The De Minimis Debate
The De Minimis Debate
What does the latest proposed ruling against Shein and Temu mean for U.S. consumers?
Have you ever browsed fast fashion websites like Temu and Shein and wondered how they can offer such low prices? A dress for $3 and a pair of jeans for $9—it seems too good to be true. While some might attribute these deals to savvy marketing or economies of scale, the reality is more troubling. Behind those rock-bottom prices are questionable labor practices and a significant loophole in U.S. trade law that these companies may no longer be able to exploit on such a massive scale if the Biden Administration has its way.
The retail landscape has shifted dramatically over the past few years, particularly in the fast fashion sector. Companies like Shein and Temu have thrived by exploiting a de minimis exemption in U.S. trade law, which allows goods valued at $800 or less to enter the country without incurring tariffs. While this loophole has made fast fashion more accessible to American consumers, it has also created market distortions for imported clothing that raise important questions about the sustainability of our shopping habits. As the Biden Administration seeks to close this loophole, what does it mean for families already feeling the pressure of high prices and strained household budgets?
Market Distortions and the Impact on Consumers
The de minimis exemption has been in effect since 1930 and has allowed foreign producers to ship small batches of goods directly into the United States without paying duties. So what’s the problem with this nearly 100-year-old exemption? A House Select Committee report found that fast fashion giants Shein and Temu are “likely responsible for more than 30 percent of all packages shipped to the United States daily under this provision.”
These companies have created a competitive advantage by avoiding tariffs and flooding the market with cheap clothing. While most importers would ship products to the United States in bulk through a shipping container, the de minimis exemption incentivizes Shein and Temu to ship products directly to consumers since most packages are under the $800 threshold. While this practice keeps prices low for consumers, it generates significant waste—costs that aren’t reflected in the price tags of those items.
As the Biden Administration moves to close this loophole, the implications for consumers are clear. Experts anticipate that removing de minimis exemptions could increase prices by up to 20% on fast fashion items. For Americans accustomed to bargain deals, this change represents a significant shift in their purchasing power. The burden of tariffs is often misunderstood as solely a cost to sellers, but they ultimately find their way to consumers through increased prices. When tariffs are imposed, they may be initially paid by importers but they are eventually shared with consumers through higher prices.
The Dilemma of Consumer Choices
The consequences of higher prices due to tariffs on fast fashion are complex. While increased prices may lead some consumers to rethink their spending habits and consider more sustainable alternatives, many may still be drawn to the allure of low-cost clothing. It’s not clear whether removing the exemption for these companies will have a meaningful impact on fast fashion consumption.
Additionally, the elimination of the de minimis exemption on these two companies raises broader questions about trade policy and its impact on the U.S. economy. While politicians argue in favor of tariffs to protect domestic industries, it often leads to higher prices for consumers, reducing overall consumption and economic welfare. As the ongoing trade war with China illustrates, the burden of tariffs disproportionately affects lower-income consumers and raises critical concerns about their true efficacy and costs to the economy.
Final Thoughts
The fast fashion industry is just one piece of a larger puzzle when it comes to environmental challenges. The rise of e-commerce has fueled the demand for cheap, disposable goods, magnifying the environmental pressures we’re facing. While this article highlights the economic implications of the de minimis loophole, it’s important to recognize the intertwined nature of consumer behavior, environmental sustainability, and trade policy.
Trade policy is much more nuanced than it often appears; it isn’t simply a matter of imposing massive tariffs on another country to boost domestic production or penalize foreign adversaries. Policymakers must consider the broader implications of tariffs on economic equality, as higher prices disproportionately burden lower-income consumers. Given that the economy is a top concern for many Americans, it seems counterintuitive for politicians to pursue inflationary measures.
It’s also worth discussing the importance of the de minimis exemption for small businesses and consumers alike. The proposed ruling targets two Chinese companies the Biden Administration has deemed to have exploited the exemption, reflecting a deeper struggle in the ongoing trade wars with China. While it may be fair to subject these companies to the same tariffs as other Chinese manufacturers, this situation also illustrates a selective targeting of businesses that have simply followed the government’s rules. Ultimately, the de minimis exemption isn’t at risk of being eliminated; rather, it highlights the ongoing challenges of trade policy in a global economy where the stakes are high for both consumers and businesses.
Thank you for reading Monday Morning Economist! This free weekly newsletter explores the economics behind pop culture and current events. This newsletter lands in the inbox of more than 5,400 subscribers every week! You can support this newsletter by sharing this free post or becoming a paid supporter:
De minimis thresholds for imported items vary by country, with the U.S. applying duties on values over $800, Australia over $1,000, Canada at $20, and Europe averaging around $190, though this can differ significantly between countries [International Trade Association]
A June 2023 report found that Shein and Temu combined sent nearly 600,000 packages per day to the United States [AARP]
Shein hit a record of more than $2 billion in profits for 2023 and recorded roughly $45 billion in gross merchandise value [Financial Times]
The fast fashion industry is a significant contributor to the climate crisis, responsible for as much as 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions [Center for Biological Diversity]
The negative externalities created by the environmental impact of fast fashion in both the packaging waste to the eventual disposal of these not-so-durable, trendy items makes the matter so much bigger than just trade. I will use this as an opening classroom discussion to see how my often environmentally minded students regard the trade offs at play, here.
Great article! Trade policy is very complex. (I've never really liked the 'free trade' question economists are asked because trade is so much more than just tariffs).
In trade we also often don't focus on the impacts on the counterparty country (as you mention labor practices).
Another interesting example of this - was the fish market. I wrote about it in the context of shrinking US fisheries that cannot compete with foreign fisheries, which is often driven by different environmental standards. This results in potentially an inferior environmental outcome.