US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty • Hacker News Board

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#101

Post by nemo846 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:26 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

iask wrote: post #8

Finally!!! Moves like this will help small and medium businesses compete...finally we won’t have to pay 25.00 to mail a small book to China.

Withdrawing from the UPU will allow the US raise the rates Chinese mailers pay to mail into the US, but won't lower (and, depending on how China responds, may raise) the rates US mailers have to pay to mail into China. It's potentially an extension of the existing trade war in that respect.

Trade war or not. This particular move makes sense though. There is no reason to continue giving China - an economic superpower - a discount on mail.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#102

Post by jarfil » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

wbl wrote: post #95

colechristensen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of free trade/globalization is everyone benefiting from the efficiency of each place doing the work it can do most efficiently. Iowa corn and Swiss fine machinery and Arab oil and all sorts of things where one place can do something better and cheaper because of the nature of the place. Poverty (cheap labor) and treaties (cheap postage) shouldn't be the drivers of this efficiency because they aren't caused b…

The biggest reduction in global poverty we've seen is due to outsourcing to China. Don't you care about starving Chinese peasants?

Depends. Are they so desperate that they want to go to war, or are they rather becoming more of a middle class that wants to play the newest video games?

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#103

Post by coliveira » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:35 AM UTC

The US is engaging in protectionist policies that will bring back inflation and reduce the purchasing power of the population. The country should better be prepared for the consequences of these policies, because it will be much more costly than the $300 million spent in the postal service.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#104

Post by ENGNR » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:36 AM UTC

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

This is absolutely a good idea. Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, is beyond me. I hope there are positive economic and environmental results from this move. What will be the unintended consequences I wonder?

It made sense when it was just mail (ie information) getting shuffled around, saving both sides from having to negotiate the other end in a foreign currency/language. But since e-commerce landed and it became real trade, being subsidized is suddenly a far greater issue

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#105

Post by sschueller » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:37 AM UTC

YouKnowBetter wrote: post #72

sschueller wrote: post #11

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. Interesting, got a source for that?

https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/chinesen-zahlen-me...

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#106

Post by jarfil » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:38 AM UTC

burfog wrote: post #70

fzeroracer wrote: post #35

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.

Fixed it for you: 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.

Manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past, even China is automating more every day. When "the jobs come back", it won't be to employ the poor and middle-class but to set up automated production. Which, this time around, will be more competitive than low waged Chinese workers.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#107

Post by Broken_Hippo » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:39 AM UTC

mprev wrote: post #69

bsder wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

How would you bill the sender for this? The item is already in your local postal system by the time you know it is non-compliant. It’s a choice between not delivering the packages, having the rest of the postal system subsidise them or ask the recipient to make up the difference.

IIRC, there is a way to do something similar in with the USPS, even if it is just a simple letter. Fill out a form, and the receiver gets a bill for the postage due. Something similar happens if you post a letter that cannot (for whatever reason) be returned: The receiver gets a bill they must pay before they can have the package.

I think that they figure the sender probably knows they are getting a lot of mail since the bulk of it is items ordered. They can know they are non-compliant by having standards on how many "free" packages one can receive and/or sending a notice when one is getting close to the limit.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#108

Post by jarfil » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:48 AM UTC

blihp wrote: post #86

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

This is absolutely a good idea. Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, is beyond me. I hope there are positive economic and environmental results from this move. What will be the unintended consequences I wonder?

It made sense when they were truly a developing country. But the issue is that entire businesses have been built on top of exploiting these rates. For example, a few years back I bought several specialized antenna cables for $2-3 online (total price, including shipping) and assumed they must be surplus some warehouse was trying to unload here in the U.S. and they'd just drop them in domestic First Class mail. I could…

That's not just subsidies, but also how trade routes have been optimized. China, the US and every other country, have non-symmetric mail dispatch systems, optimized for the China->wherever route, with mass dispatch from China branching out to everywhere else. The reverse wherever->China is how much shipments cost over non-optimized routes around the world.

Stopping the subsidies won't stop the differences in volume and optimization (but it can be argued that subsidies no longer make any sense).

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#109

Post by Animats » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:56 AM UTC

Oh, the terminal dues issue.[1] International mail is delivered in the destination country but paid for in the sending country. The UPU has rates for this, and they vary with the development category of the sending country. The problem is that China is still getting the rate for underdeveloped countries. In 2021, that's scheduled to change. Every 10 years this gets looked at.

[1] https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/terminal-dues-time-end-dr...

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#110

Post by Cogito » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 7:59 AM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #39

adventured wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does require having to leave the treaty - if the UPU Congress refuses to reclassify China. The threat to leave, is meant to apply enough pressure to finally get that reclassification accomplished. They've been intentionally dragging their feet on this matter over time and they only meet under normal circumstances every four years (they can of course hold emergency sessions). It's the exact same problem the US has…

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.

In the article they make it clear that they’ve indicated they intend to leave, in a year’s time as required by the treaty, if negotiations to bring China out of its old developing nation status don’t succeed.