7 ms·

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

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.
      - tjr225 8y ago
        Which is precisely why I do not shop at corporate mega stores that make it impossible for smaller businesses to compete using shady practices to lower prices. Once Amazon or Wal-Mart are the only company left, they will be free to raise the prices to whatever they want.
      - cdiddy2 8y ago
        maybe it would be possible for some of those stores to prosper again with a change in the market conditions
    - Jemm 8y ago
      As a person who ran a local store 'back when', the cost of shipping was factored into the wholesale price which then was used by the store to calculate the retail price. The end result was that shipping was included in the mark up percentage, typically 60 to 100%. If a middle man was used, like an importer/warehouser, that middle man added their markup on shipping as well, typically 20 to 40%.
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.

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.
    - tjr225 8y ago
      Which is precisely why I do not shop at corporate mega stores that make it impossible for smaller businesses to compete using shady practices to lower prices. Once Amazon or Wal-Mart are the only company left, they will be free to raise the prices to whatever they want.
    - cdiddy2 8y ago
      maybe it would be possible for some of those stores to prosper again with a change in the market conditions
  - Jemm 8y ago
    As a person who ran a local store 'back when', the cost of shipping was factored into the wholesale price which then was used by the store to calculate the retail price. The end result was that shipping was included in the mark up percentage, typically 60 to 100%. If a middle man was used, like an importer/warehouser, that middle man added their markup on shipping as well, typically 20 to 40%.

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.