8 ms·

They should pay the cost of shipping their parts from China to the US without a subsidy from the US taxpayer.

by nostromo 8y ago

keithnoizu 8y ago
seems like this will backfire if we ever want to access the emerging Chinese consumer market.
- gruez 8y ago
  I find it sad how the US will be "punished" for righting a wrong, because Chinese has gotten so used to the status quo of "wrong".
- mistermann 8y ago
  This has been a big part of the motivational story all along, but what would we sell to the Chinese, and how does that compare to what they sell to us (with or without unfairly subsidized shipping)?
- turtlecloud 8y ago
  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.
fzeroracer 8y ago
Of course you realize that this change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in shipping costs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on thin margins to survive. The cost of $300 million per year as quoted in the article seems like peanuts compared to some of the other actions this administration has burdened tax payers with.
- nostromo 8y ago
  If you want to help poor people, subsidizing imports from China is a stupid way of going about it.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Generally speaking, continuing to kick the crutches out from under the lower classes is a bad idea especially when there are no better solutions being implemented. You need to keep in mind that the postal treaty wasn't JUST for China either, almost every single nation was part of the postal treaty. Withdrawing from this treaty would likely result in increased postage for all international shipments.
    - datavirtue 8y ago
      Stopping the externalization of costs will help everyone but is rarely popular since the immediate impact is felt by certain parties.
    - neltnerb 8y ago
      Luckily there is a very easy way for people to avoid paying for shipping... although maybe things have changed since I was young. Shop at local stores if shipping costs make buying by mail too expensive. Like it was forever prior to Amazon. Prior to 2005 it was consistently less expensive to shop at the local CVS, book store, or radio shack than to order online. If my business model requires public subsidies for shipping my goods to turn a profit, my business model is garbage since 100% of my profits are literally taxpayer funded. Maybe small quantity mail order batteries from China isn't actually a reasonable thing to have and it maybe actually costs less to buy batteries in giant crates and have them available in local stores. I might even say that this is obviously the case (for the battery example). Plus you build the local economy rather than subsidizing it's obliteration.
      - crysin 8y ago
        The only thing I do want to bring up about shopping locally, for electronic components specifically, is that stores like Radioshack are essentially extinct, at least where I am in the Midwest. There are no local electronic stores of any variation except for Best Buy.
- 2chen 8y ago
  Most actions disproportionately affect the poor and middle class--that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them. Although it doesn't always work out in practice, ideally, other wealth redistribution policies should blunt the impact of said actions. That said, $300m is not very much, so it seems largely like a symbolic gesture.
- burfog 8y ago
  Fixed it for you: This change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in manufacturing jobs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on manufacturing to survive. Given the state of the economy, "burdened" is not a reasonable description.
  - jarfil 8y ago
    Manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past, even China is automating more every day. When "the jobs come back", it won't be to employ the poor and middle-class but to set up automated production. Which, this time around, will be more competitive than low waged Chinese workers.
    - burfog 8y ago
      It isn't time to give up on the USA. The USA got an extra 378000 manufacturing jobs in the past year and a half. That is jobs, not just automated production.
      - hef19898 8y ago
        Sources for this number? Also, in addition to how many that existed already? In which industries? Which companies?
        Kurtz79 8y ago
        (I'm not American but these sources do not seem to be particularly biased): https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/investing/jobs-report-construction-manufacturing/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/investing/jobs-report-const... https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/america-s-new-factory-building-frenzy https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/america-s-new-factor... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/manufacturing-in-u-s-accelerates-to-cap-best-year-since-2004 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/manufactu... https://www.businessinsider.es/jobs-report-july-manufacturing-job-growth-highest-since-1995-2018-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.es/jobs-report-july-manufacturin...
- Spooky23 8y ago
  I doubt it. Chinese companies aren’t sending wholesale stock vis epacket. Losing consumer ability to by tiny quantities of fake LEGO or whatever in quantity 1 volume isn’t putting anyone out of business. I would rather subsidize domestic shipping to lower barriers to e-commerce entrants if we feel a burning desire to subsidize something in this area.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    Note this news has nothing to do with epacket
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      Huh? epacketEMS is a class of mail with tracking. How is it unrelated?
      - ikeboy 8y ago
        ePacket rates are negotiated directly, not set under the UPU treaty which the US is planning on exiting. The USPS makes a profit on epacket shipments [0][1], but loses money on UPU inbound shipments. The two aren't directly related. [0] https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2018/CP-AR-18-003.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library..., page 6 table 2 [1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/RARC-WP-16-003.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library..., footnote 17
        Spooky23 8y ago
        Awesome! I appreciate the info.
- dexen 8y ago
  >will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class ...in China, while improving emloyment in manufacturing in USA. Currently you have an imbalance in America's economy, where the poor and middle-class get goods from China, and the poor and middle-class in manufacturing[1] in China get the monetary reward. Used to be that, due to local manufacturing of the goods, the same poor-and-middle-class americans would be earning back the money spent on the goods[1] by their neighbors, in effect exchanging with each other (and with local capitalists). However due to the current trade costs imbalance, a lot of the money flows out of american's pockets, but not back to them. Will there be a price increase right around the change? Sure. But it will make local manufacturing more cost-effective, in effect spurring local employment in both production and related services, and thus looping the money expended on the goods[1] back in to the neighbor's pockets. It's a win-win for the voters in USA. [1] and related services, like engineering, transportation, worker catering & care, etc.
hef19898 8y ago
The treaty is covering parcels up to 2 kg if I read the article correctly. Industrial scale shipments are in the order of 13 tons upwards to get full container loads. These rates are admittedly dirt cheap. But this is due to over-capacities and not some parcel shipments. I would assume certain online retailers stand to profit for that discision regarding customer order from China.
- datavirtue 8y ago
  This is going to put the brakes on crappy drop shippers. Good riddance.

