USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014) • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

sokoloff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I look at it is that I self-insure. Much of what I buy direct from China (small electronics modules, connectors, electronics supplies, PCBs, etc) is less than half the price of what local sellers are charging, often way less. My experience is that way over 95% of items are as described, arrive safely, and perfectly functional. The odd item that is broken in transit (or never arrives) I simply choose not to ca…

You're ordering one of the few things you can safely order from China, though. There's no way for them to screw up electronic components, because they're basically the single stop between you and the same factories which supply everyone else on the market. I wouldn't try that with consumer electronics though. Anything that's actually assembled to be sold cheap will likely be close to unusable. I can name plenty of ex…

Be careful about ratings though. Power supply from China can claim a higher rating that it supports. Go near the rating and it starts to overheat or cut in and out. Weather-resistance of devices (outdoor cameras etc) can claim the highest rating, have a rubber seal to 'deserve' that rating, but then have screw holes in the case that freely admit water. Strings of LED lights may claim 'water resistant' but have no sealant where the wire enters the bulb base - which corrodes in a few months. And so on.

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

#92

Post by phlo » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 1:40 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #75

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?

The change to the regime for bulky letters and parcels is not the same as the group mergers. I was referring mostly to the former, which will increase the dues for bulky letters and small parcels to a higher per-kg-rate than the current rate that applies to all mail.

The latter change merges some groups but will, to my understanding, not affect China. Groups 1.2 and 2 (countries which joined the terminal dues target system in 2010 and 2012, respectively) will get merged; as will the countries in groups 4 and 5, which are currently transition into the target system. China appears to remain in group 3. [1]

[1] http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/listCountryClassi...

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

#93

Post by Tepix » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 1:40 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #80

kuschku wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Companies that ship a lot of stuff get much lower prices from DHL, UPS etc.

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

#94

Post by Shivetya » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 1:48 PM UTC

I see this with many auctions which are direct from China. Incredibly low auction prices and similar shipping. Do a search for antique Chinese porcelain and sort by lowest ship/price. You will find many items starting at one cent.

I have won a few at a dollar or lower and always received the item. so I have to assume there is no real ship cost to the sender. even the packaging if done here would cost more than what I have paid; usually custom styrofoam that perfectly encloses the item but just remove tape and it opens.

Considering their dollar a package deal with Amazon for last mile I figure they have many ways to lose money

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

#95

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #91

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ordering one of the few things you can safely order from China, though. There's no way for them to screw up electronic components, because they're basically the single stop between you and the same factories which supply everyone else on the market. I wouldn't try that with consumer electronics though. Anything that's actually assembled to be sold cheap will likely be close to unusable. I can name plenty of ex…

Be careful about ratings though. Power supply from China can claim a higher rating that it supports. Go near the rating and it starts to overheat or cut in and out. Weather-resistance of devices (outdoor cameras etc) can claim the highest rating, have a rubber seal to 'deserve' that rating, but then have screw holes in the case that freely admit water. Strings of LED lights may claim 'water resistant' but have no sea…

Yeah. But all those devices are what I qualify as "assembled" / "consumer" electronics, and I avoid sourcing those from random Chinese suppliers, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I will trust a pack of SMD LEDs, but I won't trust their assembled form.

(One exception from my "components only" rule are USB cables. I bought a bunch when I was in Shenzhen, and I actually tested them physically before buying; I discovered that if you pick a random USB cable there, there's like 70% chance it won't be able to give you more than ~750mA from a 2A charger...)

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

#96

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 2:04 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #89

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ordering one of the few things you can safely order from China, though. There's no way for them to screw up electronic components, because they're basically the single stop between you and the same factories which supply everyone else on the market. I wouldn't try that with consumer electronics though. Anything that's actually assembled to be sold cheap will likely be close to unusable. I can name plenty of ex…

I've also had good luck with small bluetooth speakers, with LED/PIR closet lights, with landscape lighting, with RGB LED light bulbs, LED lighting kits, charging cables, and a bunch of other things, even including a network tracing/mapping tool (that one I was sweating a little bit as it was expensive). It's literally better than 95% (probably more like 99%) good stuff and I'm willing to eat the small amount of slipp…

I saw how they make LED bulbs on-site, on the Shenzhen markets, and thus I'm not particularly confident in them. Related, the company my SO works in sells LED bulbs imported from China (among other things). I bought a bunch of them, and had them burn out on me one by one, with an average life time of a bulb around 1 week (one or two were broken already, a few burned out within first 2 days, rest worked for few months).

In a parallel comment I described my negative experience with USB cables, which I tested on-site to find some that actually work for charging a cell phone. I also sourced USB chargers from China and have two burn out on me. Random Bluetooth headset from Aliexpress managed to completely mess up Android on my phone (how that was possible is beyond me, but I guess crappy Bluetooth 2.x firmware).

So, anecdata to anecdata, I don't share your confidence in any kind of electronic products. I stick to sourcing components now.

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

#97

Post by Brotkrumen » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 2:06 PM UTC

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.

In principle I agree that subsidies don't always benefit the worst off. In this case, they do however, since the downward price pressure is mainly on low priced, lower quality segment consumer goods.

You could make the argument that while the costs of the goods are now lower and consumer surplus goes to most americans, they're out-competing US made products, that would generate wages for the worst off. Then you'd be arguing for protectionism though.

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

#98

Post by scribu » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

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…

You're right, it could go both ways.

I guess the question then is: do we have a way of predicting which way it will go?

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

#99

Post by csydas » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

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 think this is slightly different than what the article (and by extension my comment) were discussing.

For some products and items, the difference between the chinese produced items and the actual items is a world of difference (e.g., electronics batteries, power adapters), but that isn't really the business that the article was talking about the cut into - the issue was resellers who would buy up a warehouse stock from chinese producers and sell it at mark-up; with modern postal agreements and websites, there really isn't a need for this particular service.

It's not a matter of meeting shipping times or any other value propositions, it's "do we need someone to resell a toy boat at twice the price when we can buy the same stock directly"

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

#100

Post by tyingq » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

csydas wrote: post #99

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 think this is slightly different than what the article (and by extension my comment) were discussing. For some products and items, the difference between the chinese produced items and the actual items is a world of difference (e.g., electronics batteries, power adapters), but that isn't really the business that the article was talking about the cut into - the issue was resellers who would buy up a warehouse stock…

>It's not a matter of meeting shipping times or any other value propositions, it's "do we need someone to resell a toy boat at twice the price when we can buy the same stock directly

That may not apply to toy boats, but it does apply to some things. Take USB to serial adapters, for example. In that case, a middle man does add value. A good middle man ensures that you get what was advertised...for example, the chipset is what the product listing says it is. They also provide better documentation, support, the ability to return the item without high shipping costs, etc, than the direct-from-china seller.

So, yes, it's slightly different...taking into account that in some cases the middleman adds value.

Also, it does still apply if you don't like the idea that the Amazon listing said shipping would be a week and it ends up being a month. That's not just the overseas shipping time either...it's the cultural difference with the Chinese sellers. "Sorry for the delay, it is Chinese New Year, and we're all off on vacation for 2 weeks, and we just don't work , note that in the listing, etc".

Or, it matters if you want to return the toy boat. Your cost to ship it back to China might exceed the total cost of the item you paid.

If these tradeoffs were known before hand, I get your point. Typically, though, they are deliberately not disclosed.