No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers • Hacker News Board

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#491

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 6:22 AM UTC

DoctorOetker wrote: post #490

nickserv wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know about air mail, but for maritime and rail transport, there is much more going from China to the EU or US than in the other direction by volume. This means cargo carriers have to send back empty containers to China. As a result, it's cheaper to book a container, from, say, Antwerp to Shanghai than the reverse. The difference can be quite substantial, potentially hundreds of USD per container. For the other…

>Don't know about air mail, but for maritime and rail transport, there is much more going from China to the EU or US than in the other direction by volume. Where can I verify this? Thats looking at only the direct transport? Or also indirect transport? Consider a hypothetical container from the US/EU going to Africa (bringing products, second hand goods, "recyclables", ...), then the container could pick up raw miner…

It’s pretty much the result of our trade deficit. Not only does China export more than is, they export much lower value products on a volume/weight basis. Heck, a big USA export to China are airplanes that can simply be flown there.

China exports plenty to Africa, no need for such circuitous shipping patterns.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#492

Post by DoctorOetker » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

>The administration has given the UPU an ultimatum, that they: either allow the USPS to set rates for China mail that arrives in the U.S., or the U.S. will officially leave the UPU on October 17th.

(Emphasis mine)

why "for China mail" ?

why not "no exceptions: all over the planet everybody pays the same local rates, or else we leave the UPU" ?

This smells like hidden import taxation, but I hope I am wrong. But then why insist on phrasing the ultimatum with referene to "for China mail" specifically ?

EDIT: adding another gem:

>Global Supply Chain News: After Three Years of Secrecy, Amazon Starting to Ramp Up Global Logistics Services

>they are actively looking to compete in the shipping industry

...

>The project’s name: Dragon Boat.

>As part of that strategy, Bloomberg reported Amazon had plans to take on freight forwarding and brokerage services directly, eliminating a set of middlemen.

>...

>Among the most important ramifications from Amazon’s vision: small Chinese manufacturer will be able sell to American consumers with no one else than Amazon between them.

So if an American company (in this case Amazon), will perform transport within China, does that mean that reciprocally, Chinese companies can also become a mail service in the US? They could be paid a low wage, and eat cheap food that is shipped internally. Is this really about balancing trade or about big corporations doing to mail, what they did with manufacture: export jobs to China for increased profit?

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#493

Post by nickserv » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

DoctorOetker wrote: post #490

nickserv wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know about air mail, but for maritime and rail transport, there is much more going from China to the EU or US than in the other direction by volume. This means cargo carriers have to send back empty containers to China. As a result, it's cheaper to book a container, from, say, Antwerp to Shanghai than the reverse. The difference can be quite substantial, potentially hundreds of USD per container. For the other…

>Don't know about air mail, but for maritime and rail transport, there is much more going from China to the EU or US than in the other direction by volume. Where can I verify this? Thats looking at only the direct transport? Or also indirect transport? Consider a hypothetical container from the US/EU going to Africa (bringing products, second hand goods, "recyclables", ...), then the container could pick up raw miner…

It's because the shipping containers belong to the shipping company, and are rented out for the trip.

So the shipping company will have a bunch of empty containers at the port of landing (destination), and needs to send them back to the port of departure to be filled again.

If trade between the two ports is balanced, then the containers will always be full regardless of the port of departure.

But since trade is not balanced, they wind up having to send empty containers on the "return" voyage. Which is pure loss for the shipping company, so they are willing to heavily discount routes that have empty containers transiting.

Which are these routes does change of course, but they are often those originating in the EU / US and arriving in Asia.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#494

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 7:30 AM UTC

nickserv wrote: post #493

DoctorOetker wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't know about air mail, but for maritime and rail transport, there is much more going from China to the EU or US than in the other direction by volume. Where can I verify this? Thats looking at only the direct transport? Or also indirect transport? Consider a hypothetical container from the US/EU going to Africa (bringing products, second hand goods, "recyclables", ...), then the container could pick up raw miner…

It's because the shipping containers belong to the shipping company, and are rented out for the trip. So the shipping company will have a bunch of empty containers at the port of landing (destination), and needs to send them back to the port of departure to be filled again. If trade between the two ports is balanced, then the containers will always be full regardless of the port of departure. But since trade is not b…

If the containers were the only concern, they could be melted down and shipped back to China in a far more compact form.

