15 ms·

This actually sounds like a good thing. It costs Chinese shippers almost nothing to send stuff directly from China, while it costs me quite a lot to send stuff

• HNcantBtrustd 7y ago
  Does this mean lower government spending? Kind of blows my mind the government gets tax money and private people get the benefits.
  • magduf 7y ago
    Huh? I'm not sure what this has to do with taxes or government spending. The USPS doesn't get tax money; it's financed by its customers, like any other business, it just happens to be wholly owned by the federal government. Postal rates are high because they're forced by the UPU agreement to deliver Chinese mail for almost nothing, so they pass the costs on to US customers.
    • ikeboy 7y ago
      This is incorrect. There's no mechanism by which cheaper prices for UPU mail translates into higher prices for US customers. If they had pricing power they'd raise prices regardless of fixed losses elsewhere.
      • Consultant32452 7y ago
        The USPS has to ask permission from regulators to raise prices, unlike their more private counterparts.
        • ikeboy 7y ago
          And that is evaluated on a per market basis. The assertion that losing money on some services causes them to raise prices elsewhere is baseless. Even if there was a mechanism the numbers don't work - there's orders of magnitude more packages sent within the US than into the US from UPU.
          • Consultant32452 7y ago
            I was commenting on your remark about USPS lacking pricing power. I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just pointing out some of the moat between them and pricing power.
    • dmix 7y ago
      What is the UPU and how'd they get this power?
      • johneth 7y ago
        Universal Postal Union: http://www.upu.int/en.html http://www.upu.int/en.html "With its 192 member countries, the UPU is the primary forum for cooperation between postal sector players. It helps to ensure a truly universal network of up-to-date products and services."
      • wincy 7y ago
        There’s a really excellent planet money podcast about this. Back when the US was a major exporter the UPU was great for US merchants. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/episode-857-the-postal-illuminati https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/epis...
        • adventured 7y ago
          > Back when the US was a major exporter the UPU was great for US merchants. The US is the world's #2 exporter. $1.57 trillion versus $2.15 trillion for China. China's figure peaked a few years ago, the US is likely to narrow that gap, especially with US energy exports continuing to ramp up. US exports of goods are near an all-time high after adjusting for inflation.
      • krisgee 7y ago
        Universal Postal Union is a UN body that manages the relationships between different national post offices. They set standard rates and stuff for all member countries so that each country doesn't have to negotiate a treaty with any other country it wants to send international mail to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union
    • mfer 7y ago
      The USPS has been getting money from taxes to offset the debt they run each year. For many years now they have been in the red. Fortune wrote about it back in 2015[1] and you can read the 2018 financial results[2]. Some tax money goes to the USPS. [1] https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ [2] https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2018/pr18_093.htm https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2018/pr18_093....
      • ceejayoz 7y ago
        That first article is severely stretching the definition of "getting money". Virtually all of the alleged $18B is attributed to the law that gives the USPS jurisdiction over your mailbox. The second just reflects Congress's attempts to deliberately hobble the USPS in 2006 by requiring them to suddenly pre-fund their pension obligations. https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congress-not-amazon-messed-up-the-u-s-postal-service https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congre... > The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make.
        • reallydude 7y ago
          > hobble the USPS in 2006 by requiring them to suddenly pre-fund their pension obligations Maybe it's a flawed methodology (arguable), but being fiscally responsible about pensions is something that should be encouraged. In California pension liabilities are out of control and at impractical levels, causing all sorts of havoc and manipulation (corruption). https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2018/12/07/governor-jerry-brown-gavin-newsom-california-state-government-pension-reform-supreme-court-benefits/2232837002/ https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2018/12/07/governor-jerry-...
          • ceejayoz 7y ago
            If fiscal responsibility were the goal, they'd have required the other federal agencies to do the same. That this specifically targets one of the few agencies ripe for potential privatization is... suspicious. Even if it made fiscal sense, the sudden switch is problematic.
