61–70 of 380 posts
The headline made it sound sort of bad, but reading this and the WSJ article, it makes you wonder why it wasn’t done sooner.
Because it will make some goods much more expensive for everyone in the US. This can have unintended consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heavily dislike that america just leaves treaties it does not like instead of improving them. Most smaller countries cannot use the same method. If my country for instance were to do thay nobody would ship there any more because the billing system would be too complex and expensive and the market is just too small.
> Most smaller countries cannot use the same method. Sure, but America can, so why shouldn’t it?
We have the same issue in Switzerland with cheap packages from China which are received as mail but do not fit through the automated sorting system. This requires a lot of manual labor which increases the costs for the postal service. This is why sometime this year people who receive such mail will be billed additional fees increasing slowly over the next few years. The treaty allows under developed nations to ship a…
Why are the people receiving the mail being billed extra when it is the sender failing compliance?
Shouldn't this be rolled into "shipping and handling" that the sender has to deal with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heavily dislike that america just leaves treaties it does not like instead of improving them. Most smaller countries cannot use the same method. If my country for instance were to do thay nobody would ship there any more because the billing system would be too complex and expensive and the market is just too small.
> Most smaller countries cannot use the same method. Sure, but America can, so why shouldn’t it?
Not weighing in on if this is a good or bad thing overall, but I did listen to a pretty good NPR podcast a while back that explains a little more about this treaty and how it was affecting businesses in the US. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/epis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you realize that this change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in shipping costs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on thin margins to survive. The cost of $300 million per year as quoted in the article seems like peanuts compared to some of the other actions this administration has burdened tax payers with.
If you want to help poor people, subsidizing imports from China is a stupid way of going about it.
You need to keep in mind that the postal treaty wasn't JUST for China either, almost every single nation was part of the postal treaty. Withdrawing from this treaty would likely result in increased postage for all international shipments.
if China loses its status as a developing country, all that's likely to happen is the items will end up being shipped from a neighbouring country that still has the status. When you buy items from AliExpress often they have the option of being sent by Singapore Post. I'm not exactly sure how that works (Singapore isn't that close to China), but although the item comes from China, to the postal service it doesn't.
Still, if the US leaves the treaty it won't matter to Americans in a year.
We have the same issue in Switzerland with cheap packages from China which are received as mail but do not fit through the automated sorting system. This requires a lot of manual labor which increases the costs for the postal service. This is why sometime this year people who receive such mail will be billed additional fees increasing slowly over the next few years. The treaty allows under developed nations to ship a…
> This is why sometime this year people who receive such mail will be billed additional fees increasing slowly over the next few years. Why are the people receiving the mail being billed extra when it is the sender failing compliance? Shouldn't this be rolled into "shipping and handling" that the sender has to deal with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should pay the cost of shipping their parts from China to the US without a subsidy from the US taxpayer.
Of course you realize that this change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in shipping costs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on thin margins to survive. The cost of $300 million per year as quoted in the article seems like peanuts compared to some of the other actions this administration has burdened tax payers with.
This change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in manufacturing jobs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on manufacturing to survive.
Given the state of the economy, "burdened" is not a reasonable description.