Container manufacturing is very automated, so it can be very cheap to do so.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#495

Post by magicalhippo » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 11:29 AM UTC

syedkarim wrote: post #466

codebje wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay Australian GST on AliExpress imports, but it doesn't make local outfits more viable. I buy hobby electronic components primarily, local suppliers are often one to two orders of magnitude more expensive, not just a few percent more.

One or two orders of magnitude? Isn't that ten-times or a hundred-times more expensive? What product could possibly be marked up by 100x?

You assume it's the same product.

If you order electronic components from China, you're never quite sure what you get. You might get the stuff that failed QA testing at the factory, or second-hand stuff that's soldered off some old PCB. Or sometimes you get something else entirely... I ordered some LM35 temperature sensors in the TO-92 package, and got some cheap transistors instead. Case was TO-92, markings where as expected for LM35, but a quick test betrayed what was really inside.

In this case I expected them to be fake, based on the price, I just wanted to see what I got. But even if the part is appropriately priced you can't be sure.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#496

Post by codebje » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

syedkarim wrote: post #466

codebje wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay Australian GST on AliExpress imports, but it doesn't make local outfits more viable. I buy hobby electronic components primarily, local suppliers are often one to two orders of magnitude more expensive, not just a few percent more.

One or two orders of magnitude? Isn't that ten-times or a hundred-times more expensive? What product could possibly be marked up by 100x?

A bare atmega328p-pu is 10x the price. LEDs are about 15x. Resistors and caps are, as another poster said, huge, but you're possibly getting factory seconds from an already mediocre brand. I buy decoupling ceramics and 5% resistors from China for peanuts but stick to RS online for caps where I depend on characteristics or reliability.

China sells a lot of older stock via AliX, so newer chips are hard to find and might be near the same price, but older clonable classics like a 2n7k are dirt cheap and just as good.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#497

Post by decoyworker » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

pcr0 wrote: post #465

decoyworker wrote: post #8

Good. It should not be cheaper to ship across the Pacific ocean than ship domestically.

I live in China and sometimes I buy made in China goods shipped from the US as it's cheaper.

That's hilarious.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#498

Post by rtkwe » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #437

lstamour wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally they didn’t collect much data and used manifests on the individual packages, but for the past 5-6 years they’ve a computer system to enter package info, it’s basically a Google Sheet, and they show the manifest like any other shipping company. They’ll occasionally get a thorough stop but it’s up to chance as anything when at a trusted, high-volume border crossing. If you’ve a Nexus card and nothing to decl…

Thanks for the extra perspective. At the end of the day, they're no different than Fedex bringing packages across the border.

Yeah the description sounded very ad-hoc and quasi-unofficial but should have known it would be actually pretty normal.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#499

Post by DoctorOetker » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #491

DoctorOetker wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't know about air mail, but for maritime and rail transport, there is much more going from China to the EU or US than in the other direction by volume. Where can I verify this? Thats looking at only the direct transport? Or also indirect transport? Consider a hypothetical container from the US/EU going to Africa (bringing products, second hand goods, "recyclables", ...), then the container could pick up raw miner…

It’s pretty much the result of our trade deficit. Not only does China export more than is, they export much lower value products on a volume/weight basis. Heck, a big USA export to China are airplanes that can simply be flown there. China exports plenty to Africa, no need for such circuitous shipping patterns.

China has a huge population, so material consumption (raw materials or finished products) for internal use in china, can bayesian catapult reasoning on value per volume/weight basis.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#500

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 3:06 PM UTC

DoctorOetker wrote: post #499

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty much the result of our trade deficit. Not only does China export more than is, they export much lower value products on a volume/weight basis. Heck, a big USA export to China are airplanes that can simply be flown there. China exports plenty to Africa, no need for such circuitous shipping patterns.

China has a huge population, so material consumption (raw materials or finished products) for internal use in china, can bayesian catapult reasoning on value per volume/weight basis.

It could, but China has other more nearby trade partners for raw materials (Russia, Central Asia, Indonesia, Australia).