Questions on safety vs inconvenience, tariffs and planes

For quite some time now, I’ve felt this friction between American individualism and the greater good. We like to think of ourselves as independent, free to make our own choices. But the reality is, we live in systems — communities, cities, industries — where individual actions affect everyone. Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and collective responsibility?

A big factor in how we perceive inconvenience is how change is introduced. When safety measures are rolled out suddenly or without clear communication, people resist. But when they’re implemented thoughtfully and when we understand the benefits firsthand, they become the norm. Perception, however, is what matters here.

The goal, in the end, is balance: enough precaution to protect people without grinding everything to a halt. High-stakes situations demand higher tolerance for inconvenience, but efficiency still matters.

The real test isn’t whether something feels inconvenient at first, it’s whether we eventually recognize today’s inconvenience as an essential safeguard rather than arbitrary hurdle. The best safety measures eventually blend into the background, making life safer without making it harder. But can we get there?

Do tariffs actually work?

Tariffs are one tool in the trade policy playbook, but relying on them alone to drive geopolitical change is too simplistic. Expecting tariffs to bring back U.S. manufacturing or restructure global power dynamics ignores how deeply dependent the U.S. is on its trade partners to support the American quality of life.

The reality is, much of what Americans consume is produced abroad because it’s simply cheaper. Mexico is a critical manufacturing hub, supplying everything from cars to electronics, while China remains dominant in consumer goods, pharmaceuticals and industrial components. Reversing decades of globalization isn’t as simple as imposing tariffs and it requires deep investment in rebuilding domestic manufacturing infrastructure.

Meanwhile, U.S. agriculture takes a hit too. The country’s top exports to China — wheat, corn, soy, oil and gas — are particularly vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs. Just after this weekend’s tariff announcement, futures on wheat, corn and soy went down. A large portion of U.S. industrial agriculture is already propped up by federal subsidies (from 1985-2021, nearly 20,000 farm operations received an average of $987,000 per year for 37 years). How much more will need to be dumped into Big Ag to compensate for tariff-driven losses?

In the short and medium term, though, U.S. manufacturers and consumers could feel the biggest squeeze. Nearly half of all imports will be subject to new tariffs, and price hikes are inevitable. The U.S. gets 60% of its imported crude oil from Canada, and 64% of its imported vegetables and half of its fresh and frozen fruit from Mexico. Historically, exporters pass rising costs down to consumers. Some estimates put the additional burden at $800 per household per year, but in high-cost areas like the Bay Area, that number could be three to four times higher.

Tariffs can be useful as a negotiation tactic, as evidenced by Monday’s suspension. But they aren’t a strategy on their own. Without real investment in domestic production, supply chain resilience and smarter trade partnerships, tariffs won’t bring jobs back. In the end, they just make things more expensive for people already feeling the squeeze. A real plan needs to materialize, and fast.

Are more planes and helicopters crashing?

Noticed more aviation incidents in the news lately? I have too.

The simple answer is no — air travel is still one of the safest modes of transportation, and overall, crash rates have continued to decline. Despite what it may seem like from headlines, aviation safety has improved year after year.

But here’s what is happening: The U.S. commercial fleet is getting older. As of 2024, the median age of commercial airplanes in the United States is the highest it’s ever been. United Airlines tops the list globally, with a median fleet age of just under 20 years, and Delta isn’t far behind at 17 years. While age alone doesn’t make a plane unsafe, older aircraft mean higher maintenance costs, more frequent mechanical issues and potential service disruptions. This problem isn’t new, but supply chain slowdowns have made it worse, and new tariffs won’t help. Delays in aircraft production and rising costs to replace aging planes mean airlines will likely hold onto older jets even longer.

So while crashes aren’t increasing, the strain on the aviation industry is very real. The bigger question isn’t just about safety but rather how airlines and regulators plan to address aging aircraft, supply chain constraints, and rising operational costs in the years ahead.

So … what’s keeping you up?

Annie Tsai is chief operating officer at Interact (tryinteract.com), early stage investor and advisor with The House Fund (thehouse.fund), and a member of the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Committee. Find Annie on Twitter @meannie.