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

71–80 of 170 posts

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

#71

Post by mistermann »

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…

As someone who has encountered tours of Chinese tourists in Vegas, I'm glad if there is some sort of a restriction regardless of how "just" it is.

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

#72

Post by c0nducktr »

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 Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/top-10-things...

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

#73

Post by tyingq »

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…

>To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model

My experience with this isn't quite how you're describing. The Chinese vendors are sort of having their cake and eating it too. They'll often, for example, not be honest about the the shipping time, their return policies, product details, ability to answer product questions, and so forth. Even if the selling platform does something about it, another Chinese seller pops up to replace any that are booted out.

So, for the end consumer, they don't get a true view into what the consequences are of buying from the lowest bidder.

It's difficult for a US supplier to get their value proposition out there on platforms like Amazon, as there is one product listing and multiple sellers. There's no spot to show why your offering that's priced higher is worth it. Better support, return policies, fast shipping, product knowledge, etc.

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

#74

Post by throwawayjava »

dnautics wrote: post #67
Brotkrumen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's a redistribution of wealth from everyone to a select few (in this case, people who need iPhone cables)

Surely you're joking and I'm bad at picking up on satire.

First, this particular scenario is exactly the other way around! By not doing this, every single consumer pays a lot more than they otherwise would so that this one guy's obsolete middle-man business model is protected. Why the hell should we all be chipping in to insulate his comfy middle class lifestyle from global markets? Especially when his business model already depends on offshoring manufacturing jobs anyways... protecting this guy's job is an extremely weird place to draw the line in the sand!

Second, this case is particularly egregious. I literally don't know a single tax payer who doesn't need iPhone or USB-C cables. And a lot of non-tax payers even have a smartphone.

A smartphone is the single greatest expense for many extremely poor people, who use their second hand phones to apply for jobs, keep in contact with family, google homework questions, as a calculator, find services, etc.

> The least fortunate will not always be the greatest beneficiaries of the subsidy.

Anecdata time.

There's an on-and-off homeless guy in our neighborhood who has a phone he uses to find places to eat/sleep, apply for jobs (getting to a physical location across the city is expensive -- better to apply online), find bus routes to job interviews, and make small change doing surveys/selling good stuff he finds on the curb during university move-out/finding random yard work on Craigslist/etc. And also, of course, for free entertainment. He doesn't even have a data plan -- he bums wifi off the local coffee shop. A smartphone is a computer that he can conceal and keep close to his chest when sleeping in the park or a shelter.

Thousands of homeless folk definitely benefit from cheap iPhone/USB cables, from cheap smartphones, etc.

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

#75

Post by mistermann »

phlo wrote: post #42

These costs were related to the terminal dues that USPS (and other postal services around the world) charge each other in exchange for distributing parcels in their respective countries. [1] The system dates back to the 1960s and was implemented to ensure people could exchange letters internationally -- and the massive increase in small international parcels from e-commerce transactions is now overwhelming it. Things…

> Countries are currently classified by their level of development, meaning those in the most developed groups pay contributions into the Quality of Service Fund on top of terminal dues to those in the less developed group. This mark up goes toward development projects in the recipient country.

Does this mean "less developed" China will end up being subsidized even more?

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

#76

Post by komali2 »

tyingq wrote: post #73
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…

>To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model My experience with this isn't quite how you're describing. The Chinese vendors are sort of having their cake and eating it too. They'll often, for example, not be honest about the the shipping time, their return policies, product details, ability to answer product questions, and so forth. Even if the selling platform does something about it, another Chinese se…

I don't see how what you said couldn't equally apply to American sellers.

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

#77

Post by tyingq »

komali2 wrote: post #76
tyingq wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model My experience with this isn't quite how you're describing. The Chinese vendors are sort of having their cake and eating it too. They'll often, for example, not be honest about the the shipping time, their return policies, product details, ability to answer product questions, and so forth. Even if the selling platform does something about it, another Chinese se…

I don't see how what you said couldn't equally apply to American sellers.

It could, yes, but it's not been my experience. I suspect part of it is that Amazon is a bit better about blocking US sellers that perform badly, blacklisting the tax id, address, bank accounts, etc, such that bad US sellers can't come back, or create a new entity shedding a history of bad reviews. I don't think they have that same ability for Chinese sellers.

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

#78

Post by sixothree »

new299 wrote: post #36
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…

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.

When I buy components from china it is often the case that the price plus shipping is less than the shipping alone from a US supplier.

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

#79

Post by thrillgore »

chrinic726 wrote: post #43
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…

The job of the US government is to vehemently scrutinize and analyze Chinese (and non US) nationals when they enter the country. The job of the US government is to protect US citizens. If a Chinese citizen is inconvenienced by these policies, well, too bad. They can visit a different country. But in the end, they will still visit New York.

You haven't been following recent events.

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

#80

Post by distances »

kuschku wrote: post #51
distances wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same in Europe. Local online merchants have no way to compete since just the national delivery costs multiple times the net price of a foreign import product. It's good for consumers, but also means the domestic e-commerce is severely underdeveloped.

Actually, delivery costs in Europe are basically nil. You can ship a package in 3 days all across the EU for under 4€ with DHL. I know, because I’ve done so several times. Stuff that’s small enough to fit in a letter even for 80ct across the entire EU in 2 days. In fact, the domestic shipping market in the EU is actually cheaper than getting international parcels.

I got curious, and indeed looks like a package in Germany is domestically 4€ and within EU 8.89€. However, when sending a small package from Finland it's 22€ domestic and 40€ to Germany with DHL.

So a disclaimer to my original claim: applies only to a subset of European countries.

Post reply on HN