    • BurningFrog 7y ago
      The USPS gets a monopoly on its gigantic market from the government. That is an enormous government subsidy. It is very much not like any other business.
      • tasty_freeze 7y ago
        The USPS does have a special relationship, but it isn't a one way street. First, it isn't a monopoly -- there are many other shippers competing in the profitable segments of the market. Second, USPS is obligated to service every location in the US, and at government-controlled prices. USPS will deliver, door to door, a letter from Nowhere, MT to Remote, GA for $0.55, even though they take a loss on it. Try to get Fedex to match that.
        • amluto 7y ago
          > Second, USPS is obligated to service every location in the US I’ve heard this many times. I also know quite a few places that USPS does not service.
        • BurningFrog 7y ago
          > First, it isn't a monopoly But it is. A simple googling gives many hits confirming this simple fact. This one seemed most informative: > The USPS actually has two legally enforced monopolies, as per Title 39 of the US Code. One is over the delivery of anything defined as a “letter,” which is within certain size and weight limits. The second is over the use of your mailbox. From https://www.econlib.org/rick-geddes-explains-the-postal-monopoly/ https://www.econlib.org/rick-geddes-explains-the-postal-mono...
          • tasty_freeze 7y ago
            That is defining monopoly in a very constrained way. You might as well be complaining that USPS having a monopoly over delivering watch fobs. FedEx isn't trying to capture the $0.55 letter delivery market.
            • 7y ago
    • buck4roo 7y ago
      It's not "any other business"; it's a shared resource that improves the lives of all citizens. And we WANT it that way. "Any other business" would not offer or employ any of the features we expect from our Post Office (systemwide flat rate parcel & 1st class letter, 6d/wk delivery (for free!), lack of surge/congestion pricing). If you think UPS and FedEx aren't taking profit away from USPS think again.
    • morpheuskafka 7y ago
      It has a legal monopoly, the power to tax competitors under the Private Express statutes (this is why there is no FedEx First Class mail competitor), it is exempt from local taxation, and doesn't pay federal taxes to the same extent a regular business would.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
• Shivetya 7y ago
  being a buyer off ebay what always surprised me is the next to nothing if not free shipping from China. It is good to see it changing as an article from 2014 [1] indicated how the USPS is getting soaked for the shipping on our side of the ocean. if this is fallout from the trade issues it honestly is the only good outcome of them [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...
  • anon_cow1111 7y ago
    Noticed this direct shipping years ago, the first time it took weeks for a small part to be delivered. I think the absurdly low cost reveals just how much you can jam into a shipping container for the current flat rate. Weirder when you think about it from a fuel efficiency perspective; it probably takes a few drops of diesel to move a t-shirt 5000 miles. Edit: NOTE- if you still buy stuff on ebay, be sure to check the feedback page on bulk "US based" sellers. Currently some of them actually ship from china even though their location is set to the US/canada.
    • magduf 7y ago
      >Weirder when you think about it from a fuel efficiency perspective; it probably takes a few drops of diesel to move a t-shirt 5000 miles. Yep, try looking up the fuel efficiency number for shipping freight by boat, train, or airplane. It's really amazing just how efficient boats are. There's a good reason our distant ancestors had worldwide trade routes centuries or even millennia ago using boats.
  • ikeboy 7y ago
    Note that the program described there, ePacket, is now profitable for the USPS. It took them a few years to scale up but it's been profitable for years now.
    • lgats 7y ago
      Source?
• Scoundreller 7y ago
  > Moreover, for me to send any parcel (even very small ones, like 2 oz.) outside the US costs a small fortune these days, again because I'm subsidizing the Chinese shippers. International shipping was expensive before China flooded the market b2c. If you sent a pkg to China, the US would only have to drop it off in China, the last mile delivery cost is mostly up to China. The actual air freight cost to USPS is about $5/kg. I think what’s really happening is that USPS (and Canada Post!) are using international shipping as a profit centre because there’s little competition and they need to subsidize legislated activities (6x/week door-to-door service for 53c or whatever it is).