They should pay the cost of shipping their parts from China to the US without a subsidy from the US taxpayer.

keithnoizu 8y ago

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

gruez 8y ago
I find it sad how the US will be "punished" for righting a wrong, because Chinese has gotten so used to the status quo of "wrong".
mistermann 8y ago
This has been a big part of the motivational story all along, but what would we sell to the Chinese, and how does that compare to what they sell to us (with or without unfairly subsidized shipping)?
turtlecloud 8y ago
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.

fzeroracer 8y ago

Of course you realize that this change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in shipping costs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on thin margins to survive. The cost of $300 million per year as quoted in the article seems like peanuts compared to some of the other actions this administration has burdened tax payers with.

nostromo 8y ago
If you want to help poor people, subsidizing imports from China is a stupid way of going about it.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Generally speaking, continuing to kick the crutches out from under the lower classes is a bad idea especially when there are no better solutions being implemented. You need to keep in mind that the postal treaty wasn't JUST for China either, almost every single nation was part of the postal treaty. Withdrawing from this treaty would likely result in increased postage for all international shipments.
  - datavirtue 8y ago
    Stopping the externalization of costs will help everyone but is rarely popular since the immediate impact is felt by certain parties.
  - neltnerb 8y ago
    Luckily there is a very easy way for people to avoid paying for shipping... although maybe things have changed since I was young. Shop at local stores if shipping costs make buying by mail too expensive. Like it was forever prior to Amazon. Prior to 2005 it was consistently less expensive to shop at the local CVS, book store, or radio shack than to order online. If my business model requires public subsidies for shipping my goods to turn a profit, my business model is garbage since 100% of my profits are literally taxpayer funded. Maybe small quantity mail order batteries from China isn't actually a reasonable thing to have and it maybe actually costs less to buy batteries in giant crates and have them available in local stores. I might even say that this is obviously the case (for the battery example). Plus you build the local economy rather than subsidizing it's obliteration.
    - crysin 8y ago
      The only thing I do want to bring up about shopping locally, for electronic components specifically, is that stores like Radioshack are essentially extinct, at least where I am in the Midwest. There are no local electronic stores of any variation except for Best Buy.
2chen 8y ago
Most actions disproportionately affect the poor and middle class--that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them. Although it doesn't always work out in practice, ideally, other wealth redistribution policies should blunt the impact of said actions. That said, $300m is not very much, so it seems largely like a symbolic gesture.
burfog 8y ago
Fixed it for you: This change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in manufacturing jobs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on manufacturing to survive. Given the state of the economy, "burdened" is not a reasonable description.
- jarfil 8y ago
  Manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past, even China is automating more every day. When "the jobs come back", it won't be to employ the poor and middle-class but to set up automated production. Which, this time around, will be more competitive than low waged Chinese workers.
  - burfog 8y ago
    It isn't time to give up on the USA. The USA got an extra 378000 manufacturing jobs in the past year and a half. That is jobs, not just automated production.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      Sources for this number? Also, in addition to how many that existed already? In which industries? Which companies?
      - Kurtz79 8y ago
        (I'm not American but these sources do not seem to be particularly biased): https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/investing/jobs-report-construction-manufacturing/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/investing/jobs-report-const... https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/america-s-new-factory-building-frenzy https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/america-s-new-factor... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/manufacturing-in-u-s-accelerates-to-cap-best-year-since-2004 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/manufactu... https://www.businessinsider.es/jobs-report-july-manufacturing-job-growth-highest-since-1995-2018-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.es/jobs-report-july-manufacturin...
Spooky23 8y ago
I doubt it. Chinese companies aren’t sending wholesale stock vis epacket. Losing consumer ability to by tiny quantities of fake LEGO or whatever in quantity 1 volume isn’t putting anyone out of business. I would rather subsidize domestic shipping to lower barriers to e-commerce entrants if we feel a burning desire to subsidize something in this area.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  Note this news has nothing to do with epacket
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Huh? epacketEMS is a class of mail with tracking. How is it unrelated?
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      ePacket rates are negotiated directly, not set under the UPU treaty which the US is planning on exiting. The USPS makes a profit on epacket shipments [0][1], but loses money on UPU inbound shipments. The two aren't directly related. [0] https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2018/CP-AR-18-003.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library..., page 6 table 2 [1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/RARC-WP-16-003.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library..., footnote 17
      - Spooky23 8y ago
        Awesome! I appreciate the info.
dexen 8y ago
>will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class ...in China, while improving emloyment in manufacturing in USA. Currently you have an imbalance in America's economy, where the poor and middle-class get goods from China, and the poor and middle-class in manufacturing[1] in China get the monetary reward. Used to be that, due to local manufacturing of the goods, the same poor-and-middle-class americans would be earning back the money spent on the goods[1] by their neighbors, in effect exchanging with each other (and with local capitalists). However due to the current trade costs imbalance, a lot of the money flows out of american's pockets, but not back to them. Will there be a price increase right around the change? Sure. But it will make local manufacturing more cost-effective, in effect spurring local employment in both production and related services, and thus looping the money expended on the goods[1] back in to the neighbor's pockets. It's a win-win for the voters in USA. [1] and related services, like engineering, transportation, worker catering & care, etc.

hef19898 8y ago

The treaty is covering parcels up to 2 kg if I read the article correctly. Industrial scale shipments are in the order of 13 tons upwards to get full container loads. These rates are admittedly dirt cheap. But this is due to over-capacities and not some parcel shipments. I would assume certain online retailers stand to profit for that discision regarding customer order from China.

datavirtue 8y ago
This is going to put the brakes on crappy drop shippers. Good riddance.