US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty • Hacker News Board

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#111

Post by jarfil » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:00 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #37

dawnerd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which isn’t a bad thing. Maybe we’ll see less spam drop shipped items on Amazon finally. eBay too.

The things you see on Amazon are bought by the container-load from China and sent to Amazon's warehouses for fulfilment. This change will encourage that sort of business because it'll no longer be worthwhile sending direct from China (as the likes of dx.com and aliexpress do now).

AliExpress is doing that too. I'm in Spain, and I literally just received an SMS for a shipment from "SINOTRANS" which is what AliExpress uses to ship in bulk from China then fulfill locally.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#112

Post by Abishek_Muthian » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:05 AM UTC

godzillabrennus wrote: post #2

A friend helped the Wall Street Journal expose the damage this treaty was doing to his small business in the United States as it tried to fend off counterfeiters. https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-subsidy-for-china-is-dumb-... Seems like a win for American innovation if you care about that thing. Seems like China is going to get hurt by this change which is bad for globalization if you are into that thing.

Would the outcome of these negotiations at-least end up creating a path to coin a universally accepted definitions of 'Developing Country' & 'Developed Country'? Is it HDI, industry or by Military Strength Index?

If MSI is taken into account, then India & China are among the most developed nations!

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#113

Post by YouKnowBetter » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:12 AM UTC

sschueller wrote: post #105

YouKnowBetter wrote: post #72

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. Interesting, got a source for that?

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

Yeah, not a word about "people who receive such mail will be billed additional fees". It mentions that the sender in China will be charged more over time.

Quite a difference.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#114

Post by burfog » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:18 AM UTC

jarfil wrote: post #106

burfog wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't time to give up on the USA. The USA got an extra 378000 manufacturing jobs in the past year and a half. That is jobs, not just automated production.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#115

Post by tomohawk » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:35 AM UTC

jarfil wrote: post #102

wbl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Before WW I, France and Germany were each others largest trading partners. Trade and prosperity are orthogonal to war.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#116

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:37 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #20

fzeroracer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about American innovation that relies on certain parts from China, such as the entire electronic industry which we operate in?

They should pay the cost of shipping their parts from China to the US without a subsidy from the US taxpayer.

The treaty is covering parcels up to 2 kg if I read the article correctly. Industrial scale shipments are in the order of 13 tons upwards to get full container loads. These rates are admittedly dirt cheap. But this is due to over-capacities and not some parcel shipments. I would assume certain online retailers stand to profit for that discision regarding customer order from China.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#117

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:41 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.

The sheer volume China, and other Asian countries, are producing in the electric industry pales any impact this treaty could have. I seems to me that this treaty gained significance due to e-commerce. Thus it impacts consumer orders, not industrial ones. So the only parties to be impacted are online retailers (and every private sender).

Not sure how that would impact the current global work-share in any measurable way...

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#118

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:42 AM UTC

burfog wrote: post #114

jarfil wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't time to give up on the USA. The USA got an extra 378000 manufacturing jobs in the past year and a half. That is jobs, not just automated production.

Sources for this number? Also, in addition to how many that existed already? In which industries? Which companies?

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#119

Post by latchkey » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:43 AM UTC

burfog wrote: post #114

jarfil wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't time to give up on the USA. The USA got an extra 378000 manufacturing jobs in the past year and a half. That is jobs, not just automated production.

What is your source? All I could find is clearly one sided opinions on this matter.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#120

Post by dTal » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:44 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #27

paulsutter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization is about an even playing field, not one-sided concessions and subsidies

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…

And yet, if the profits can be prevented from all floating to the top, globalisation would appear on the surface to be an excellent way of redressing global inequality. Massive international wage gaps will be perceived by the market as an exploitable inefficiency, which over time will be ironed out.

Or, to put it another way, if two people wish to trade, it must be in both of their interests. If I, as a westerner, go to a third world country and buy a bunch of stuff that from my perspective is cheap but from their perspective is expensive, we both end up happy. What's so terrible about that?

(Of course where it falls down is where labor is cheaper because of poor worker protections and exploitative practices, in which case it constitutes an end-run around the labor laws of the richer party. But they are the ones that should be upset, not the poorer party, whose labor laws would be terrible regardless of exploitation)