4 ms·

I've shipped hundreds of thousands of flats, I'm quite familiar with the requirements. Looking at the product you linked it seems small enough that it could be

by ikeboy 7y ago

I've shipped hundreds of thousands of flats, I'm quite familiar with the requirements. Looking at the product you linked it seems small enough that it could be stuffed into a flat envelope and shipped. >And even then you're wrong: Paying any amount for shipping of items, even if the items cost the same amount as the Chinese version it's still more expensive. It doesn't matter if the shipping cost is $10 or $3.50 or $1: It's still more expensive. Care to elaborate? If your cost was the same as the Chinese and your shipping cost the same as well then your overall cost would be the same. What are you trying to say here?

ineedasername 7y ago
So you know the requirements and persist in presenting it as a package shipping option? When any item thicker than 0.75" wouldn't apply and thus invalidates this as an option for the vast majority of package shippers? And you ignore that point that even at the high volume flats rate, it's still more expensive. Maybe your needs are an edge case, I don't know. But you asked for examples where shipping within the US is more expensive, and you have those examples in spades. Once given, you want to move the goal posts, and can't even move them to where you're actually right. You're being deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest. I'm done trying to have a conversation.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  I presented as an option for the specific item you presented as an example. I never claimed it's an option for the majority of shippers. It's an option for many of the cheap, light items people present as examples.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Nope, still wrong. It doesn't meet the length and width requirements, and if you shoved it in an envelop the size needed, it wouldn't meet the thickness variability requirements or the deflection requirements. And even if it did, once again, it would still be more expensive. So, you didn't claim it as an option for the majority of shippers: which implies that you concede the main point you raised, that there are plenty of cases where shipping within the US is more expensive. Regardless, you're not trying to honestly assess the examples given. But I guess I was incorrect when I said I was done with the conversation-- I couldn't help pointing out for other readers how you persist in being wrong.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      If the envelope is the right size it absolutely does meet all the requirements. Put it in a bubble wrap envelope and it won't stick out. >And even if it did, once again, it would still be more expensive. You keep saying this, but so far have not identified what the comparable option you're showing that's cheaper. In my initial comment I asked for locations, dimensions, and weight. You only provided weight, so I had to guess the others based on the product page.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      >So, you didn't claim it as an option for the majority of shippers: which implies that you concede the main point you raised, that there are plenty of cases where shipping within the US is more expensive. No, it doesn't imply that. For other configurations there are different programs that reduce the cost; elsewhere in this thread I pointed out that using parcel select lightweight would reduce the claimed shipping cost by a factor of 3. My claim is that the specific examples people give tend to be wrong. I'm sure there's some exotic configurations where China ends up paying less. It's just that virtually none of the articles about the topic point to correct examples.

by ikeboy 7y ago

ineedasername 7y ago

So you know the requirements and persist in presenting it as a package shipping option? When any item thicker than 0.75" wouldn't apply and thus invalidates this as an option for the vast majority of package shippers? And you ignore that point that even at the high volume flats rate, it's still more expensive. Maybe your needs are an edge case, I don't know. But you asked for examples where shipping within the US is more expensive, and you have those examples in spades. Once given, you want to move the goal posts, and can't even move them to where you're actually right. You're being deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest. I'm done trying to have a conversation.

ikeboy 7y ago
I presented as an option for the specific item you presented as an example. I never claimed it's an option for the majority of shippers. It's an option for many of the cheap, light items people present as examples.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Nope, still wrong. It doesn't meet the length and width requirements, and if you shoved it in an envelop the size needed, it wouldn't meet the thickness variability requirements or the deflection requirements. And even if it did, once again, it would still be more expensive. So, you didn't claim it as an option for the majority of shippers: which implies that you concede the main point you raised, that there are plenty of cases where shipping within the US is more expensive. Regardless, you're not trying to honestly assess the examples given. But I guess I was incorrect when I said I was done with the conversation-- I couldn't help pointing out for other readers how you persist in being wrong.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    If the envelope is the right size it absolutely does meet all the requirements. Put it in a bubble wrap envelope and it won't stick out. >And even if it did, once again, it would still be more expensive. You keep saying this, but so far have not identified what the comparable option you're showing that's cheaper. In my initial comment I asked for locations, dimensions, and weight. You only provided weight, so I had to guess the others based on the product page.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    >So, you didn't claim it as an option for the majority of shippers: which implies that you concede the main point you raised, that there are plenty of cases where shipping within the US is more expensive. No, it doesn't imply that. For other configurations there are different programs that reduce the cost; elsewhere in this thread I pointed out that using parcel select lightweight would reduce the claimed shipping cost by a factor of 3. My claim is that the specific examples people give tend to be wrong. I'm sure there's some exotic configurations where China ends up paying less. It's just that virtually none of the articles about the topic point to correct examples.