For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

In context: TSMC has steadily raised the prices of its most advanced semiconductor process nodes over the past several years – so much so that one analysis suggests the cost per transistor hasn't decreased in over a decade. Further price hikes, driven by tariffs and rising development costs, are reinforcing the notion that Moore's Law is truly dead. The Commercial Times reports that TSMC's upcoming N2 2nm semiconductors will cost $30,000 per wafer, a roughly 66% increase over the company's 3nm chips. Future nodes are expected to be even more expensive and likely reserved for the largest manufacturers. TSMC has justified these price increases by citing the massive cost of building 2nm fabrication plants, which can reach up to $725 million. According to United Daily News, major players such as Apple, AMD, Qualcomm, Broadcom, and Nvidia are expected to place orders before the end of the year despite the higher prices, potentially bringing TSMC's 2nm Arizona fab to full capacity. Also see: How profitable are TSMC's nodes: crunching the numbers Unsurprisingly, Apple is getting first dibs. The A20 processor in next year's iPhone 18 Pro is expected to be the first chip based on TSMC's N2 process. Intel's Nova Lake processors, targeting desktops and possibly high-end laptops, are also slated to use N2 and are expected to launch next year. Earlier reports indicated that yield rates for TSMC's 2nm process reached 60% last year and have since improved. New data suggests that 256Mb SRAM yield rates now exceed 90%. Trial production is likely already underway, with mass production scheduled to begin later this year. // Related Stories With tape-outs for 2nm-based designs surpassing previous nodes at the same development stage, TSMC aims to produce tens of thousands of wafers by the end of 2025. TSMC also plans to follow N2 with N2P and N2X in the second half of next year. N2P is expected to offer an 18% performance boost over N3E at the same power level and 36% greater energy efficiency at the same speed, along with significantly higher logic density. N2X, slated for mass production in 2027, will increase maximum clock frequencies by 10%. As semiconductor geometries continue to shrink, power leakage becomes a major concern. TSMC's 2nm nodes will address this issue with gate-all-around (GAA) transistor architectures, enabling more precise control of electrical currents. Beyond 2nm lies the Angstrom era, where TSMC will implement backside power delivery to further enhance performance. Future process nodes like A16 (1.6nm) and A14 (1.4nm) could cost up to $45,000 per wafer. Meanwhile, Intel is aiming to outpace TSMC's roadmap. The company recently began risk production of its A18 node, which also features gate-all-around and backside power delivery. These chips are expected to debut later this year in Intel's upcoming laptop CPUs, codenamed Panther Lake.

We may earn a commission from links on this page.It looks like Strava is making moves to become more than just a social fitness tracker. The popular fitness app—arguably the best one of its kind—announced Thursday that it has acquired The Breakaway, an AI-powered cycling training app, marking its second major acquisition in just over a month.This follows Strava's purchase of Runna back in April. So, what do these acquisitions mean for users of The Breakaway and Strava alike? Will those apps' specific training plans become available a part of the Strava subscription? Will I have to pay for that whether I like it or not? Here's what you need to know.What The Breakaway brings to StravaThe Breakaway uses AI to create customized training plans for cyclists pursuing specific performance goals. The app analyzes individual fitness data and objectives to generate workouts tailored to each user's needs and schedule. Similarly, Runna offers AI-generated training plans, but focuses on runners rather than cyclists. As people are speculating on Reddit, these apps could represent Strava's strategic push into more personalized training and coaching features.Zooming out, Strava has built its reputation on social fitness tracking. As a loyal Strava user myself, I believe no other running app can beat Strava's social and mapping features. This ability to tap into a community of fellow runners and cyclists has always differentiated Strava from pure tracking apps.Strava's core offering has remained relatively (and refreshingly) basic compared to specialized training apps. That said, these acquisitions sure do suggest the company wants to capture more and more of the fitness ecosystem by offering the kind of structured, goal-oriented training that serious athletes need.What this means for pricingCurrent subscribers don't need to worry about immediate price hikes. The Breakaway costs $9.99/month, or $69.99/year. (I guess runners are willing to shell out more, since Runna costs $19.99/month, or $119.99/year.) Strava's free tier lets you post your runs, interact with other users, and track some basic statistics about your performance. The premium tier, at $11.99/month or $79.99/year, gives you extra performance tracking and mapping tools.And according to statements from Strava, there are no plans to alter pricing structures or eliminate free access to the acquired apps' basic features. Whether this pricing structure will hold long-term remains to be seen, especially as Strava integrates these services into its broader platform.The bottom lineRather than users needing separate apps for social tracking and structured training, Strava appears to be building an all-in-one fitness ecosystem. Even for the most casual users, this could mean access to more training tools without leaving the Strava ecosystem. But as some disgruntled fans are voicing, it can be frustrating to see Strava scoop up AI-powered training features, rather than fix some of its most basic issues. (Seriously: I should be able to accurately search for for past runs.)And we can only hope that pricing doesn't get too crazy. We'll see whether users are willing to pay more for what has traditionally been a social-first fitness app. Finally, as Strava continues to expand its feature set, it's worth remembering that the app defaults to public sharing. Regularly review your privacy settings to ensure you're not inadvertently sharing location data or personal information more broadly than intended.

