
Small American Business Owners Are Sharing How Tariffs Are Affecting Them
When tariffs on Chinese goods spiked dramatically — peaking at over 100% in some cases before recent reductions — small business owners across America found themselves facing an impossible math problem. From toy designers to computer repair shops, countless entrepreneurs discovered that products they depend on — and that simply aren't made anywhere else — suddenly became prohibitively expensive. When u/toymakerinchina, a manufacturer of indoor playground equipment, asked how US small businesses were handling these dramatic tariff increases, the responses painted a sobering picture of an economy under strain:
"Honestly, they're not able to cope. I know two people in separate small businesses in this situation who were running the numbers at 104% yesterday. They're already in a place with not-high margins. They also have to get their product out to distributors and on to end consumers, and there is a markup at each step. They're trying to increase direct-to-consumer sales to get a bit more efficient, but that's really hard. It's more likely they'll go bankrupt unless things get fixed fast. There aren't any American alternatives for the imported supply, and there won't be in the future. They're doomed to fail."
"I have a computer repair shop. Literally everything computer-related is made in China, with few exceptions — Taiwan and Mexico, sometimes. New computers are about to get real expensive. This will either surge my business, in which case we'll just lower our margin on parts and maintain labor cost, or people are going to pay out the nose for new computers."
"I've just had to place an order for $80,000 worth of equipment to be produced. Specialized gear only made in China. The budget was around $110,000 total. Now maybe $150,000. It will hurt if this level — or worse — is in place when it's ready to be shipped. It will take about three months to fabricate it all. I don't know if I have any way to mitigate this."
"Our selling prices are going way up. Our sales volume will suffer because our poorest customers won't be able to afford our product. It's an item for people with disabilities. It's sad."
"My sister designs plush toys and runs her own business. She's a small operation, but it's been her full-time gig for almost 10 years. On average, her orders are around 2,000 to 5,000 toys at a time. Her latest order was flat-out cancelled by the supplier. She's completely screwed. There simply isn't a viable alternative company that isn't based in China."
"The previous steel and aluminum tariffs from the pandemic were rough. This is on another level. I don't think most people understand how screwed we are. Currently, my suppliers are trying to raise prices slowly. They're playing chicken with each other. They know they can't raise everything overnight, as they're also competing with other suppliers, and they still need to move product in order to maintain cash flow. I've been hoarding lots of inventory in preparation, but how long will it take to move that product if the economy is slow due to overall inflation? Our costs are just one aspect of being in business. If our customers are squeezed from every direction by tariffs on everything, then they don't have cash to purchase things from us. Then toss in some idiotic DOGE nonsense, where you eliminate millions of people from viable employment."
"I'm about to close shop after doing it as my exclusive job for 10 years. It's screwed."
"I have a $48,000 order that I placed two days ago just before the latest China tariff increase. Haven't paid the deposit yet, and now reassessing the move. Considering 1) reducing the order size just to not have such a large bill come due in two to three months and start seeking other suppliers in lower-tariffed countries or the US — although I would expect that even if we found a US manufacturer, the price would work out to be the same if not higher; 2) keep the order, but start adding a tariff fee to invoices now; 3) do nothing and hope the jerk in charge changes this move before the goods hit customs. We've already negotiated a lower price with our supplier, so not much else to be done there. We just raised our prices for the first time in three years to finally pass along some of the cost increases we've incurred in that time. It looked like we'd finally improve our margins over where they've been the last few years. And now this."
"My family runs a restaurant. If our prices for takeout containers and other small disposables skyrocket, we're going to put some behind a price instead of giving them out for free. Currently, a large takeout foam container is 20 cents. If it hits 40 cents or more, we will tack on a 25-to-50-cent fee depending on just how high it actually goes. Please, everyone, understand that a small mom-and-pop style restaurant only runs 3% to 6% pure profit if that — right now, we are at about 4%."
"My partner had a bunch of inventory on hand pre-tariff so he's just selling that and not ordering anything for now. And he raised prices because he can. He's pointing out that price increases are due to tariffs to educate his red-leaning customers on what they voted for."
"Our wholesale will probably shut down after the last of our inventory is sold. It was a good run of 10 years but the Chinese tariffs will make continuing business impossible."
"I am a small business owner — I create medieval and costume artistic wigs from wig bases made in China. I will pass the tariff on to the customer as I have no other choice. The US will never make what I need, and other countries making wigs don't come even close to the quality of wigs that China makes, not to mention the trust I have with my years-long suppliers and whatnot. I have no solution because I feel like even if we find loopholes, they can be 'plugged' overnight by the Trump administration. I wish I could include the sum of what my customer pays on tariffs in my pricing separately. That's not going to happen, I know. I will have way fewer customers, lose competitiveness on international markets, and will have to start a second business on the side. I see all this as very pessimistic and feel sorry for all of us affected in the US as well as China."
