No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers • Hacker News Board

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#291

Post by sudosteph » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #154

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.

Not me.

I had a neighbor for while who worked full-time for USPS. Postal workers provide reliable service, and are able to earn a livable wage without driving themselves into the ground like the contractor delivery services. I like that USPS is a piece of the American infrastructure fabric, and I like that it employs local people in a sustainable way.

I do not consume nearly enough things that require international shipping to value cheap shipping more. And even if I did, the ethical implications involved with destroying decent jobs for Americans and losing a piece of our national delivery network would stil not make it worthwhile sacrifice in my book.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#292

Post by the-dude » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #289

the-dude wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not limited to the US. I believe it is worldwide and it is certainly the same in The Netherlands. edit: I believe there has been some change recently, the 'ePacket' ? Which is not delivered to your door, but you have to fetch it at a postal point.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/withdrawal-universal-postal-unio... has a deep breakdown, I was just speaking to the consequences the USPS (which handles international mail in the US) felt from the price setting that occurs under UPU.

I was not refuting your point, just trying to give your comment broader meaning.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#293

Post by Kadin » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

wbl wrote: post #90

dev_dull wrote: post #75

> This is great news for U.S. sellers, especially eBay sellers. Exactly the intended consequence. Why should US taxpayers subsidize shipping costs for products to come from China? It made no sense at all in today's economy unless the only thing you care about is paying less for your goods regardless of the consequences, which I don't think is a majority position of adults today.

The goal of the UPU was to have one rate for international shipping based on sending country vs. per destination pricing. Countries agreed to eat the costs. This produced things like the International Postal Coupon which are great.

Like Internet peering agreements, the UPU model only made sense when there was about the same amount of traffic going in each direction. In that case, it makes sense for each country to just pick up the cost of domestic last-mile delivery, because other countries are doing the same for its outbound packages.

The problem is when there's a continuous structural trade imbalance, and more packages flow one direction than in the other. Then you have a de facto subsidy scheme, and it makes sense to terminate or renegotiate the agreement and switch to something more along the lines of sender-pays.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#294

Post by mola » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #233

lonelappde wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense can the UN "force" anything? The article says that Trump is moving to pull out of or renegotiate the UPU agreement, which at worst is a Presidential choice, and it's not even clear to me why USPS can't do it unilaterally.

> In what sense can the UN "force" anything? Are we going to pretend the UN and UPU have zero power to dictate global shipping rates? Because that's exactly what they do.

They have zero power. The US can destroy the UN in a flash. But in that instance, humanity would pay much more than extra bucks for shipping crap we don't need.

A strong AND fair UN is a good deterrent for world wars. Of course, it's better to renegotiate any precieved unfairness than to just blow all violence avoidance safeguards like a world congress.

China got away with their economic trickery because of US corporate greed and short sightedness combined with the US public insatiable consumerism. But we humans have a short memory and we like being empowered by bully leaders.

Let's just hope we'll survive this age without too much bloodshed.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#295

Post by ikeboy » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

beowulfey wrote: post #84

ajnin wrote: post #23

Can someone shed light on the subsidy structure behing the current model, are shipments from China being subsidized by shipments from other countries or is there government money involved ? In any case this kind of subsidy is not necessarily bad for developing countries, and it was probably instrumental in China's phenomenal economic growth, but it is now in the conquering superpower category, it's time it loses this…

It's not really a subsidy so much as an underpayment by the foreign goverments[1]. There is no tax money involved, and all the subsidizing comes from the increased revenue from raising domestic shipping costs. The UPU has been around for decades, but it's only been since 2010 that the USPS has formalized the process with the "ePacket" shipping. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...

UPU and epacket are different things, and epacket is currently profitable for the USPS.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#296

Post by zxcvbn4038 » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

It is still going to be cheaper to order directly from China then to pay someone in the US to order it, repackage it, and mail it to me. (Or even to be lazy and order it on my behalf from China, but US companies will repack it so you don't find out their sources). The US just doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities anymore, and even if the US wanted to have its own manufacturing capability people are not going to work China wages, they are going to demand US wages. So again China will end up being cheaper.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#297

Post by hart_russell » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

Glad we're finally waking up to the realization we were siphoning off GDP to a nation that doesn't align with our values.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#298

Post by xster » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

jarfil wrote: post #204

tracer4201 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have the background on this - help me understand why or how it’s cheaper for goods to ship cheaper from China than shipping within the US? The US taxpayer is subsidizing this? I’m shocked and confused.

It's cheaper to ship 10,000 items in a single container, than to ship each one separately, which is why mail carriers bundle items together (in bags, vans, containers, etc) instead of handling them separately all the way. Domestic mail is like sending separate items, which get bundled together, then un-bundled again to deliver them to their final destination. All these steps happen at domestic wages, and at best with…

There's still humans in postal sorting centers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjdpz05u2DY

omg...

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#299

Post by traek » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

Accujack wrote: post #265

entropea wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So is drop shipping from China now dead? Probably. This is going to drop a lot of sellers off of Amazon and eBay, and likely have major effects on independent small business dollar/99c stores.

Also businesses like Harbor Freight will benefit, because it will be much harder/more expensive to buy direct. Same thing with the "cheap" brands at places like Menards. This will slow the pace of innovation in a lot of areas, especially among electronics hobbyists. Cheap chinese circuit boards from Shenzen are a major driver for electronics related businesses, robotics, drones, and lots of other areas. This is going…

It's happening because many Americans don't see the value in subsidizing electronics hobbyists.

It won't hurt robotics or drones companies, that's pure fearmongering. No business is having circuit boards shipped via ePacket.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#300

Post by ccleve » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #225

adventured wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a UN-based forced rate subsidy for developing nations that China still benefits from. "According to the U.S. Postal Service, it costs around $20 to mail a small parcel weighing 4.4 pounds from one U.S. state to another, yet mailing the same package from China only costs about $5." "The Universal Postal Union, a United Nations agency that sets postal rates among its 192-member countries, dictates USPS's artificia…

In what sense can the UN "force" anything? The article says that Trump is moving to pull out of or renegotiate the UPU agreement, which at worst is a Presidential choice, and it's not even clear to me why USPS can't do it unilaterally.

The UN can "force" rules upon us if we sign an agreement allowing them to do so. If we sign a treaty agreeing to abide by the rules set by a UN agency, then they can impose such rules, and under the US Constitution, such rules have the force of law within the US.

The rules might not be fair. Our recourse is to try to change the rules, and failing that, threaten to withdraw from the agreement. That's what we're doing.