How a Colorado restaurateur leaped into action when tariffs hit food prices
Mauka Poke, one of his two restaurants in Eagle, Colorado, near the popular resort towns of Beaver Creek and Vail, exclusively serves poke. The other, Twisted Root, offers fish as an alternative to pizza and burgers.
'On 'Liberation Day,' I probably got 10,000 grey hairs,' Hammer said. 'I completely panicked. My kitchen manager wasn't particularly happy with me for jamming up the freezer.'
At the time, Hammer figured it would be better to order seven 30-pound boxes of tuna for $215 total than run the risk of prices increasing when the tariffs hit Vietnam, where he sources most of his seafood.
On Wednesday, Trump said he reached a trade agreement with the Southeast Asian country. U.S.-based companies will pay a 20% tariff on Vietnamese goods and a 40% tariff on goods routed through Vietnam from other countries.
Vietnam agreed not to charge any tariffs on U.S. goods.
The restaurant industry has been in financial limbo for much of this year as consumers scale back on dining out and business owners face the impacts of tariffs. In May, Fitch Ratings warned that the restaurant industry was facing 'significant risks' and downgraded its outlook from neutral to deteriorating.
According to the Independent Restaurant Coalition, an industry trade group, smaller restaurants and food processors are facing 'enormous pressure' from Trump's tariff war with China in particular. Some cookware and takeout containers come from China, which leaves small businesses with the difficult question of whether to absorb increasing costs or pass it on to customers and risk losing their business.
Hammer is already feeling the crunch.
Since early April, the cost of tuna has only increased by a few bucks to about $220 per box, but Hammer said he is still keeping the fridge fully stocked to delay raising prices as long as possible.
Prices for other products, like disposable bowls from China, have already climbed 25%. Since March, the cost has increased from about $25 per box to $35 from his usual supplier, he said. And costs from the 'emergency supplier' Hammer uses when his go-to is not available have shot up from around $45 to $67, he added.
Disposable gloves are also getting pricier. At Mauka Poke, where employees go through whole cases per day, prices have increased from $32 in January to $39 for his most recent order.
The price of avocados from Mexico, a mainstay at both restaurants, has doubled from about $45 to $50 per box to about $90 to $100, he said. That price has trickled down to customers, now costing them $2 per scoop, up from $1. It's now cheaper to buy the popular topping from local markets than from wholesalers. Many local grocers now limit the number of avocados each customer can purchase, he said, because of high demand.
'Those signs are because of people like me,' Hammer joked, referring to the quantity restrictions. He said customers are beginning to 'tighten their belts' and visit his restaurants less frequently.
They're also ordering fewer extras like avocado and guacamole. Even mainstay are becoming more expensive. The price of ground beef has increased due to the rising costs of cow feed, Hammer's suppliers have told him.
In an attempt to keep things afloat during these uncertain times, Hammer, whose family owned a pub when he was growing up, has stopped taking a salary from the restaurants. Instead, he relies on his digital marketing business for income. He acquired Twisted Root just six months ago, while Joe Biden was president, and Mauka Poke about a year and a half ago, he said.
The seafood restaurant brings in about $350,000 a year with a 5% profit margin, but Twisted Root has a negative 10% profit margin despite its $450,000 yearly revenue. The staff is larger there and the rent higher, plus Twisted Root offers vegan alternatives that are more expensive than meat and dairy products, Hammer said. He tries to keep the menu prices reasonable for customers, which sometimes means taking on more cost.
Closing is not an option for the meantime, Hammer said. He employs 30 seasonal workers between both restaurants and feels 'responsible' for keeping the businesses going. In six months, he will reassess Twisted Root's model and decide whether to revamp the menu or change its concept.
When asked if Trump's trade war is negatively affecting his businesses, Hammer compared the president's approach to bullying.