  • ineedasername 7y ago
    "using international shipping as a profit centre" Canada is truly awful in this respect. In Canada, it might cost around $50 to send a small package to another country (excluding the US, which is a little cheaper). In the US, the same package might cost a little over $10. I'm in the US and I occasionally have to ship small light packages to Canada and was always frustrated when it cost me $10, 3x as much to ship a few hundred miles to Canada compared to 2,000 miles within this country. Then I learned that shipping that same package within Canada would cost almost $20.
    • Scoundreller 7y ago
      There’s a cottage industry of companies in big cities that will truck your US-bound package to the US for $1 each and deposit it into USPS. Eg: chitchats express. Sometimes Canadians do this for shipments to Canada because it can be a lot cheaper.
      • rtkwe 7y ago
        How does that deal with customs and inspections?
        • Scoundreller 7y ago
          Show the manifest, they go through it. Dunno how much they inspect. My guess is that the company just hires dual citizens to avoid visa issues. US lets you do personal imports up to US$800 per import without taxes/duties, so they limit it to that.
• DocTomoe 7y ago
  Somehow I doubt that this will lead to more affordable shipping in the rest of the world.
• tyingq 7y ago
  It also only allows it for small shipments, so it encourages the Chinese to sell directly. The per-item shipping cost wasn't close to UPU rates unless you shipped a whole container, and sometimes not even then.
  • baybal2 7y ago
    Express marine freight will take 5 or 6 days, and cost close to nothing per Kg. This is how most fresh produce gets shipped. With paid for expedited customs clearance it may actually end up faster than ePacket.
    • tyingq 7y ago
      That gets it to the port. From there to the final destination is a higher charge by itself than the UPU rates for the entire trip.
• Sharlin 7y ago
  This is great. The tariff agreements were never made with such a huge volume of small parcels in mind, many of them awkwardly shaped and causing problems with automatic sorting machines. And there’s the obvious ecological viewpoint as well.
  • Scoundreller 7y ago
    I gotta say, the font size on a lot of these Chinese packages is stupidly small. I guess they don’t realize how old my letter carrier is. Or some dolt figured they could save $0.00000001 on ink costs per package this way.
• tracer4201 7y ago
  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.
  • adventured 7y ago
    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 artificially low rates. It bizarrely groups China – the world’s second-largest economy – with developing nations like Gabon and Fiji into its third tier of shipping rates, which are just a fraction of what the developed world must pay." "USPS loses about $300 million per year on Chinese imports - losing about $1 per small package it delivers." https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/04/trump_fights_to_fix_shipping_rates_that_favor_china_139960.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/04/trump_...
    • lonelappde 7y ago
      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.
      • adventured 7y ago
        > 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.
        • mola 7y ago
          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.
• Pigo 7y ago
  Maybe it is anecdotal, but whenever I order anything from China on Amazon, it takes exponentially longer to receive my product. Once I got Christmas items that I ordered in November the following March. There was no recourse when it happened either. I know it's a long distance, but it's substantially longer than orders I've made from other parts of the world. So I avoid purchasing from there.
  • hashkb 7y ago
    It's very common to get (large) items via DHL from mainland China to SF in less than a week. The US simply doesn't manufacture the same set of items. Raising the cost to order items from China for political reasons will just hurt existing business. There's no alternative, I have a choice to pay more or not buy.
    • tux1968 7y ago
      Where there is a profit to be made, businesses will grow to fill the gaps. Right?
