drivers just because
| it has more than 2 seats (if that is even a true scenario).
| kube-system wrote:
| That sounds like some sort of urban legend that originates from
| people repeating what other people think they know about how
| insurance works... like the long debunked "red cars cost more
| to insure".
|
| It really doesn't pass the sniff test, because insurers don't
| need to know how many seats a car has to determine whether or
| not a vehicle is a sports car. The make and model is sufficient
| to determine this. Insurers already have a list of all known
| mass produced vehicles and their attributes.
|
| Also, most insurers don't rate "sports cars" as more expensive
| than other cars, outright, because sports cars are not overall
| actually riskier to insure than non-sports cars. The risk of
| the driver matters quite a bit more than the car. If you look
| at IIHS loss data, you'll find that cheap vehicles marketed to
| subprime markets often have higher liability loss rates than
| untrendy sports cars marketed to old men.
|
| e.g. Late model Porsche 911s and Corvettes have long topped the
| _least_ risky in terms of property damage liability according
| to IIHS data. Why? My guess is that the only people buying
| these vehicles new are rich old dudes who drive them carefully
| on Sundays and pay attention while doing so. But despite also
| being a similarly powerful car, the Dodge Charger Hellcat is
| one of the _most_ risky. But it appeals to a very different
| crowd.
| tomcam wrote:
| Thanks for the treatise. Love the research and I agree with
| your very close reasoning.
|
| In my defense, I attributed it to the dealer instead of
| stating it as undisputed fact because it has always sounded a
| little funky to me. On the other hand, the seat is so small
| there isn't any obvious reason for its existence.
|
| The subject was interesting to me but not interesting enough
| to pursue it much further because I was going to get the car
| anyway.
| deepfriedchokes wrote:
| This is stupid. The law shouldn't be written in such a way that
| companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be written
| in such a way that is so invasive to normal business operations.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > This is stupid. The law shouldn't be written in such a way
| that companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be
| written in such a way that is so invasive to normal business
| operations.
|
| Note that the article discusses that these are not loopholes in
| the sense of weird unexpected hacks, but that the original
| exceptions were intentionally written in response to lobbying
| by manufacturers betting that they can offset their lobbying
| costs by the associated reduction in tariffs.
|
| Orthogonally, though, even if these were loopholes that
| manufacturers were wriggling through against lawmakers'
| intentions, then (1) I think that there is no such thing as a
| law that is written so that it has literally no loopholes--even
| to make the claim, you'd have to define what a "loophole" is,
| which would probably require first require a precise definition
| of what the intent of the law is, at which point that would be
| the law and any work-arounds would be not loopholes, by
| definition--and (2) more or less because of (1), these things
| are still enforced by humans; as redpanda notes
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41594968), one of Ford's
| attempts at such skulduggery was successfully stopped by a DOJ
| lawsuit.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| yup, my first reaction was "who lobbied to get their products
| excluded from the tariffs"
| samuelg123 wrote:
| Reminds me of the "Blues Smoke Detector" on Nathan For You:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nhn5n3eyhY
| eagerpace wrote:
| This is the kind of stuff that goes on for decades without anyone
| batting an eye at it. I welcome the Department of Government
| Efficiency if it can read an article like this and take action on
| it to generate revenue that was accounted for in revenue
| projections and forgotten about when it came time to collect.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-19 23:01 UTC)