Today, like most days, I made a trip to the post office to ship out my Poshmark sales. But what I'm shipping out looks a little different than it might have a few months ago. Of the seven packages I'm handing off, only one contains an item I'd consider "nice." Alongside that Fendi top are six pieces from fast-fashion brands—ultra cheap stuff I ordered from Chinese retailers like Shein and Temu that, until recently, I never expected to actually sell, given that someone could buy the same item new at, well, Shein and Temu prices. But since the United States' new tariff structure went into effect (primarily the elimination of the de minimus exemption), consumers have been forced to adjust to a reality in which they can't easily source everything from toothbrush holders to micro-trendy outfits from an low price Chinese retail giant, to say nothing of concerns over how much more they could be paying for pricier items like autos and appliances made with foreign parts or manufactured overseas. In this period of uncertainty, resale apps may be filling the void. My own Poshmark sales are up compared to the month before the tariffs went into effect, with a notable rise in sales of basic, cheap stuff. Curious, I talked to a few experts to see if my experiences were indicative of a broader trend—one that could mean good things (well, relatively speaking) for resale buyers and sellers alike.The vibe on the resale apps in the wake of tariffsThe rollout of the tariffs has been confusing and disjointed. It was (and still is) hard to predict when consumers will see price increases on foreign-made electronics, cars, and other goods, or on products assembled in the U.S. but made with imported parts. But from the start, it has been obvious that goods from China in particular were about to cost a whole lot more—including the volumes of stuff shipped directly to consumers from the likes of Temu and Shein, the latter of which is famous for uploading 10,000 new styles to its site every day (and for charging unbelievably low prices for all of them). Months ago, when the tariffs were first announced, people started wondering if they should start stocking up (and on what), whether they were importing cheap clothes from Shein or bracing for higher prices on more substantial goods like smartphones. I've bought more than my share of junk from Shein, though I know it is not exactly a sustainable or environmentally friendly choice. To make myself feel better about that, I've always listed the clothes on resale apps once I'm done with them. To be clear, these are cheaply made garments—you don't buy your capsule wardrobe on Shein; Shein is where you shop for micro-trends (styles that are currently all over your Instagram and Pinterest feed, but which won't be in two months) or basics like tank tops that you can use and abuse. Prior to the tariffs rolling out, it was inconceivable that anyone would pay me $9 (plus shipping) for a pre-worn, cheaply-made dress or workout set that I had only paid $15 for in the first place—but that's what started happening. In the past month, I've still sold clothing and accessories made by Adidas, Gucci, Skims, Ralph Lauren, Marc Jacobs, Reebok, and Givenchy, but those tend to be one-off sales. My Shein resales for the last four weeks absolutely dwarf them. I also sold a few electronics items—an Apple Watch and facial micro-current device—I had listed in my Poshmark shop months earlier. Could I chalk up all of these sales to tariffs, and to anxiety about impending price increases on electronics? My Shein sales this month vs. everything else Credit: Lindsey Ellefson Certainly I'm not alone in noticing it this trend. A Poshmark spokesperson tells me, "We’ve seen an increase in sales of internationally-made items, especially from brands that have announced price hikes due to high tariffs. Despite rising prices, demand for fast fashion remains strong as consumers seek trendy, affordable styles. Buying those pieces secondhand lets them stay on-trend while keeping clothing in circulation."In addition to Shein and Temu, higher-priced brands that publicly announced tariff-related price increases have also seen resale spikes, with sales of Columbia button-down shirts surging by 61% month over month, and sales of Hermès sandals up 27%. Buying used Hermès sandals is one thing—not all of us have $840 laying around to spend on designer slides to ring in the summer. But a Columbia button-down? That's the kind of item I'm used to finding at Marshall's for maybe $30—but people now seem to be flocking to buy them used, worried that even cheap shirts will become relatively priceier due to tariffs. Meanwhile, Poshmark reports sales on consumer electronics have increased as well: The week of April 27, resales of Sony products were up 22% month over month, and Apple products were up 21%. The times seem to be changing, and they're doing it in a hurry.What tariffs means for resale shoppersI am not only a resale seller, but a resale shopper, and the uncertainty around tariffs has made me a