"We're exhausted. We're exhausted from running the numbers, coming up with a barely workable solution, only to have the goal posts moved and that solution obliterated again and again and again. My entire industry is imploding. Yesterday, my company laid off the entire team except for the founder, who is still trying to pivot and find yet another workable solution in hopes he can bring us all back before we find other, more permanent placements."
"I have a couple retail stores, and I've received calls from multiple wholesale companies saying many items will get 20% to 50% price increases. This was before China's retaliatory tariff increase. I just won't stock any items that have increased by 50%, other than extreme cases. Any items that I continue to stock will get price increases slower than how much they got increased by tariffs. It's so that customers won't notice the sudden sharp increase in price and leave my business with a sour taste. I will eventually increase it to match the same profit margin in the end, but I will do it slowly, even if it eats away my profit in the short term, to stay competitive. If this tariff war continues, I would assume many retail stores in my industry, maybe even I, won't be able to stay afloat and will go out of business. My hope is that I can outlast the competition while this tariff craze is going on. I just hope I don't have to let go of my employees."
"The tariffs pose a huge threat to my business. I have an art business in the US, and I print my artwork on various art and stationery products. All of my stationery is manufactured in either Canada or China. I also print on various specialty papers that are only manufactured outside of the US. I have done some preparation by buying a year's worth of supplies to continue printing some of my own products, but I will have to discontinue many of my items for the foreseeable future. I am a small business and can't afford to buy products at such high markups. If these tariffs last long, I will be forced to close my business. I am already preparing by looking for a part-time job to supplement the loss of income this will be for me. Plus, my customer base is not wealthy people. Even if I had the savings to afford 104% tariffs, my customers would not."
"Many of my materials are imported because US manufacturers charge almost 90% more for a similar sheet of material. So now my competitors and I will have to pay more for the product. Then we will mark it up the same percentage. $50 with a 100% markup meant I sold it for $100, and the company earned $50. Now it's $75 per sheet, and I mark it up to $150, and the company makes $75. We're more profitable. Sure, we may lose a few sales here or there because people can no longer afford to buy a sign for their business or housing development, but during COVID when scarcity drove prices up, we never ended up in a worse position, so I doubt we will here since people need our products, just as I'm sure people need your products."
Are you a small business owner dealing with the impact of tariffs, or do you have thoughts on how these policies are affecting the economy? Whether you've witnessed these challenges firsthand, have ideas for solutions, or simply want to share your perspective on what this means for American businesses, drop your thoughts in the comments — or anonymous form — below.
Note: Responses have been edited for length/clarity.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Americans aren't yet sure what to make of Trump's immigration crackdown
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. The American immigration drama offers a unique Rorschach test for the moment. Do you find the deployment of troops to Los Angeles menacing or comforting? When you see video of a US senator, Democrat Alex Padilla of California, being forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press event, do you wonder what was he thinking or her people were thinking? When you see employees in front of a meatpacking plant in Nebraska trying to block vehicles with masked federal agents driving off with scores of their coworkers, do you question President Donald Trump's dogged push for mass deportation or applaud it? Are you more concerned about ICE raids targeting people who are trying to find work in front of Home Depot stores or who are employed in the garment district — or the protests those raids sparked? When you see Vice President JD Vance posting memes making light of deporting people, do you find it funny or repulsive? When you read that the most-followed person on TikTok, a Senegalese Italian comedian named Khaby Lame who has more than 162 million followers, may have been forced to leave the country a few weeks after attending the Met Gala, do you wonder how that's at all helpful or say good riddance? Do you wonder why the government is charging the respected Los Angeles labor leader David Huerta after he was arrested in Los Angeles protests, or wonder why it wouldn't? There's no question what Trump sees. Rather than seeing a response to ICE raids, he sees professional agitators. Trump has repeatedly said this week, while inflating the danger posed by protests, that protesters themselves are 'insurrectionists' and paid professionals. He's ready to respond across the country. 'When it comes to Los Angeles — or other cities, if we see other cities are gearing up — and these people are agitators,' Trump said Thursday at the White House. 'They're paid. They're professionals. They're insurrectionists. They're troublemakers. They're all of those things. But I believe they're paid, and we're going to find out.' There's no evidence to support the idea of a union of paid protesters, as CNN's Aaron Blake explained. But that hasn't stopped Trump from dispatching Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate. unknown content item - If all this sounds familiar, the idea that protesters who oppose Trump are not real protesters has been a theme of his presidencies. Most recently, Elon Musk argued that it was paid protesters picketing outside Tesla dealerships earlier this year. Most of those events were peaceful, but there were instances of destruction, which should clearly be prosecuted along with any looting in Los Angeles. How Americans ultimately view the ramping up of ICE raids and the resulting protests will have a lot to do with how Trump's second presidency proceeds. Will they endorse the arrest of migrants in places like church parking lots and outside schools? And will they approve of the deportation of undocumented people who have been living and working in the US without committing crimes other than the civil offense of their arrival? For now, the public is split over Trump's choice to send the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests in Los Angeles, according to a new one-day survey from the Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School conducted on Tuesday. Forty-four percent oppose Trump's choice to send in the National Guard and Marines, while 41% support it and 15% say they are unsure how they feel about it, although CNN's Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta noted that one-day polls can be subject to larger errors than those conducted over a number of days. One of the poll's noteworthy findings is that political independents break more toward opposition — 48% oppose Trump's actions, compared with 33% who support them and 19% who are unsure. A lot of people are also still making up their minds about the protests themselves. About one-fifth, 21%, said they are unsure if they support or oppose them. Americans aren't yet sure what to make of this.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