'I keep hearing through the administration about how we should just suck it up and deal with it and rub some dirt on it and get back in there,' he said. 'It's administration by bullies and I hate it.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff, Inflation Fears Led Fed To Avoid Rate Cut In July, Meeting Minutes Show
Key Takeaways Members of the Federal Open Market Committee considered inflation driven by tariffs to be a bigger threat to the economy than joblessness, according to minutes of a July meeting released Wednesday. Tariff-related inflation concerns dominated the discussion before the FOMC's decision to keep the central bank's key interest rate steady. The thinking of FOMC members may have shifted after a shocking decline in job creation was reported days later. Behind closed doors, officials at the Federal Reserve said much the same as they've said in public: that concerns over tariffs stoking inflation led them to keep the central bank's interest rate flat in July instead of cutting it. That's according to minutes of the July meeting released Wednesday. The minutes showed members of the central bank's policy committee were divided over whether inflation or joblessness is the biggest threat to the minutes shed some light on how Fed officials are thinking about how they should use monetary policy to pursue their "dual mandate" of keeping inflation low and employment high. The minutes echoed public statements Fed officials have made recently, but are outdated since they were made before the surprise slowdown in the job market was revealed in an Aug. 1 hiring of tariffs dominated the discussion. Members of the Federal Open Market Committee debated how much the tariffs are likely to push up prices, how long it will take for those price hikes to make their way through supply chains to store shelves, and whether those higher prices will set off a self-reinforcing cycle of price hikes and wage increases."With regard to the outlook for inflation, participants generally expected inflation to increase in the near term," the minutes said. "Participants judged that considerable uncertainty remained about the timing, magnitude, and persistence of the effects of this year's increase in tariffs."At several points, the minutes referred to "a couple" of committee members who argued that the weakening job market was more worrisome than tariff-driven inflation. Although the meeting minutes did not name names, that could reference Fed governors Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, who voted for a rate cut but were outnumbered."Most participants judged the upside risk to inflation as the greater of these two risks, while several participants viewed the two risks as roughly balanced, and a couple of participants considered downside risk to employment as the more salient risk," Ryan Sweet, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a commentary. "It's unclear if the July employment report and the revisions to prior months, released after the July meeting, alter some views of the balance of risks."Financial markets currently are pricing in about an 81% chance the Fed will cut interest rates in September to bolster the job market, according to the CME Group's FedWatch tool, which forecasts rate movements based on fed funds futures trading data. Read the original article on Investopedia Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBS News
21 minutes ago
- CBS News
4 reasons why the Trump tariffs haven't caused U.S. inflation to soar
Despite a barrage of new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration this year on dozens of U.S. trade partners, the prices of goods and services across the U.S. have defied many economists' expectations and remained relatively stable. Economists caution that just because tariffs have yet to trigger a renewed bout of inflation, there is no guarantee that prices won't surge later this year. They note that recent data shows a modest rise in the cost of items including clothing, home furnishings and appliances. Tariffs — meaning the rate importers must pay at the border for imported goods — also take a long time to seep into the economy. That's because companies often trying to hold off on passing along higher costs to customers to avoid losing market share to rivals. Yet experts acknowledge that tariffs have yet to unleash the kind severe inflationary pressures that could cause prices to spike. For their part, White House officials have consistently maintained that foreign exporters — not American consumers — will bear the brunt of added tariff costs. "Despite the doom-and-gloom predictions of inflation and recession, it's been months since Liberation Day, and inflation is trending towards an annualized rate not seen since President Trump's first term, while a recent [Council of Economic Advisers] analysis found that prices of imported goods are actually declining," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, alluding to the baseline and other tariffs President Trump originally announced on April 2. Here are four reasons economists say explain why inflation isn't jumping despite the highest U.S. tariffs in decades. Despite President Trump's many threats to jack up levies on imports, the actual average tariff rate being charged on U.S. imports is not as high as what has been announced, data shows. The average tariff rate on U.S. imports in June was 9% — well below the 15% that many economists were forecasting earlier this year following Mr. Trump's slew of tariff announcements, according to investment advisory firm Capital Economics. "It's not so much that the reaction to tariffs has been low, it's that the effective tariff rate increase has been relatively limited up until June," Mark Cus, an economist at Barclays, told CBS MoneyWatch. Actual U.S. tariffs remain lower than earlier estimates in part because countries facing steeper levies are sending fewer goods to the U.S., according to Barclays and Capital Economics. By contrast, countries with below average tariff rates are shipping more goods to the U.S. The upshot: Average tariff rates on imports are lower than many economists were projecting earlier this year. Additionally, many goods imported into the U.S. have been exempted from steeper tariffs. Of the roughly $258 billion worth of imports that hit the U.S. retail market in June, only 48% were subject to tariffs, Barclays data shows. For example, pharmaceuticals, some electronics, and many imports from Canada and Mexico are exempt from any new tariffs. "While dutiable goods face elevated tariff rates, a substantial portion of U.S. imports remains duty-free," Barclays analysts said in a recent report. "This is a major contributor