7 ms·

> This is great news for U.S. sellers, especially eBay sellers. Exactly the intended consequence. Why should US taxpayers subsidize shipping costs for products

> This is great news for U.S. sellers, especially eBay sellers. Exactly the intended consequence. Why should US taxpayers subsidize shipping costs for products to come from China? It made no sense at all in today's economy unless the only thing you care about is paying less for your goods regardless of the consequences, which I don't think is a majority position of adults today.

wbl 7y ago
The goal of the UPU was to have one rate for international shipping based on sending country vs. per destination pricing. Countries agreed to eat the costs. This produced things like the International Postal Coupon which are great.
- Kadin 7y ago
  Like Internet peering agreements, the UPU model only made sense when there was about the same amount of traffic going in each direction. In that case, it makes sense for each country to just pick up the cost of domestic last-mile delivery, because other countries are doing the same for its outbound packages. The problem is when there's a continuous structural trade imbalance, and more packages flow one direction than in the other. Then you have a de facto subsidy scheme, and it makes sense to terminate or renegotiate the agreement and switch to something more along the lines of sender-pays.
  - wbl 7y ago
    Subsidy to whom exactly? Remember the packages only flow because your end wants them.
Scoundreller 7y ago
The actual consequence will be Chinese sellers using US warehouses and drop-shipping from there. Others send over a container with each ordered good and slap a local post’s label on it. Possibly that local post’s label is attached in China and the container just gets dropped off at a USPS DC by the private freight forwarder. It’s already fairly common. Overall, a few more US jobs, and maybe more USPS revenue for what are now domestic shipments. Edit: OR these buyers Shift to Amazon, which can deliver for less than USPS can via private courier, and pool every more items per delivery.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Is that a problem? Seems like if they do that then it's US domestic mail, playing by all the same rules (and high rates) as any other domestic mail item. Competing with Chinese shippers would look exactly the same as competing with anyone shipping out of LA/Oakland/Seattle.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    It’s just not going to be a boon to US drop-shippers, the Chinese ones will still have a lower cost of operations by dealing direct and almost 100% Chinese labour costs.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      You seem to be completely overlooking the fact that it is way cheaper to ship an item from China to a specific location in the US, than it is to ship the same item from within the US.
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        It’ll be good for the USPS (or maybe not if people just order off Amazon and they deliver), but the benefits to US jobs will be oversold.
        mistermann 7y ago
        I haven't really heard jobs being a part of this discussion at all, the reasoning and the rhetoric has been about leveling an clearly unfair playing field. The USPS will certainly make more revenue, and in turn they should be able to pass that on by reducing shipping costs for people shipping from within the US. For companies drop-shipping from China, regardless of whether the person running the business is in the US or in China, the impact is the same. But for US based businesses that inventory items and ship out of the US, this change would be a big advantage.
mrnobody_67 7y ago
Given that income for the bottom 40% has barely budged in 20 years, keeping the price of goods low (i.e. low inflation) is probably a net benefit to America, no?
zxcvbn4038 7y ago
A better question might be to ask why US taxpayers should continue to subsidize direct marketers. Thats all I get anymore. Everything else is electronic.
- erichocean 7y ago
  They are used by politicians during elections. You can expect the subsidy to last "forever".
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  It's my understanding that direct marketing mail helps keep the USPS profitable. Here's an excerpt from a report on whether they should offer simplified addressing for saturation mail (every address in an area), but the point is more general. Source is https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/RARC-WP-11-004.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library..., and emphasis is mine: > The implementation of new products that support customers and improve its bottom line is of paramount concern for the Postal Service. In fact, profitable new volume benefits all mailers and consumers in the long run by helping the Postal Service fulfill its fundamental obligation of affordable universal service. Volume is significant because the Postal Service is a network industry and the vast majority of the costs for its delivery network are fixed. Greater volume spread across this network would lower the average unit cost of every mail piece delivered. A service such as simplified address mail, which has the potential to significantly increase delivered volume could dramatically help the Postal Service and all users of the network. In other words, they are going to visit everybody's mailbox 6 days a week no matter what. Stuffing more mail into it while they're already there costs them very little.
fullshark 7y ago
>unless the only thing you care about is paying less for your goods regardless of the consequences, which I don't think is a majority position of adults today. It may not be the stated position of adults today, but it's their revealed preference.
trizic 7y ago
US taxpayers are not subsidizing shipping costs. Domestic shippers probably are. "Zero tax dollars used. The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations." https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/
- nitwit005 7y ago
  Saying "US taxpayers" is essentially the same as "US citizens". The parent wasn't suggesting direct tax payments into the postal service.

wbl 7y ago

The goal of the UPU was to have one rate for international shipping based on sending country vs. per destination pricing. Countries agreed to eat the costs. This produced things like the International Postal Coupon which are great.