There's never a perfect time to have a baby — but 2025 is looking pretty tough
Tariffs are raising the costs of everything from strollers to cribs. Worries of a recession might make some prospective parents want to hold off on having kids. If you already feel like you're in a financial tight spot, it might be good to wait — if you can. Carolyn Bolton and her husband have wanted kids since they met five years ago. The timing, however, has never been ideal. During the housing crisis in 2021, the couple struggled to afford a home near Washington, DC, where they now rent. At the time, Bolton also wanted to move up in her career, "waiting for that next level that would ease the financial burden a little bit," Bolton, 37, an advocacy manager at the National Council for Adoption, told Business Insider. Even though they felt ready for kids last year, they hit some roadblocks to parenthood. After a couple of miscarriages, they consulted a fertility doctor and may need to consider IVF, which ranges in cost from $15,000 to $30,000. They also have concerns around how AI may impact the job market, as Bolton's husband is a tech editor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's definitely worrying us a little bit, financially," Bolton said. "But I'm also 37, so now's the time, especially if we want more than one child." They're not alone. At a time of economic uncertainty, prospective parents understandably feel stuck on whether — or when — they should start trying. It will undoubtedly be harder to financially prepare for a baby when essentials like strollers can cost $300 more. Tariffs are already making basic household items more expensive. Recessions, or worries of them, tend to lower birth rates. "Historically, fertility has moved with the economy," Melanie Guldi, an associate professor of economics at the University of Central Florida, told Business Insider. "When times are good, people have more babies; when times are bad, people have fewer babies." Beyond day-to-day costs and general stability, "parents are also really concerned about the costs of what it would take to give their would-be children a good life," Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina and director of the Carolina Population Center, told BI. On top of groceries, they want to be able to financially swing birthday parties, extracurriculars, and quality day care services. "You want the American dream, and it seems like the American dream is different now than when we were kids," Bolton said. Ultimately, deciding on when to have kids is highly personal, and not everyone is comfortable delaying the process. Still, if you have the flexibility and want to be on more solid financial ground first, experts say it might behoove you to wait. The costs of having a kid were already rising in pre-tariff times. Delivery, on average, is around $2,800 after insurance. Then, there are astronomical childcare costs. In states like California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, parents spend over $30,000 on average annually to raise one child, with more than half going to day care services. Because day cares typically charge higher rates for infants than toddlers, having two children in day care at the same time can cost families $60,000 a year in areas like Washington, DC. Tariffs tack on extra financial strain. More than 70% of baby gear is made in China, the target of the largest tariffs. "Cribs, car seats, strollers, toys — everything is going to be more expensive if tariffs are applied," Guzzo said. (As of now, the tariffs are under a 90-day pause until mid-August). Zooming out, the bigger economic picture also doesn't spell stability. It's not a great time to buy a house or switch to a higher-paying job. It's also not ideal to retire right now — something to consider if you plan on relying on grandparental care. "There are a lot of things that are going to make raising families much harder and more expensive," Guzzo said. "I think that will weigh negatively on people's decisions to have kids." The good news for people hoping to conceive soon is that politicians, from the Trump administration to New York City's mayoral candidates, are promising to institute policies that would make parenthood more attainable in an effort to raise the US's record-low birth rate and keep their working parent voters. Bolton hoped Trump, who ran on a campaign promise to drastically reduce IVF costs, would have announced some new guidance by now. One Trump administration proposal shared with aides was to give families a $5,000 cash "baby bonus" for giving birth. Still, it will unlikely ease the financial burdens parents face, based on evidence from other countries that have tried similar incentives. Japan brought in four-day workweeks, but that didn't change the fertility trajectory. Sweden, with some of the best financial support for parents in the world, has a dwindling birth rate. What pushes people to have more babies — or delay them — is tricky to study. Guldi said we have a breadth of economic and demographic research into fertility patterns around the Great Depression and post-World War II, two hugely destabilizing periods in the 20th century. Even still, there's no one factor researchers can point to that would encourage another baby boom. Guldi said that if politicians want to encourage people to have more kids (and meaningfully help parents), they will have to adopt a multi-pronged approach, with more than one policy at play. For starters, Guzzo said, politicians need to focus on policies that would bring the US in line with most industrialized countries. The US doesn't offer national parental leave, and has the second-most expensive childcare system in the world. Policies