    • Kadin 7y ago
      The US doesn't manufacture those items because it's cheaper to have them shipped from China. Raise the cost of manufacturing them there and importing them, and the balance changes. The domestic vs. offshore production calculus is actually closer than a lot of people realize, in many instances. Often it's a choice between a highly-automated and capital-intensive production process in the US, vs. a manual process at a contractor in China. The combination of higher shipping and very low cost of capital in the US is a pretty good one. Whenever someone tells you that it's impossible for the US to rebuild its manufacturing base, go take a look at factories in China: they're not that old (esp. the light industrial stuff). What was built in China in 20 years could be built in the US in the same amount of time or less, if the economic case was there. There's nothing magic about China, it's just a place where labor happened to be cheap at one point in time.
      • swamp40 7y ago
• dawnerd 7y ago
  Sign up for pirateship and ask them to enable simple export rate. Makes international packages pretty reasonable. Edit: no affiliation, I just use them for my business and they’ve been great.
• hbosch 7y ago
  I bought a A1 sized picture frame from a french seller for around $50 on Amazon. It was a total pain getting an affordable frame in A1 size, because the best we can get easily in America is a 24x36" which is just far enough off to be unusable. When it arrived, it had some damage to the acrylic and I wanted to return it. Amazon Support said they would reimburse me up to $20 for shipping it back, but when I took it to UPS they wanted $370 just to ship it back. I have no idea how shipping costs are determined. I'm sure the seller didn't pay $370 to send it to me.
  • leshow 7y ago
    I find that price hard to believe. Has anybody else had an experience like this?
    • Griffinsauce 7y ago
      In my experience shipping prices from the US to EU are ludicrous. So much so that I'm surprised they have any business. This doesn't sound outside of the realm of possibility to me.
      • PaulHoule 7y ago
        It was two decades ago, but when I lived in Germany it also seemed that they lost about 50% of the parcels that we sent between Germany and the US.
        • wingworks 7y ago
          We send small A4 sized parcels to Germany quite a bit and often it never arrives, the same goes for France, if anything it gets lost more often in France. (shipping from New Zealand)
    • flixic 7y ago
      European here. Shipping from US can be insanely expensive. Once I had to pay $40 to ship a pen. I can totally believe the $370 figure.
• Griffinsauce 7y ago
  You don't really think any prices are going to go down right?
  • Scoundreller 7y ago
    It’ll prop up some of the USPS’ inefficiencies that much longer.
• aurizon 7y ago
  The postal service has beenbadly run for decades, with excess deliveries - once a day. Make delivery once a week and chageextra for daily delivery. As e-mail sucked away letters the USPS staff all stayed employed with fat wages as well as fat pensions. Now those excess people and unfunded pensions have sucked USPS dry and allowed UPS and Fedex etc to craft specialized services to dan lots of $$ from the system. Deliver all mail to PO Boxes, once a week.Daily delivery is a special fee delivery.
  • eropple 7y ago
    This aggressively selects against the elderly, the poor, and rural and even many parts of suburban living. I am not, as a rule, particularly fond of rural or suburban living due to free-rider problems, but as long as we choose to subsidize those lifestyles, a prompt and rigorous postal service is necessary. And as long as we have poor (and old) people kept out of the technological race, it is incumbent upon us to not stick a thumb in their eye.
    • magduf 7y ago
      It would be cheaper as a society for us to just pay one-time to relocate these people to more populated areas and set them up with new jobs (if they can work), and then cut off many of their services. Those who choose not to avail themselves of the relocation offer would then have to pay extra for services. Why is our society responsible for subsidizing rural dwellers' lifestyles anyway? Note that I'm not talking about people living in small towns. These people choose to live this way because our society subsidizes their lifestyle, and don't actually need to live there. People who do (e.g., farmers) don't need any subsidy as they make enough money to afford living where they do. I grew up in the rural South; these people aren't actually contributing to the economy in any way, they just like living in the middle of nowhere, and are enabled by cheap gas prices and the subsidized provision of many services.
    • dantheman 7y ago
      If you want to give them welfare, give them welfare. It's better than subsidizing inefficient systems that distort the market.
• craftyguy 7y ago
  > largely because I'm subsidizing all the Chinese shippers. I wouldn't expect shipping charges in the US to magically be lower after this change.