A business owner tested if customers would pay more for American-made. The results were 'sobering.'
As a small business owner, Ramon van Meer said he's used to hearing people say they'd be willing to pay more for products made in America.
When President Donald Trump ratcheted up tariffs on Chinese imports by an additional 145%, van Meer decided to see if shoppers would put their money where their mouth is.
"I wanted to know the answer and then use it for my own company," the Afina founder told Business Insider.
So the serial entrepreneur set about finding US suppliers to make his best-selling product: a specialized filtered shower head.
Van Meer said his filters are made in the US, some additional materials are sourced in Vietnam, and the final product is made in China with a single supplier.
To move everything over to the US, he said he had to find four to six separate suppliers who would handle various aspects of the production process. All told, he found it would cost three times as much to produce — more than the cost of simply paying the tariff.
Armed with real numbers, he set out to do a test with two identical products, with the only difference being their origin and, critically, their price: visitors to Afina's website were presented with the option of a Chinese-made item for $129 or a US-made version for $239.
"I'm big on just testing it out with real data and real purchases," van Meer said. "Not asking customers, not a survey, not even add-to-carts."
"When somebody has to pay for it, that's the actual real data," he added.
After several days and more than 25,000 visitors, he said he sold 584 of the lower-priced shower heads and not one single purchase of a US-made version.
In a blog post that went viral, van Meer called the results "sobering."
"We wanted to believe customers would back American labor with their dollars. But when faced with a real decision — not a survey or a comment section — they didn't," he wrote.
Nowadays van Meer said he's spending most of his time trying to shift production out of China to a country with a lower tariff rate.
"Staying in China is not sustainable because even if they make a deal, we don't know what's going to happen," he said. "The United States is also not an option, because there's just no facilities that can make it."
Van Meer said Afina currently has enough inventory in its US warehouses to last until August, at which point he would have to start charging for the tariff.
Asked whether he would roll that cost into the price or apply a surcharge, as other businesses have said they would do, van Meer said he hadn't yet decided.
"We'll probably do testing," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Lowest-paying jobs in Miami
Uncertainty clouds the current job market. On one hand, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports unemployment rates at 4.2% as of May 2025-and that hasn't changed much in the past year, a typical indicator of a positive economy. At the same time, average weekly earnings have increased by 3.9% over the 12 months ending May 2025 to reach $1,243.03. However, the American economy may soon shift. The Trump administration's federal budget cuts have eliminated tens of thousands of jobs, and constant changes in import tariffs leave companies unable to plan for their future employment needs. With these factors in mind, minimum or low-wage jobs are increasingly unsustainable for most. In 2025, a full-time job at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour puts a worker under the poverty threshold, according to the Economic Policy Institute. While states can opt to have higher minimum wages, 20 states are at or below the federal minimum as of 2025. Salaries can also vary by gender, race, and educational attainment. According to a March 2025 report from the Pew Research Center, women's earnings are about 85% of men's, and women also remain overrepresented in low-paying jobs. Meanwhile, April 2025 BLS data shows that Hispanic workers' median earnings lag behind those of other race and ethnicity groups, and full-time workers without a high school diploma earned the least compared to their more educated counterparts. It's important to note, though, that low pay doesn't always equal low job satisfaction. Some people feel drawn to a particular field, seek a certain work environment, or aim for work-life balance. No matter the reason, Stacker used BLS data to find the 50 lowest-paying jobs in Miami. Jobs are ranked by their median annual pay as of May 2024, so any jobs without annual compensation figures available were excluded from this analysis. - Median annual wage: $34,310 - Median hourly wage: $16.49 - Total employment: 360 people (0.13 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $34,160 - Median hourly wage: $16.42 - Total employment: 7,000 people (2.52 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,900 - Median hourly wage: $16.30 - Total employment: 80 people (0.03 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,840 - Median hourly wage: $16.27 - Total employment: 310 people (0.11 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,830 - Median hourly wage: $16.27 - Total employment: 50 people (0.02 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,620 - Median hourly wage: $16.17 - Total employment: 5,050 people (1.81 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,210 - Median hourly wage: $15.97 - Total employment: 19,840 people (7.13 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,130 - Median hourly wage: $15.93 - Total employment: 4,770 people (1.71 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $33,000 - Median hourly wage: $15.87 - Total employment: 110 people (0.04 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $32,820 - Median hourly wage: $15.78 - Total employment: 90,630 people (32.57 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $32,570 - Median hourly wage: $15.66 - Total employment: 270 people (0.1 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $32,560 - Median hourly wage: $15.65 - Total employment: 2,960 people (1.06 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $32,370 - Median hourly wage: $15.56 - Total employment: 680 people (0.24 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $32,200 - Median hourly wage: $15.48 - Total employment: 26,760 people (9.62 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $32,190 - Median hourly wage: $15.48 - Total employment: 1,440 people (0.52 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $31,900 - Median hourly wage: $15.34 - Total employment: 80 people (0.03 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $31,810 - Median hourly wage: $15.30 - Total employment: 6,620 people (2.38 