9 ms·

This is absolutely a good idea. Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, i

This is absolutely a good idea. Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, is beyond me. I hope there are positive economic and environmental results from this move. What will be the unintended consequences I wonder?

plugger 8y ago
> Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, is beyond me. As a consumer I think it's advantageous. I'd much prefer to pay no shipping when compared to paying significant amounts for shipping, regardless of where the package originates.
- nostromo 8y ago
  You’re paying the costs, just indirectly via taxes and artificially higher US shipping costs.
  - plugger 8y ago
    Incorrect, I live in Australia. This kinda reminds me of the conversation I had with my brother in law regarding the likes of SingAir, Emirates, and Qatar and just how much better they are when compared to US carriers that charge more on the same route despite providing an inferior product comparatively. He started on about how those air carriers are government subsidised, it's not fair, and I shouldn't be flying with them because of that. I told him I didn't care about the underlying business model, I want new aircraft, well trained staff, good quality food as well as service. Every one of those government subsidised carriers over deliver on every one of those metrics when compared to their US equivalents. Sure, some people will take a stand because they feel the need to do so. But in general I don't believe most people care how their goods and services are subsidised, only that they believe they've received a better deal when compared to similar offerings from other providers.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      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.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        Does the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, still make a sound? For the person you’re replying to, it seems clear that the most important thing about the word “cost” is how much they personally pay — third parties are irrelevant. “Sound”. “Cost”. The meanings of words are not as precisely identical as our subjective feelings tell us.
      - plugger 8y ago
        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 litre. I've never once heard an American complain that their fuel is too cheap despite the fact that their taxes and government are directly responsible for said low cost.
        cggarvey 8y ago
        Our gas is too cheap due to subsidies and/or due to inadequately accounting for the costs of externalities like pollution or wear/tear on roads. Or, more precisely, the lack of political will to acknowledge that discrepancy.
        yostrovs 8y ago
        What subsidies for gasoline? Here we constantly fight over taxes on gasoline.
        cascom 8y ago
  - BeeOnRope 8y ago
    No, because those costs are paid regardless of how many packages you receive from China. So sure, people living in the US are paying those costs "as a whole", but you don't pay any additional cost when you order a package. It's like how driving on public roads is free, in the common sense of the word, even though of course the costs are still "paid" somehow, by somebody.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  Aren't we still paying for shipping through taxes, since the USPS is a public institution?
  - yardie 8y ago
    No. The USPS is in the constitution because the Framer’s thought it was important to put there. But it is completley self-funded at this stage.
    - xaqfox 8y ago
      They are self funded except that every year they have another multi-billion dollar loss.
      - rswail 8y ago
        They have a multi-billion dollar loss because the GOP Congress passed legislation requiring them to pre-pay their employee retirement health benefits instead of funding it on a pay-as-you-go basis. Given that the USPS is a government established and run service, thus backed by the USG in terms of its liabilities, the idea that somehow the USPS is "saving" this health benefit money somewhere is ludicrous. It's just as stupid as the SS "trust fund" and "lockbox", which is nothing more than a paper shuffle of US treasuries from one drawer in a filing cabinet to another.
        chaostheory 8y ago
        Is having the funds to pay for retiree benefits a terrible thing? In CA, most of our pensions for public employees can barely even meet current payments. I agree about the mess of the social security paper shuffle though
    - oicu812 8y ago
      I call bullshit... They receive $100 million in tax dollars per year to subsidize blind and overseas citizens. They also get $18 billion per year in tax benefits. That is not self-funded by any stretch. https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/american-postal-workers-union/postal-service-claim-not-fully-target/ https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/am... http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
ctrl-j 8y ago
> What will be the unintended consequences I wonder? I don't know how unintended, but I would imagine that cost of imported goods will go up, since the costs are usually passed onto the consumer
- hamandcheese 8y ago
  Most imported goods are not shipped as parcels, they come as ocean or air freight.
hw 8y ago
I'm not sure if this will really make a dent in the price gap between Chinese and local goods, and if it doesn't, well, people will still pick the more affordable option. Manufacturing and labor costs are still significantly lower in China in comparison. As the article states, there are also businesses who rely on these rates for their inventory or materials. Those businesses will also get impacted, and the extra cost will likely be passed down to consumers. Stuff on Amazon might not be so cheap anymore
pishpash 8y ago
Unintended consequence: eBay stock plummets tomorrow. (Maybe.)
onion2k 8y ago
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.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  Which isn’t a bad thing. Maybe we’ll see less spam drop shipped items on Amazon finally. eBay too.
  - onion2k 8y ago
    The things you see on Amazon are bought by the container-load from China and sent to Amazon's warehouses for fulfilment. This change will encourage that sort of business because it'll no longer be worthwhile sending direct from China (as the likes of dx.com and aliexpress do now).
    - evgen 8y ago
      While Amazon won't tell us, I think you are incorrect. A huge fraction of the cheap clone items you see listed are not in Amazon warehouses but are shipped direct from China. Fully half of my Amazon purchases over the past year have been direct shipped from China, to the point where now I check Alibaba first before purchasing something from Amazon if the item is unimportant enough that I don't care about the risk of getting a cheap counterfeit.
    - jarfil 8y ago
      AliExpress is doing that too. I'm in Spain, and I literally just received an SMS for a shipment from "SINOTRANS" which is what AliExpress uses to ship in bulk from China then fulfill locally.
      - onion2k 8y ago
        Aliexpress is the consumer-facing side of Alibaba, which is the 5th largest internet company by revenue. The fact they're doing this isn't at all surprising.
Arnt 8y ago
It may still cost less. At least shipping a big thick book form Germany to the US was cheaper than shipping the same book within the US.
jayd16 8y ago
>Whoever thought it would be advantageous [...] Well its a 144 year old treaty so probably Ulysses S. Grant and the 43rd Congress.
blihp 8y ago
It made sense when they were truly a developing country. But the issue is that entire businesses have been built on top of exploiting these rates. For example, a few years back I bought several specialized antenna cables for $2-3 online (total price, including shipping) and assumed they must be surplus some warehouse was trying to unload here in the U.S. and they'd just drop them in domestic First Class mail. I couldn't believe it when they arrived several weeks later from China and when I asked the post office what it would cost me to ship that exact package back to the sender they quoted me ~$30 (which of course didn't include the cost of the actual contents.) Good luck competing with that.
- jarfil 8y ago
  That's not just subsidies, but also how trade routes have been optimized. China, the US and every other country, have non-symmetric mail dispatch systems, optimized for the China->wherever route, with mass dispatch from China branching out to everywhere else. The reverse wherever->China is how much shipments cost over non-optimized routes around the world. Stopping the subsidies won't stop the differences in volume and optimization (but it can be argued that subsidies no longer make any sense).
  - robbick 8y ago
    I'm sure I am missing something, but surely every container ship that leaves china with a huge pile of mail has to return again to collect more - can't they just take stuff with them?
    - hkai 8y ago
      Packages are mostly airmail. Nobody will wait two months for the delivery of their cable they bought online.
      - colejohnson66 8y ago
        Not true. Look at the growing popularity of sites like Wish
ENGNR 8y ago
It made sense when it was just mail (ie information) getting shuffled around, saving both sides from having to negotiate the other end in a foreign currency/language. But since e-commerce landed and it became real trade, being subsidized is suddenly a far greater issue

