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.
From all the people I have talked to about this especially makers who order alot from China, it was my understanding that this is what the post office will do. It is probably also the only thing they can do and they already have a system in place to collect such fees.
Those airlines don't provide a better product for a lower cost, they are selling you a higher-end product and billing part of it to their own citizens. That's what government subsidy means.
Yes, I understand what government subsidies are and how they work. But if I'm not the one subsidising the product then I don't understand how me benefiting from that is a bad thing for me personally. The US subsidises gasoline quite aggressively when compared to other countries around the world. You can see this in fuel costs; routinely US gasoline used to be cheaper by the gallon than Australian gasoline was by the…
What subsidies for gasoline? Here we constantly fight over taxes on gasoline.
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.
Manufacturing continues and will forever...not "a thing of the past." This subsidy was a small part of the larger policy landscape that caused you to think manufacturing was a thing of the past. We have makers everywhere!!
I want to remind everyone that Chinese economy became what it is today because European, American and Japanese companies invested trillions in China. It was a Republican president who kicked it all off. A policy decision of pure capitalism.
Those areas made far more than they invested, and China needed that huge investment because those three areas had already spent a century exploiting it for profit.
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.
Even if you have a source for this data, how many of these jobs are going to be lost to automation and process improvements in the next 5-10 years? My father recently retired form a steel mill. He wasn't replaced. My city's entire economy used to be based around steel manufacturing. There's still plants here, but the number of people who work in the steel industry has steadily declined. Here is a cited source to say…
You are missing the forest. When mundane tasks are automated people MO e on to better things. Every. Single. Time.
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 wa…
...and the manufacturers that make the things that people order. Your thinking is blocked at the first order level. Keep trying.
No it has no bearing on China. It is the same policy with Switzerland. You get the international package to America we pay for the final delivery. Pay for a package to Switzerland and Switzerland pays for the final delivery. It was suppose to be a wash for both parties. China just got a much better deal. Cost me more to mail a package the next state away then for me to get a package delivered from China. Now you have…
EBay from China is now bye bye. Why would this change the be end of direct shipping from China? Currently (rounded off numbers) the cost of shipping a 2 lb (1 kg) package within the US is about $7, and the cost of shipping such a package from China to a US address is about $2. The obvious solution would be that the Chinese shipment ends up costing $9 (current Chinese rate of $2 to the US border, plus $7 standard US s…
I can order 8 recycling batteries for $2.99 and have them shipped to my house. That is a loss of $4. They are looking at an increase of $7 at least. BTW when I ship a small box 2 pound of cookies to my son from his mom it cost me around $10.
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.
This is going to put the brakes on crappy drop shippers. Good riddance.
What about American innovation that relies on certain parts from China, such as the entire electronic industry which we operate in?
Until about 1998 I think, a lot of motherboards were made and populated in the US. I remember taking apart an old Cisco switch that had "Made in USA" silkscreened on the motherboard.
Yep. All of my first computers were made in the USA. Astounding quality.