Kadin 7y ago
Like Internet peering agreements, the UPU model only made sense when there was about the same amount of traffic going in each direction. In that case, it makes sense for each country to just pick up the cost of domestic last-mile delivery, because other countries are doing the same for its outbound packages. The problem is when there's a continuous structural trade imbalance, and more packages flow one direction than in the other. Then you have a de facto subsidy scheme, and it makes sense to terminate or renegotiate the agreement and switch to something more along the lines of sender-pays.
- wbl 7y ago
  Subsidy to whom exactly? Remember the packages only flow because your end wants them.

Scoundreller 7y ago

The actual consequence will be Chinese sellers using US warehouses and drop-shipping from there. Others send over a container with each ordered good and slap a local post’s label on it. Possibly that local post’s label is attached in China and the container just gets dropped off at a USPS DC by the private freight forwarder. It’s already fairly common. Overall, a few more US jobs, and maybe more USPS revenue for what are now domestic shipments. Edit: OR these buyers Shift to Amazon, which can deliver for less than USPS can via private courier, and pool every more items per delivery.

0xffff2 7y ago
Is that a problem? Seems like if they do that then it's US domestic mail, playing by all the same rules (and high rates) as any other domestic mail item. Competing with Chinese shippers would look exactly the same as competing with anyone shipping out of LA/Oakland/Seattle.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  It’s just not going to be a boon to US drop-shippers, the Chinese ones will still have a lower cost of operations by dealing direct and almost 100% Chinese labour costs.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    You seem to be completely overlooking the fact that it is way cheaper to ship an item from China to a specific location in the US, than it is to ship the same item from within the US.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      It’ll be good for the USPS (or maybe not if people just order off Amazon and they deliver), but the benefits to US jobs will be oversold.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        I haven't really heard jobs being a part of this discussion at all, the reasoning and the rhetoric has been about leveling an clearly unfair playing field. The USPS will certainly make more revenue, and in turn they should be able to pass that on by reducing shipping costs for people shipping from within the US. For companies drop-shipping from China, regardless of whether the person running the business is in the US or in China, the impact is the same. But for US based businesses that inventory items and ship out of the US, this change would be a big advantage.

mrnobody_67 7y ago

Given that income for the bottom 40% has barely budged in 20 years, keeping the price of goods low (i.e. low inflation) is probably a net benefit to America, no?

zxcvbn4038 7y ago

A better question might be to ask why US taxpayers should continue to subsidize direct marketers. Thats all I get anymore. Everything else is electronic.

erichocean 7y ago
They are used by politicians during elections. You can expect the subsidy to last "forever".
adrianmonk 7y ago
It's my understanding that direct marketing mail helps keep the USPS profitable. Here's an excerpt from a report on whether they should offer simplified addressing for saturation mail (every address in an area), but the point is more general. Source is https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/RARC-WP-11-004.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library..., and emphasis is mine: > The implementation of new products that support customers and improve its bottom line is of paramount concern for the Postal Service. In fact, profitable new volume benefits all mailers and consumers in the long run by helping the Postal Service fulfill its fundamental obligation of affordable universal service. Volume is significant because the Postal Service is a network industry and the vast majority of the costs for its delivery network are fixed. Greater volume spread across this network would lower the average unit cost of every mail piece delivered. A service such as simplified address mail, which has the potential to significantly increase delivered volume could dramatically help the Postal Service and all users of the network. In other words, they are going to visit everybody's mailbox 6 days a week no matter what. Stuffing more mail into it while they're already there costs them very little.

fullshark 7y ago

>unless the only thing you care about is paying less for your goods regardless of the consequences, which I don't think is a majority position of adults today. It may not be the stated position of adults today, but it's their revealed preference.

trizic 7y ago

US taxpayers are not subsidizing shipping costs. Domestic shippers probably are. "Zero tax dollars used. The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations." https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/

nitwit005 7y ago
Saying "US taxpayers" is essentially the same as "US citizens". The parent wasn't suggesting direct tax payments into the postal service.