plugger 8y ago

> Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, is beyond me. As a consumer I think it's advantageous. I'd much prefer to pay no shipping when compared to paying significant amounts for shipping, regardless of where the package originates.

nostromo 8y ago
You’re paying the costs, just indirectly via taxes and artificially higher US shipping costs.
- plugger 8y ago
  Incorrect, I live in Australia. This kinda reminds me of the conversation I had with my brother in law regarding the likes of SingAir, Emirates, and Qatar and just how much better they are when compared to US carriers that charge more on the same route despite providing an inferior product comparatively. He started on about how those air carriers are government subsidised, it's not fair, and I shouldn't be flying with them because of that. I told him I didn't care about the underlying business model, I want new aircraft, well trained staff, good quality food as well as service. Every one of those government subsidised carriers over deliver on every one of those metrics when compared to their US equivalents. Sure, some people will take a stand because they feel the need to do so. But in general I don't believe most people care how their goods and services are subsidised, only that they believe they've received a better deal when compared to similar offerings from other providers.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    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.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Does the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, still make a sound? For the person you’re replying to, it seems clear that the most important thing about the word “cost” is how much they personally pay — third parties are irrelevant. “Sound”. “Cost”. The meanings of words are not as precisely identical as our subjective feelings tell us.
    - plugger 8y ago
      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 litre. I've never once heard an American complain that their fuel is too cheap despite the fact that their taxes and government are directly responsible for said low cost.
      - cggarvey 8y ago
        Our gas is too cheap due to subsidies and/or due to inadequately accounting for the costs of externalities like pollution or wear/tear on roads. Or, more precisely, the lack of political will to acknowledge that discrepancy.
      - yostrovs 8y ago
        What subsidies for gasoline? Here we constantly fight over taxes on gasoline.
        cascom 8y ago
- BeeOnRope 8y ago
  No, because those costs are paid regardless of how many packages you receive from China. So sure, people living in the US are paying those costs "as a whole", but you don't pay any additional cost when you order a package. It's like how driving on public roads is free, in the common sense of the word, even though of course the costs are still "paid" somehow, by somebody.
chaostheory 8y ago
Aren't we still paying for shipping through taxes, since the USPS is a public institution?
- yardie 8y ago
  No. The USPS is in the constitution because the Framer’s thought it was important to put there. But it is completley self-funded at this stage.
  - xaqfox 8y ago
    They are self funded except that every year they have another multi-billion dollar loss.
    - rswail 8y ago
      They have a multi-billion dollar loss because the GOP Congress passed legislation requiring them to pre-pay their employee retirement health benefits instead of funding it on a pay-as-you-go basis. Given that the USPS is a government established and run service, thus backed by the USG in terms of its liabilities, the idea that somehow the USPS is "saving" this health benefit money somewhere is ludicrous. It's just as stupid as the SS "trust fund" and "lockbox", which is nothing more than a paper shuffle of US treasuries from one drawer in a filing cabinet to another.
      - chaostheory 8y ago
        Is having the funds to pay for retiree benefits a terrible thing? In CA, most of our pensions for public employees can barely even meet current payments. I agree about the mess of the social security paper shuffle though
  - oicu812 8y ago
    I call bullshit... They receive $100 million in tax dollars per year to subsidize blind and overseas citizens. They also get $18 billion per year in tax benefits. That is not self-funded by any stretch. https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/american-postal-workers-union/postal-service-claim-not-fully-target/ https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/am... http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/