lot more discerning with what I'm buying new. Part of this is just that I'm now paying more attention. I love the leisure and athletic wear made by SET Active. I own a lot of it, and I have never before considered selling any of it because it lasts so long and maintains its shape so well. Until recently, I have also never paid much attention to where it is made: While SET Active designs its products in California, its active fabrics are all made in China. Prices haven't gone up on the official website yet, but in preparation for a time when they might, I've already started shopping the brand on Poshmark and Depop. It's not the worst thing in the world; buying used is both cheaper and more sustainable. I've always been an avid purchaser of resale goods—I've just never had to do it so strategically before. (I've found it easier to give up Shein altogether—I can manage fine without the $4 tank tops I've been putting through absolute hell the past few summers—but my Poshmark customers have proven more reluctant to resist the allure of fast fashion, even used.)I'm not alone in being more strategic with my resale purchases. Financial experts are noticing the same thing. "In the wake of the announcement and implementation of the tariffs, people have been looking for cheaper alternatives to the more expensive imported goods," says Aaron Razon, a personal finance expert at Couponsnake, "especially as many domestic products not only fall short in meeting the demand for certain products, but lack the variety and style that imported goods offer. [Domestic products] are also not exactly the cost-effective option consumers are looking for, and this is one of the major reasons interest in resale platforms [has] been on the increase."Bill London, an international business attorney, points out that in addition to causing prices to rise, tariffs have resulted in potential shipping delays, a fact that has also contributed to, "a surge in second-hand fast fashion interest." Six months ago, if you needed a certain kind of dress for, say, a themed bachelorette party, you could order it from Shein for $20, safe in the knowledge that you'd probably never wear it again. Today, its price could be closer to $30 or $40, and you might face delays in receiving it. The appeal of fast fashion was always in the low cost and convenience, provided you had 10 to 14 days to wait for the thing to arrive from China. Now, it just makes more sense to buy that dress from someone in the U.S. who likewise didn't see themselves rewearing it, —and now, they're selling it for roughly the same $20 they originally paid. For the buyer, it's still a relative deal, and it'll even arrive sooner. It's not just fast fashionBrands beyond Shein and Temu are seeing a lift. As the Poshmark rep pointed out, resales on select high-end brands are up, too. Buying used luxury goods has always been a smart financial decision (certainly it's a practice I've been dedicated to for a long time), but with manufacturing and importation costs an ever-murkier question, it's more sensible than ever. A spokesperson for Vestiaire Collective, a designer resale platform, tells me that U.S. buyers are increasingly able to see the duties applied to their purchases from Europe and Asia at checkout, and that the company has been working to beef up its American foothold for years. That effort is now paying off in a big way thanks to tariffs: In 2022, VC acquired Tradesey to increase its selection of pre-owned fashion offering for U.S. buyers, and it ramped up associated brand marketing the following year. VC also curates a list of goods that are ready to ship from New York City, making it easier for American buyers to identify items that can easily come to them domestically, no tariffs or duties required. Consequently, the brand rep says VC has, "seen a shift of more U.S. buyers buying from U.S. sellers" lately. Personally, I've noticed people buying from me lately, in particular, is workout attire. With the cost of everything going up, it might seem more of a stretch to pop into Lululemon to buy a new pair of leggings for over $100. Meanwhile, the trusty Shein alternative is now more money than its worth. It's this class of in-between necessities—things you don't need to survive, but may be a nice-to-have for your particular interests or lifestyle—that is a source of personal economic woe, and where resale can fill the gap. Whether you need new workout gear, a one-time wear outfit, a few basic pieces, or even a designer handbag, the reality of the post-tariff world is that you're almost certainly better off looking on resale apps before even considering buying new. (You certainly have options—I've assembled a rundown of my own favorite resale apps, including the goods you're most likely to find on each.)What this trend means for resellersI remain shocked that people who presumably would have once ordered their workout sets and summer shorts off Shein are filling the fast-fashion void by purchasing mine, but take it from me: If you have ever