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $31,510 - Median hourly wage: $15.15 - Total employment: 4,980 people (1.79 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $31,020 - Median hourly wage: $14.91 - Total employment: 4,410 people (1.58 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,860 - Median hourly wage: Not available - Total employment: 12,330 people (4.43 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,790 - Median hourly wage: $14.80 - Total employment: 1,240 people (0.44 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,560 - Median hourly wage: $14.69 - Total employment: 39,440 people (14.18 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,430 - Median hourly wage: $14.63 - Total employment: 360 people (0.13 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,270 - Median hourly wage: $14.55 - Total employment: 11,970 people (4.3 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,260 - Median hourly wage: $14.55 - Total employment: 800 people (0.29 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,200 - Median hourly wage: $14.52 - Total employment: 5,630 people (2.02 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $30,090 - Median hourly wage: $14.46 - Total employment: 3,740 people (1.34 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,590 - Median hourly wage: $14.23 - Total employment: 7,510 people (2.7 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,510 - Median hourly wage: $14.19 - Total employment: 56,790 people (20.41 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,510 - Median hourly wage: $14.19 - Total employment: 13,640 people (4.9 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,450 - Median hourly wage: $14.16 - Total employment: 860 people (0.31 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,330 - Median hourly wage: $14.10 - Total employment: 7,180 people (2.58 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,290 - Median hourly wage: $14.08 - Total employment: 2,090 people (0.75 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,280 - Median hourly wage: $14.08 - Total employment: 55,460 people (19.93 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,260 - Median hourly wage: $14.07 - Total employment: 2,650 people (0.95 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $29,210 - Median hourly wage: $14.04 - Total employment: 160 people (0.06 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $28,870 - Median hourly wage: $13.88 - Total employment: 12,510 people (4.5 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $28,710 - Median hourly wage: $13.80 - Total employment: 57,590 people (20.7 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $28,540 - Median hourly wage: $13.72 - Total employment: 3,370 people (1.21 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $28,080 - Median hourly wage: $13.50 - Total employment: 100 people (0.04 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $27,870 - Median hourly wage: $13.40 - Total employment: 40 people (0.01 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $27,360 - Median hourly wage: $13.15 - Total employment: 780 people (0.28 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $27,140 - Median hourly wage: $13.05 - Total employment: 11,160 people (4.01 of every 1,000 jobs in the area) - Median annual wage: $27,040 - Median hourly wage: $13.00 - Total employment: Not available - Median annual wage: $27,010 - Median hourly wage: $12.99 - Total employment: Not available This story features data reporting by Wade Zhou, writing by Jill Jaracz, and is part of a series utilizing data automation across 364 metros. © Stacker Media, LLC.

Time Business News
an hour ago
- Time Business News
Why You Should Buy Pet Food Online for Convenience & Savings
If you're a pet owner, you know how important it is to ensure your furry companion receives the best nutrition possible. But with busy lifestyles, running to a pet store every time your dog's food runs low can be stressful. That's where the option to buy pet food online comes in. From doorstep delivery to wider selections and better deals, online shopping for pet food is not only convenient but also smart. Over the past few years, online pet supply platforms have surged in popularity. Pet parents are turning to digital stores for a variety of reasons: Easy access to top-quality brands Scheduled deliveries and subscriptions Reviews and ratings to guide purchases Promotions and discounts not found in physical stores Whether you have a dog, cat, rabbit, or bird, there's something online for every pet's dietary needs. You no longer have to worry about traffic or carrying heavy bags from the store. With a few clicks, your pet's food can be delivered right to your doorstep—on time, every time. Online platforms often offer more variety than brick-and-mortar stores, including: Premium and prescription diets Grain-free, hypoallergenic, or organic options Breed-specific or age-specific formulas Most online stores offer auto-ship options so your pet never runs out of food. You can set weekly or monthly deliveries and pause or modify them as needed. From seasonal promotions to new customer offers, online platforms offer competitive pricing. You can often find bundles or bulk options for additional savings. Compare different brands, read ingredient lists, and check reviews—all from the comfort of your home. This helps you make a more informed decision tailored to your pet's needs. Some popular and reliable platforms include: Amazon Pet Supplies Chewy (US-based) Petsy, Heads Up for Tails, and Supertails (India) Pet Circle (Australia) Zooplus (Europe) Many local pet stores also have online ordering options with same-day or next-day delivery. To ensure you're getting the best for your pet, consider the following: Factor Why It Matters Brand Reputation Trusted brands ensure safety and nutritional balance Expiry Dates Always check expiration for freshness Ingredient List Know what your pet is consuming—avoid fillers or additives Return Policy Make sure the store has an easy return or refund process Customer Reviews Real feedback helps assess quality and delivery reliability Each pet is unique, and their food should be too. Keep in mind: Age : Puppies/kittens need food rich in protein and fat for growth. : Puppies/kittens need food rich in protein and fat for growth. Breed Size : Large and small breeds have different dietary needs. : Large and small breeds have different dietary needs. Health Conditions : Some pets may require low-fat, grain-free, or renal-support food. : Some pets may require low-fat, grain-free, or renal-support food. Activity Level: More active pets may require higher calories and protein. When in doubt, consult a veterinarian before switching diets