Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#61

Post by new299 »

csydas wrote: post #40
new299 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree intermediaries aren't really adding anything of value. The problem is however, even in cases when you can produce something as cheaply in the US as in China, a Chinese seller can still beat you on price because they pay less for shipping. And that seems dumb.

Well, wouldn't the tradeoff there be time? In the past when I've ordered products from China or Korea, the tradeoff for free or $.99 shipping was that I had to wait two weeks. I do remember some shops had started keeping local warehouses for faster shipping times, so it seems like the foreign sellers are coming at it from both ways; they will ship small parcels that take awhile to arrive, or they'll send locally and…

It means cheap items (like small plastic items etc), where the cost of manufacture is very low, even if they can be manufactured at the same cost in the US can not beat the Chinese seller because they can't compete on price.

A small domestic package just costs more than one shipped from China. So yes, it's possible they can instead compete on delivery time, and they do.

But all else being equal, it seems dumb that they can't be given access to the same pricing as Chinese sellers if they conform to the same rules (drop off at shipping hubs, labeling standards etc).

http://thydzik.com/how-do-chinesehong-kong-sellers-make-mone...

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#62

Post by hyperbovine »

csydas wrote: post #5

> All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.” I understand the seller's frustration - thei…

> “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy”

The Father Niemoller of the modern age.

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#63

Post by [deleted] »

csydas wrote: post #5

> All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.” I understand the seller's frustration - thei…

[deleted]

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#64

Post by thebooktocome »

yuhong wrote: post #2

And the fun thing is that USPS is probably often funded by government debt too. The US economy has been running a trade deficit since the 1980s at least and we went off the gold standard in 1971.

The USPS' profit margin is aggressively controlled by Congress, which makes sense considering that they're a Constitutionally mandated monopoly. However, it also means the Republicans can inflict their "starve the beast" strategy on it at will.

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#65

Post by dnautics »

hkmurakami wrote: post #13
csydas wrote: post #5

> All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.” I understand the seller's frustration - thei…

Also the seller's claim that direct doesn't add anything to the economy is false. That surplus will be directed elsewhere, hopefully to something more productive than what has become an unnecessary intermediary.

"Will" is a bit strong but it is a glaring, bright red case of classical broken windows fallacy.

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#66

Post by cujo »

scribu wrote: post #56
hueving wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The global economy sure, but not the US economy.

How do you figure? The surplus comes from the fact that US buyers don't have to pay a percentage to the intermediary, so they can spend it on other things, like going out to a local restaurant more often.

Forgive my ignorance, but can't it go the other way also?

A contrived example...

A person has $X that they spend every week at the local town restaurant. They see they can buy a cool new widget from a Chinese vendor (from the article) for $Y. Over the course of the next few weeks, said person spends a little less at the restaurant so as to save up $Y, ultimately purchasing the widget once enough money is saved.

In this example the person is contributing less to the local economy.

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#67

Post by dnautics »

Brotkrumen wrote: post #20
jlebrech wrote: post #7

I often thought the postal service SHOULD be a public service but it's publicly funded at a loss then no.

Think of it this way: every one of the 350 million americans chip in 0.22$ a year to get their iPhone cable for 1.80$ instead of 40$. Still sound bad?

As a matter of principle, yes. It's a redistribution of wealth from everyone to a select few (in this case, people who need iPhone cables). The least fortunate will not always be the greatest beneficiaries of the subsidy.

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#68

Post by pc86 »

devoply wrote: post #9
yuhong wrote: post #2

And the fun thing is that USPS is probably often funded by government debt too. The US economy has been running a trade deficit since the 1980s at least and we went off the gold standard in 1971.

They also control the currency and as a result eat up a few percentage of global gdp via signorage.

You mean seigniorage, and no they don't "eat up a few percentage of global gdp."

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#69

Post by ccozan »

kuschku wrote: post #49
dis-sys wrote: post #33

Now this is boring. People keep complaining about the fact that China's cheap stuff is flooding the US market. How about exporting some expensive US made stuff to China to close the gap of trading? Oh, you can't. Chinese living in China are not even allowed to buy Intel Xeon Phi cards, export license is required to safeguard your nation. Maybe make the US short term visa more accessible to Chinese tourists so they ca…

And that’s why millions of chinese tourists every year are all across europe, buying everything they can get. Especially affected by this are cities known for quality products, for example Solingen, the city where most of modern high quality knives and scissors are from, is overran by chinese tourists. And the other thing you mentioned also works here – we simply export lots of automation robots to China, e.g. Foxcon…

Are you talking about KUKA ? Because they just got bought by chinese [0].

[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kuka-m-a-mideamidea-group-...

Re: USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)

#70

Post by rtpg »

cujo wrote: post #66
scribu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure? The surplus comes from the fact that US buyers don't have to pay a percentage to the intermediary, so they can spend it on other things, like going out to a local restaurant more often.

Forgive my ignorance, but can't it go the other way also? A contrived example... A person has $X that they spend every week at the local town restaurant. They see they can buy a cool new widget from a Chinese vendor (from the article) for $Y. Over the course of the next few weeks, said person spends a little less at the restaurant so as to save up $Y, ultimately purchasing the widget once enough money is saved. In th…

for the local economy there's functionally no difference between giving the money to China or to a reseller at the other side of the country.
Post reply on HN