to the low effective tariff rate." U.S. retailers built up their inventories earlier this year in expectation that the Trump administration would hike tariffs on imported products and parts. Many retailers are still selling those non-tariffed products, allowing them to delay price hikes, experts said. For example, "There was a big jump in imports of goods from Canada that would later be tariffed before the tariffs kicked in, and perhaps imports of those goods in May and June were relatively low, and that shows up as a smaller amount of dutiable goods," Barclays' Cus told CBS MoneyWatch. Eventually, experts warn, retailers will exhaust those lower-cost goods imported earlier in the year, which could lead to higher prices down the road. For now, many retailers are eating the additional tariff costs. Businesses "have been willing to absorb the initial hit via lower margins, although we suspect that was mostly a temporary development as those firms waited for more clarity on where tariff rates would settle," analysts with investment adviser Capital Economics said in a recent report. "We doubt that is a sustainable outcome over the longer term, however. As the uncertainty over tariff levels eases over the next couple of weeks, giving retailers more clarity on rates over the next year or two, we would expect more firms to raise prices," they said. Tariffs typically take many months to seep into company supply chains and and show up in the prices consumers pay at the store. The full impact of tariffs plays out not immediately but over an extended period of time, peaking roughly a year after they take effect, a June Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report noted. That means any U.S. tariffs imposed this year could would be unlikely to have much of an impact on inflation until later this year and into 2026. "Up to now there has been only limited passthrough from tariffs into final consumer prices, but we still expect the impact to gradually mount in the second half of this year," Capital Economics analysts said in a report. A final possibility is that the fears that the Trump administration's turn toward protectionist trade policies would trigger another severe bout of inflation are overblown. The White House has maintained that such a shift will protect jobs, and make the U.S. more competitive globally. "The Administration has consistently maintained that the cost of tariffs will be paid by foreign exporters who rely on access to the American economy, the world's best and biggest consumer market," the White House's Desai said in a statement.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fort Collins voters to decide on extending Natural Areas sales tax that would never expire
A sales tax renewal to fund Fort Collins Natural Areas is officially headed to the ballot. This quarter-cent tax — 25 cents on a $100 purchase — was first approved in 1992. It was last renewed in 2002. Without renewal, the tax will expire at the end of 2030. But this November's citizen-referred question asks voters to extend the tax into perpetuity so nobody ever again has to ask voters to renew it. The proposal also would adjust how the money will be allocated: Starting in 2061, 70% of the money would be used on land conservation activities specifically, and 30% would be used for operations and maintenance. Currently, the split is 80%/20%, respectively, and the ballot issue proposes it remain that way until 2061. The initiative would update the definition of "land conservation activities" to include restoring, enhancing and maintaining native plant and animal communities. It also would change some language to eliminate confusion and more accurately reflect the policies and practices of the city's Natural Areas program, according to the ballot language. Petition coordinator Linda Stanley, speaking at the Aug. 19 City Council meeting, said the campaign submitted more than 9,300 signatures. City Clerk Delynn Coldiron said the city verified signatures until reaching the 6,205 mark, with about 1,800 left to verify. That's because the effort already had more than 1,000 verified signatures over the 5,070 required. Why is this being voted on now when the tax doesn't expire until 2030? An expiring tax makes planning for the future difficult, Stanley told the Coloradoan for an earlier story. She said most city programs don't have expiration dates. "Some of the acquisitions have taken years to come to fruition, and you don't start relationships with land donors if you're not sure what the future will hold," Stanley said, noting some donors may be willing to sell or put a conservation easement on their land but might not be ready to take that step for a few more years. Taking the issue to the voters in 2025 instead of 2027 or 2028 will simply create certainty sooner, Stanley said, when asked why the effort is beginning five years ahead of the expiration. On Tuesday, council member Kelly Ohlson recused himself from council's vote referring it to the ballot — a formality because Colorado voters must approve all taxes — because he was one of the petition representatives and Stanley, his spouse, is leading the campaign. Ohlson led the effort to get the 1992 ballot issue passed and has said he wanted to see it renewed before retiring from council, which he plans to do at the end of his term, which is in January. What else is on the ballot? This Natural Areas tax question is one of two tax renewals voters will consider this November. Also up for renewal is a quarter-cent capital construction sales tax that funds specified capital projects in the city. There are also four Fort Collins City Council seats up for a vote — mayor, District 1, District 3 and District 5 — and some proposed City Charter updates. Finally, there's another citizen initiative on the ballot, and it asks voters to require the city to make the former Hughes Stadium site it purchased in 2023 a city natural area in its entirety. It's possible council will refer a competing Hughes proposal to the ballot on Sept. 2. That one would ask voters to OK a multiuse plan for the site — a bike park, a natural area, open spaces, trails and conservation/education features — that would be planned in consultation with the Indigenous community. In addition to these, Larimer County is asking voters to consider a new quarter-cent sales tax to boost early childhood education affordability and availability. The Coloradoan will provide full coverage of each race and issue leading up to the mailing of ballots and the Nov. 4 election. This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: In 2025, Fort Collins election, a Natural Areas sales tax is on ballot Solve the daily Crossword
