Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 380 posts

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#361

Post by fyfy18 »

sam_goody wrote: post #134
fyfy18 wrote: post #57

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.

I had a chat about this with one of the sellers on AliBaba. He claimed that the items are still being shipped from China, and that he is just witing Singapore / Czechoslovakia / any other developing country on the package (he said it is part of the tracking code), and he gets the benefit of the country whose code he used. He said the main reason they do that is that the laws differ as to what can be shipped from each…

It sounds like it has some basis in what happens, but how does that give them better postage rates? Surely they still need to go to their local post office, in China, or is it a scam the local post office is involved in too?

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#362

Post by gmiller123456 »

nil_pointer wrote: post #330
gmiller123456 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we assume the information in that video is correct, just charging the extra $1 or so for delivery would not cause any significant number of jobs to the US. Firstly, the movement of jobs from the US to China pre-dates consumers wide availability of ordering packages straight from China. Secondly, factories in China shipping a lot of products aren't going to be sending their entire inventory in the small $2-$3…

To clarify, it has cost the Post Office nearly $60 billion dollars, which falls onto US tax payers.

The USPS does not receive a single penny of tax dollars[1]

[1]https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#363

Post by gmiller123456 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #337
gmiller123456 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we assume the information in that video is correct, just charging the extra $1 or so for delivery would not cause any significant number of jobs to the US. Firstly, the movement of jobs from the US to China pre-dates consumers wide availability of ordering packages straight from China. Secondly, factories in China shipping a lot of products aren't going to be sending their entire inventory in the small $2-$3…

It seems you're misundestanding the problem entirely. Secondly, factories in China shipping a lot of products aren't going to be sending their entire inventory in the small $2-$3 packages mentioned in the video, they'll be making larger freight shipments not involving the USPS at all. This was precisely what Chinese factories were doing: dividing up shipments to the US into smaller packages that qualified for the USP…

Those would be good points if you can back them up with a source. But even the video I was responding to showed the prices as $1.63 for a 1oz package, not "pennies" as you say. A 2oz package costs $1.96, and a 4lb package costs $21.15 which is higher than the US cost of $7.15. So it would be far cheaper for them to bundle the 1oz packages into a 4lb package and pay the higher rate. So I think you'd be better off questioning the source of your information.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#364

Post by niij »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #354
raquo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the issue here is not the differential in efficiencies. It's China receiving subsidies from the US because it was considered a developing country in 1969. It's not anymore, it's a global superpower now, it can pay its own postage.

This. I've got nothing against US aid to less privileged nations, I'm all for it. I can't stand a US adversary who is running re-education concentration camps for Uighurs and implanting remote access devices into US corporate infrastructure getting an unjust benefit form one cent of American tax money that operates the post office.

The US post office is 100% self funded. They get exactly $0 from taxes.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#365

Post by RugnirViking »

kmlx wrote: post #64
traek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most smaller countries cannot use the same method. Sure, but America can, so why shouldn’t it?

there are a multitude of other ways, ways which are completely oblivious to the current administration as well as its supporters.

If there were such ways, why isn't your country doing them?

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#366

Post by morpheuskafka »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #222
onion2k wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will be the unintended consequences I wonder? Small businesses who use dropshipping direct from Chinese companies will stop being able to compete with big businesses who buy in bulk and ship from US warehouses. This will benefit the likes of Amazon more than anyone else. Not sure if that's an unintended consequence though.

I'm low income for where I live and buy a lot of basic $1-$5 clothes from China that would be $20-$30 equivalent in USA. This is going to hurt me directly. It's not like I'm buying food, housing, electricity from China, but having good quality fashionable clothes for very cheap when I can't afford anything except Goodwill here is beneficial for professionalism at my job, and overall satisfaction about myself. Trump s…

That 90% discount is because your/our tax dollars make it cheaper for China to ship here than for a business like the one you work at or might get a job at or even start in the future to ship to China or other countries.

I agree that we shouldn't pretend that we can make everything domestically--but we also cannot allow our economy and basic goods--by virtue of subsidies, no less--to atrophy while we become dependent on the parasitic influence of the PRC. China is not a free country, they are a aggressive totalitarian regime and it is a shame that the US will soon be 100% dependent on them for every good we buy.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#367

Post by morpheuskafka »

niij wrote: post #364
morpheuskafka wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I've got nothing against US aid to less privileged nations, I'm all for it. I can't stand a US adversary who is running re-education concentration camps for Uighurs and implanting remote access devices into US corporate infrastructure getting an unjust benefit form one cent of American tax money that operates the post office.

The US post office is 100% self funded. They get exactly $0 from taxes.

Not so fast. You're right that the general operations of the USPS are no longer directly appropriated by Congress. However, the US government and its citizens do give the USPS significant economic benefits, including a 100% tax exemption from state and local taxes, and the ability to "pay" federal taxes back to itself[1]. USPS need not comply with local zoning, parking, toll road, etc. laws.

According to a 2015 report[2] cited by Fortune, that included $2.1B in waived taxes, the benefit of a federal monopoly on deliveries worth $14.9B, and as much as $490M/yr in subsidized lower interest rates due to not having to have a credit rating and borrow on the open market, but instead getting preferential treatment from the Treasury. Not included in the report is the fact that USPS OIG and USPIS are federally funded through appropriations[3]--whereas UPS or FedEx would have to hire their own off duty police offers at significant expense to receive the same level of protection.

[1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/taxing-postal-service [2] http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Study_of_USPS_Subsidies-... [3] https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library...

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#368

Post by turtlecloud »

keithnoizu wrote: post #32
nostromo wrote: post #20

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.

seems like this will backfire if we ever want to access the emerging Chinese consumer market.

Chinese will not want to buy foreign stuff. If looking at history, the British had to force opium down the Chinese in order to get them to trade tea.

The main exception is in luxury products like Gucci bags, iPhones and LV.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#369

Post by colechristensen »

anjc wrote: post #356
rcxdude wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they provide some level of stocking and quality control, they can. Dropshippers arbitrating between amazon and aliexpress don't really provide much of that.

What about insurance brokers? Or travel brokers? They don't have stock. Intermediaries (sort of) inherently create quality control via having a better perspective on the market than any single supplier can, and through pressuring individual suppliers via their own large-scale buying/selling activities. E.g. if a dropshipper is selling mobile phone covers at scale, and stops using supplier x because the poor quality i…

That isn't what happens though. Quality control with foreign suppliers is very difficult. A bad supplier with a bad name will disappear and come back with a new name. The shops are small and there are an enormous amount of them so there is very little what you might call reputation capital. Find people with experience sourcing products in China and get them to tell you stories.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#370

Post by nkurz »

baldfat wrote: post #178
nkurz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, certain things will no longer be feasible. My doubt was that these less-than-the-cost-of-shipping items were the bulk of the current direct-from-China Ebay orders, and even if they were, I was doubting that there was not a market for slightly more expensive items.

For the US cost, a "Priority Mail Small Flat Rate Box" is $7.20 between any two US addresses, and a "Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope" is $6.70. If you don't use one of these, the postage will likely will be slightly more.

Post reply on HN