ctrl-j 8y ago

> What will be the unintended consequences I wonder? I don't know how unintended, but I would imagine that cost of imported goods will go up, since the costs are usually passed onto the consumer

hamandcheese 8y ago
Most imported goods are not shipped as parcels, they come as ocean or air freight.

hw 8y ago

I'm not sure if this will really make a dent in the price gap between Chinese and local goods, and if it doesn't, well, people will still pick the more affordable option. Manufacturing and labor costs are still significantly lower in China in comparison. As the article states, there are also businesses who rely on these rates for their inventory or materials. Those businesses will also get impacted, and the extra cost will likely be passed down to consumers. Stuff on Amazon might not be so cheap anymore

pishpash 8y ago

Unintended consequence: eBay stock plummets tomorrow. (Maybe.)

onion2k 8y ago

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.

dawnerd 8y ago
Which isn’t a bad thing. Maybe we’ll see less spam drop shipped items on Amazon finally. eBay too.
- onion2k 8y ago
  The things you see on Amazon are bought by the container-load from China and sent to Amazon's warehouses for fulfilment. This change will encourage that sort of business because it'll no longer be worthwhile sending direct from China (as the likes of dx.com and aliexpress do now).
  - evgen 8y ago
    While Amazon won't tell us, I think you are incorrect. A huge fraction of the cheap clone items you see listed are not in Amazon warehouses but are shipped direct from China. Fully half of my Amazon purchases over the past year have been direct shipped from China, to the point where now I check Alibaba first before purchasing something from Amazon if the item is unimportant enough that I don't care about the risk of getting a cheap counterfeit.
  - jarfil 8y ago
    AliExpress is doing that too. I'm in Spain, and I literally just received an SMS for a shipment from "SINOTRANS" which is what AliExpress uses to ship in bulk from China then fulfill locally.
    - onion2k 8y ago
      Aliexpress is the consumer-facing side of Alibaba, which is the 5th largest internet company by revenue. The fact they're doing this isn't at all surprising.

Arnt 8y ago

It may still cost less. At least shipping a big thick book form Germany to the US was cheaper than shipping the same book within the US.

jayd16 8y ago

>Whoever thought it would be advantageous [...] Well its a 144 year old treaty so probably Ulysses S. Grant and the 43rd Congress.

blihp 8y ago

It made sense when they were truly a developing country. But the issue is that entire businesses have been built on top of exploiting these rates. For example, a few years back I bought several specialized antenna cables for $2-3 online (total price, including shipping) and assumed they must be surplus some warehouse was trying to unload here in the U.S. and they'd just drop them in domestic First Class mail. I couldn't believe it when they arrived several weeks later from China and when I asked the post office what it would cost me to ship that exact package back to the sender they quoted me ~$30 (which of course didn't include the cost of the actual contents.) Good luck competing with that.

jarfil 8y ago
That's not just subsidies, but also how trade routes have been optimized. China, the US and every other country, have non-symmetric mail dispatch systems, optimized for the China->wherever route, with mass dispatch from China branching out to everywhere else. The reverse wherever->China is how much shipments cost over non-optimized routes around the world. Stopping the subsidies won't stop the differences in volume and optimization (but it can be argued that subsidies no longer make any sense).
- robbick 8y ago
  I'm sure I am missing something, but surely every container ship that leaves china with a huge pile of mail has to return again to collect more - can't they just take stuff with them?
  - hkai 8y ago
    Packages are mostly airmail. Nobody will wait two months for the delivery of their cable they bought online.
    - colejohnson66 8y ago
      Not true. Look at the growing popularity of sites like Wish

ENGNR 8y ago

It made sense when it was just mail (ie information) getting shuffled around, saving both sides from having to negotiate the other end in a foreign currency/language. But since e-commerce landed and it became real trade, being subsidized is suddenly a far greater issue