No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers • Hacker News Board

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#151

Post by Sharlin » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #5

This actually sounds like a good thing. It costs Chinese shippers almost nothing to send stuff directly from China, while it costs me quite a lot to send stuff within the US, largely because I'm subsidizing all the Chinese shippers. Moreover, for me to send any parcel (even very small ones, like 2 oz.) outside the US costs a small fortune these days, again because I'm subsidizing the Chinese shippers.

This is great. The tariff agreements were never made with such a huge volume of small parcels in mind, many of them awkwardly shaped and causing problems with automatic sorting machines. And there’s the obvious ecological viewpoint as well.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#152

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

tasty_freeze wrote: post #130

BurningFrog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPS gets a monopoly on its gigantic market from the government. That is an enormous government subsidy. It is very much not like any other business.

The USPS does have a special relationship, but it isn't a one way street. First, it isn't a monopoly -- there are many other shippers competing in the profitable segments of the market. Second, USPS is obligated to service every location in the US, and at government-controlled prices. USPS will deliver, door to door, a letter from Nowhere, MT to Remote, GA for $0.55, even though they take a loss on it. Try to get Fed…

> First, it isn't a monopoly

But it is. A simple googling gives many hits confirming this simple fact. This one seemed most informative:

> The USPS actually has two legally enforced monopolies, as per Title 39 of the US Code. One is over the delivery of anything defined as a “letter,” which is within certain size and weight limits. The second is over the use of your mailbox.

From https://www.econlib.org/rick-geddes-explains-the-postal-mono...

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#153

Post by gruez » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #34

iNate2000 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't ocean vessels one of the most efficient forms of transportation in existence?

The shipping industry is responsible for a significant proportion of the global climate change problem. More than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to ocean-going ships. This is an amount comparable to major carbon-emitting countries -- and the industry continues to grow rapidly. In fact, if global shipping were a country, it would be the sixth largest producer of greenhouse gas emiss…

>The shipping industry is responsible for a significant proportion of the global climate change problem. More than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to ocean-going ships.

According to wikipedia, ships account for 2.2%[1] of co2 emissions. However, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for 29% of co2 emissions. Considering how much ships move, that's pretty good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...

[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#154

Post by Scoundreller » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

Would any other Americans prefer to have just 3x/week delivery and still have cheap shipping internationally?

This seems to be more about propping up the USPS’ inefficiencies at the cost of higher prices for consumers.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#155

Post by notatoad » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #60

Zigurd wrote: post #10

Having bought a couple drop-shipped goods from China, I, for one, won't miss it. The most noticeable effect I have seen is scammy listings on eBay and Amazon, unresponsive sellers, and unreliable delivery time. I have not seen any arguments of the form "but the price of X will go way up."

This could still be a problem if those sellers move to Fulfillment By Amazon. My understanding (and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong) is that Amazon's current policy is to commingle products with the same SKU from different sellers, so it will become even more likely to pay for the original and get the knockoff.

Nothing the parent comment said has anything to do with commingling of inventory. I get that HN likes to complain about FBA, but pretending inventory commingling has any relation to unresponsive sellers or long delivery times is misleading and stupid.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#156

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

reallydude wrote: post #148

ceejayoz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That first article is severely stretching the definition of "getting money". Virtually all of the alleged $18B is attributed to the law that gives the USPS jurisdiction over your mailbox. The second just reflects Congress's attempts to deliberately hobble the USPS in 2006 by requiring them to suddenly pre-fund their pension obligations. https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.bloomberg.com…

> hobble the USPS in 2006 by requiring them to suddenly pre-fund their pension obligations Maybe it's a flawed methodology (arguable), but being fiscally responsible about pensions is something that should be encouraged. In California pension liabilities are out of control and at impractical levels, causing all sorts of havoc and manipulation (corruption). https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2018/12/07/governor-jerry-.…

If fiscal responsibility were the goal, they'd have required the other federal agencies to do the same. That this specifically targets one of the few agencies ripe for potential privatization is... suspicious. Even if it made fiscal sense, the sudden switch is problematic.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#157

Post by Scoundreller » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #151

magduf wrote: post #5

This actually sounds like a good thing. It costs Chinese shippers almost nothing to send stuff directly from China, while it costs me quite a lot to send stuff within the US, largely because I'm subsidizing all the Chinese shippers. Moreover, for me to send any parcel (even very small ones, like 2 oz.) outside the US costs a small fortune these days, again because I'm subsidizing the Chinese shippers.

This is great. The tariff agreements were never made with such a huge volume of small parcels in mind, many of them awkwardly shaped and causing problems with automatic sorting machines. And there’s the obvious ecological viewpoint as well.

I gotta say, the font size on a lot of these Chinese packages is stupidly small.

I guess they don’t realize how old my letter carrier is. Or some dolt figured they could save $0.00000001 on ink costs per package this way.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#158

Post by tverbeure » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #13

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Great planet money episode on the topic: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/epis...

>FOUNTAIN: Anna sent us a chart that estimates how much less. And it says, if you or I wanted to send a three-quarter-pound package somewhere in the U.S., the U.S. Postal Service would charge around $4.76 for the last leg of the journey. >MALONE: Yeah, the so-called final mile. However, if that same package came in from China, the USPS would only charge China Post $1.39. That means the USPS charges you and me roughly…

> In particular, they take a retail price for fast shipping with tracking and compare to a wholesale price for slow shipping without tracking.

While I agree about the fast shipping part, many of my slow shipping AliExpress packages from China had tracking included.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#159

Post by morpheuskafka » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #12

HNcantBtrustd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean lower government spending? Kind of blows my mind the government gets tax money and private people get the benefits.

Huh? I'm not sure what this has to do with taxes or government spending. The USPS doesn't get tax money; it's financed by its customers, like any other business, it just happens to be wholly owned by the federal government. Postal rates are high because they're forced by the UPU agreement to deliver Chinese mail for almost nothing, so they pass the costs on to US customers.

It has a legal monopoly, the power to tax competitors under the Private Express statutes (this is why there is no FedEx First Class mail competitor), it is exempt from local taxation, and doesn't pay federal taxes to the same extent a regular business would.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#160

Post by mistermann » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

williamDafoe wrote: post #102

Warehousing won't solve the greed problem at USPS. The $5 poll tax on all shipments is just insanity. Stamping "priority mail" on 1st class packages and using red, white, and blue boxes doesn't justify their greed and incompetence, no matter what the USPS execs think .... I foresee that withing 6 months China will have 100M square feet of dropshipping warehouse space in Vietnam. This is another in a line of Trump "lo…

> "look busy, change nothing" initiatives

Why would China create more warehouse space in Vietnam, or so many people spend time writing about this topic, if nothing is changing?

Have I taken your comment literally when it was intended to be metaphorical? If so, could you more clearly clarify the specific idea you are intending to transmit?