or trying a new product. Ordering Without Checking Expiry Always ensure the product has a long shelf life remaining. Choosing Price Over Quality While it's tempting to go for cheaper options, your pet's health depends on quality nutrition. Skipping Reviews User reviews often provide insights into digestion, taste preferences, or delivery reliability. Not Verifying the Seller Always purchase from authorized retailers or the brand's official store to avoid counterfeit products. Start with small packages to see how your pet reacts. Create an account for quicker repeat orders. Opt for platforms offering secure payments and good customer service. Join loyalty programs for exclusive discounts and reward points. The industry is rapidly evolving with options like: Personalized pet food based on your pet's DNA or breed based on your pet's DNA or breed Eco-friendly packaging Organic and preservative-free formulas Subscription-based home delivery boxes These innovations are reshaping how pet parents shop and care for their animals. Choosing to buy pet food online is more than just a modern convenience—it's a smart decision for busy, responsible pet parents. With 24/7 access to trusted products, easier price comparisons, and reliable delivery, online shopping ensures your pet never has to skip a meal. Just remember to choose quality over price, read reviews, and consult your vet for the best results. After all, your pet deserves the best, delivered straight to your door. TIME BUSINESS NEWS


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Experts decry new language in tax-cut bill, say only billionaires could challenge U.S. government
Senate Republicans have shelved, at least for now, a provision of President Donald Trump's tax-cut bill that would prevent enforcement of some past court orders against Trump. It has been replaced by a provision that could make it virtually impossible for average Americans to seek injunctions against the government for violating their rights. The new language would require anyone seeking a court order requiring, or prohibiting, actions by the federal government to post a bond that would fully cover the government's potential damages and other costs of complying with the order. Opponents say the costs could amount to at least millions of dollars. Injunctions are judicial orders prohibiting the government, an organization or an individual from taking actions that a judge has found are likely illegal. The bill approved by the House on a 215-214 vote last month, which would cut taxes for the rich and health care for the poor, would also have allowed a judge to find a violator of an injunction in contempt of court, and impose fines or imprisonment, only if the judge had required the other party to post a bond of any amount. Judges commonly issue injunctions without ordering a bond. Because the House bill would have applied, retroactively, to past as well as future injunctions, it could have allowed Trump to ignore existing court orders like those prohibiting him from sending immigrants to prisons in El Salvador without facing penalties. That provision was quietly removed from the bill by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans last week. In its place is a mandate that would apply to all future injunctions against the federal government and require a bond that would pay for the government's 'costs and damages' in complying with the injunction. If the injunction was upheld on appeal, the individual or group that sought it could recover the costs of the bond. If not, the funds would be transferred to the government. 'Finally, the Senate Judiciary Committee is advancing solutions in the One Big Beautiful Bill to restore the constitutional role of the federal judiciary,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee chairman, said in a statement, using Trump's label for his tax-cut bill. Grassley said the new provision would 'enforce the existing, lawful requirement that courts impose a bond upfront when attempting to hit the government with a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that results in costs and damages ultimately sustained by American taxpayers.' A different perspective came from Alicia Bannon, judiciary program director at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. If this language becomes law, Bannon said, 'it will be financially impossible for ordinary Americans to go to court to protect their rights,' like trying to make sure they receive Social Security payments or are protected against unlawful deportation. Bonds for those orders could cost many millions of dollars, she said. Or much more, said attorneys at the National Women's Law Center, if Trump's deep budget cuts to agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs were challenged by a group of military veterans. 'If this measure stays in the bill, only a billionaire would be able to get prompt relief from the courts when this administration breaks the law,' said Emily Martin, chief program officer at the Washington, D.C.-based law center. And Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Berkeley, said the new provision would also prohibit judges from considering the ability of an individual or group to pay the bond. That would prevent many whose rights have been violated from seeking help from the courts 'at a time when the President is violating the Constitution as never before seen in American history,' he said. Trump has denied violating constitutional rights in his deportation orders, shutdowns of federal agencies and attempts to deny U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, disputes that are before the federal courts. But a more immediate legal battle could decide the fate of the injunction bond requirement in the tax bill. Because it is a budget-related measure, the legislation can win Senate approval by a majority vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats, rather than requiring 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster. The newly added bond requirement, however, would not directly affect the federal budget, although it could lower the government's costs by discouraging lawsuits and limiting injunctions. Democrats could ask the Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, to advise Senate leaders that the bond limits are not budget-related and should be removed from the bill. The Senate normally follows the parliamentarian's conclusions unless 60 senators disagree, but opponents of the bond requirements say they can't take anything for granted. 'Senate Republicans have overruled the parliamentarian before,' said attorney Alison Gill of the National Women's Law Center. 'It is possible that they may do so to include this dangerous provision.'