targeting these two issues could make having kids more feasible and affordable. However, Guldi pointed out that even European nations like Finland and Spain with more robust parental support are dealing with record-low birth rates. "While these policies might nudge people to have a child, you're not going to have people that weren't going to have kids all of a sudden have two kids," she added. Timing when you have kids is as much a personal decision as having them in the first place. Guldi said it all boils down to how precarious your financial situation feels and how prepared you are for the future. "It will depend on the individual, how they evaluate that uncertainty," she said. For some, feeling secure in their industries and having family to help out might be enough to weather higher costs. Meanwhile, parents who already have a child might want to wait to have a second to save on day care costs. Beyond immediate finances, Guzzo said people who want to have a child with another person often need to feel secure in their partnerships before considering kids. Not only do dual-parent households usually have more money to spend, but divorced or single parents can accrue additional financial strain, especially in a potential recession. Having more control over when you have kids is also why parents are having them later or not at all, Guzzo said. "I don't think it's that people are really deciding not to have kids," she said. "I think people are deciding, over and over again, not right now." For people who feel they can't wait any longer to try for kids, their past experiences navigating a rocky economy can strangely reassure them. "I'm an elder millennial, I feel like we've lived through so many economic downturns," Bolton said. " There's never going to be a good time to have or not have a kid." Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court justices get snippy as key decisions loom
As the Supreme Court bears down on the most contentious stretch of its annual session, the justices have been taking detours in opinions that reveal policy preferences and simmering grievances. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government 'delay upon delay' and the consequences for America's infrastructure. '(T)hat in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like,' Kavanaugh went on to write in his opinion. 'And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' Days later, when Justice Clarence Thomas joined a unanimous job-bias ruling, he penned a separate opinion that included an extraneous footnote decrying DEI. 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and referring to a brief from America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, now a top policy adviser to President Donald Trump. 'Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.' And last week, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration data, she stepped back and juxtaposed lower court judges' handling of Trump litigation with that of the conservative high-court majority. She variously described the lower court judges as 'hard at work'; engaged in 'thorough evaluations'; and issuing 'well-reasoned interim judgments.' The Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the other hand, 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.' Jackson has also made clear her disdain for the Trump agenda, referring in one case to its 'robotic rollout' of a policy cancelling teacher grants. Policy preferences have long lurked in the background of Supreme Court opinions, despite Chief Justice John Roberts' insistence that the justices, as 'umpires,' are concerned with the law, not societal consequences. What stands out these days is the willingness to overtly echo political talking points. Conflicts on the law, policy and all else among the justices are likely to deepen as they resolve their most difficult cases before a traditional end-of-June deadline. Still to be decided are disputes over state bans on medical care for transgender youths, parents' ability to remove their elementary-school children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, and the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. Cases arising from Trump's orders, appealed to the court on its emergency docket rather than the regular oral-argument calendar, will continue beyond this annual session. The justices often split along ideological and political lines. Conservatives Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were named by Republican presidents; the three liberals, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were named by Democratic presidents. Such fault lines emerged in a late May case over Trump's firing of the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The dispute filed on the court's emergency docket, among several flowing from dozens of Trump orders since he returned to the White House on January 20, drew widespread public interest because of the possible impact on the Federal Reserve and the country's economy. If Trump had the ability to remove leaders at the two independent labor-related boards, he could arguably fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, threatening the longstanding independence of the Fed and destabilizing markets. In mid-April, Trump wrote on Truth Social, 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.' He blasted Powell for his measured steps on interest rates and for warnings about Trump's sweeping tariffs. On Thursday at the White House, Trump again complained about interest rates, called Powell a 'numbskull,' but said he was not going to fire him. Chief Justice Roberts shepherded the court's action in the case, as the majority issued an order that allowed Trump to remove, at least for the time being, the two board members who'd begun the dispute. The majority then specifically added language to exempt the Federal Reserve. The exception – superfluous to the legal issue at hand – appeared to respond to the political atmosphere and possible criticism that the court's action was endangering the Federal Reserve and US economy. Justice Kagan called out the majority's move as a reaction to the politics of the day. In a dissenting opinion joined by the two other liberals, Kagan condemned the majority for favoring 'the President over our precedent' regarding the removal of agency heads. (A 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, limited the president's ability to fire such independent officers.) 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' Kagan wrote, 'a simpler – and more judicial – approach would have been to deny the President's' appeal for immediate relief. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception).'