considered selling your old clothes or housewares, but figured what you have to offer is too basic, cheap, or plentiful to make the effort worth it, this is your moment. I used to have cheap goods and fast fashion listed on my resale accounts only because it helped keep my number of available listings up, which contributed to my profiles' reputation and lured in buyers for the pricier objects I actually expected to sell. Now, though, it's the cheap stuff that is really moving, and making me money. I've started reevaluating my closet and reconsidering what meets my threshold for "worth it" to list. Post-tariffs, everything is worth it to list. As London puts it, "The tariffs have altered the way in which people do their shopping." It's still pretty early into the great American tariff experiment, but some brands commissioned surveys early on this year to see how people were planning to deal with cost increases and found that a major chunk of consumers indeed expected to rely more on resale. ThredUp, another online resale platform, found that 59% of consumers reported that if apparel got more expensive, they'd look to more affordable options, like secondhand buying, and consumers planned to spend 34% of their apparel budget on secondhand items this year. And those figures are a lot higher for Millennials and Gen Z buyers: They reported planning to spend almost half their clothing budget on resale. Data from Smartly, an online shopping rewards app, also shows that 50% of survey respondents planned to consider resale goods in the face of rising costs. This means that even for casual resellers or those new to the concept entirely, there are a lot of new prospective buyers, which can translate directly to quick sales. At a time when the cost of necessary goods is rising right alongside those in-between necessities, you can make extra cash by selling what you already have. In general, my sales are way up month over month since tariffs went into effect in early May Credit: Lindsey Ellefson Will the resale spike last?I've been buying and selling on resale apps for years and have always had success finding cool stuff to buy as fast as I could get rid of my old clothing, accessories, and electronics. While I've definitely noticed a spike in my sales lately, that's not to say there wasn't demand before the tariffs were announced. If you're new to buying or selling on an app, don't worry that the bubble will burst and you'll have invested a bunch of time in listing your wares for nothing—even if and when the moment passes, reselling can still be a reliable way to make a little extra cash. (In the meantime, if you have a lot to sell and want to maximize your profits, download a cross-lister like Vendoo, which helps you easily list the same product across multiple marketplaces.)Some experts do expect that things could cool down in the nearer term. "Whether the trend persists depends on a number of things, such as how long the tariffs are in effect and how buyers respond to costs," London says. "The resale market for the products is likely to continue expanding if the tariffs are maintained. The demand might plateau or divert towards quality goods or eco-friendly goods when buyers adapt." Razon, meanwhile, thinks resale apps will continue to thrive, but that the interest in procuring cheaply-made things, like fast fashion, may wane. "Resale platforms have been on the good end of the recent tariff increases, especially with consumers looking for cheaper alternatives to imported goods," he says. "The truth is—though it may take consumers time to realize it—they will eventually come to appreciate better-quality goods. There is a great chance that consumers' interest in these lesser-quality goods will wear off as soon as they begin to adjust to the new economic reality."That is to say, list your Shein, Temu, and Aliexpress stuff now while people are still mourning its loss, but also consider those more familiar brands that may also soon see price hikes. Take stock of your closet and do a bit of research to see where all your potential stock is made. Just like I'm worried my beloved SET Active attire is going to go up in price because it's made in China, consumers may soon find themselves wanting to source cheaper stuff from Nike, Adidas, Lululemon, Levi's, and more, as all of those companies manufacture a lot of their clothing overseas. The resale platforms themselves are already anticipating that their digital products are going to get more valuable and stay valuable through (and beyond) the tariff era. Manish Chandra, Poshmark's founder and CEO, says, "As the landscape of tariffs and imports evolves, we believe the secondhand marketplace will become an increasingly valuable and cost-effective resource for American consumers. By shopping from Poshmark closets or starting their own, consumers are supporting sustainability and helping strengthen the American economy." In other words, buying resale is another way of buying American, even if everything you're buying was made in India or China.