US Announces Plans To Withdraw From 144-Year-Old Postal Treaty (thehill.com)

JoeyRox writes: The Trump Administration announced today that it's intending to withdraw from the Universal Postal Union, an international postage rate system overseen by the United Nations. "The decision was borne out of frustration with discounts imposed by the Universal Postal Union (UPU) that allow China and some other nations to ship products into the U.S. at cheaper rates than American companies receive to ship domestically," reports The Hill. "The administration argues the system undercuts U.S. manufacturers and allows China to flood the market with cheap goods." The U.S. is hoping to renegotiate the rates, known as terminal dues, but was frustrated with opposition from other nations in the UPU. According to the report, "The withdrawal would not take effect for one year, allowing the U.S. some time to broker a new deal."

"The 144-year-old UPU sets fees that postal services charge to deliver mail and packages from foreign carriers," reports The Hill. "For decades, developing nations have been allowed to pay lower rates than wealthier nations. China has fallen under the developing nation category, a designation the U.S. says it no longer deserves because of its booming economy." The Trump administration wants to move to a system of "self-declared rates" that would allow the U.S. Postal Service to set its own prices for shipping international packages of all sizes. As it stands, the P.O. is only allowed to use self-declared rates on packages exceeding 4.4 pounds.

Comments

There goes Aliexpress...

[Bradmont]

Then how will we get our cheap junk?

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Anonymous Coward]

Local warehouses run by the same sellers. At least in Europe ebay sellers and stores like Banggood already have local warehouses. Not because of cheaper shipping but because its faster.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Rob Riggs]

The question for those of us that export goods from the US is "what is this going to do to our shipping costs?"

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[ShanghaiBill]

The question for those of us that export goods from the US is "what is this going to do to our shipping costs?"

They will quite likely go down. Under the current system, rates paid by Americans are subsidizing other countries.

An eBay seller in Shenzhen pays less to ship a package to an American than an American pays to ship to his next door neighbor.

If an America company wants to send a lot of small packages to American customers, and is in no particular hurry, it can be cost effective to load them all in a shipping container, ship them to China, and then mail them back to individual addresses in America.

The current system is based on the assumption that there is a similar amount of mail going in each direction, so we pay to send in one direction, and China pays to send in the other direction, and it is a wash. But this is NOT TRUE at all. WAY more stuff comes out of China than goes in. And it is sent from coastal cities and delivered to China Post directly at the airport where it leaves the country. So China Post is bearing NO cost, while USPS is bearing the cost of receiving the package at the destination airport, and then shipping it across the country and delivering the last mile, all for $0.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Opportunist]

I doubt the GP plans to sell to China but rather to, say, Europe. And I highly doubt Europe will honor a deal if you don't.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[AmiMoJo]

You haven't explained why that would make the cost go down for US exporters though.

If the US wants to charge other countries to deliver to it, then other countries will want to charge the US for the same. So costs will go up for everyone, except perhaps domestic shippers who might have to subsidise imports less. Or maybe the postal service will just pocket the extra cash rather than pass the saving on.

That's Trump's goal here, to make domestic sellers more competitive by raising shipping prices for goods coming from outside the US. He doesn't seem too interested in exporters, e.g. his tariffs are all hurting them too. Maybe he thinks the domestic market can make up for those losses or something, it's not very clear.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Applehu Akbar]

Then how will we get our cheap junk?

Amazon will 3D print its own blockchain-based postal system.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[thegarbz]

For this to be in your benefit you need to first have a product that people want to buy. Just like the trade wars all you're doing is again applying a tax on people who can't afford "Made in America".

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[jeff4747]

An eBay seller in Shenzhen pays less to ship a package to an American than an American pays to ship to his next door neighbor.

If the package from Shenzhen is 1 lb or less, and the buyer doesn't mind waiting 9 to ~21 days to get it.

If an America company wants to send a lot of small packages to American customers, and is in no particular hurry, it can be cost effective to load them all in a shipping container, ship them to China, and then mail them back to individual addresses in America.

If the buyer doesn't mind waiting 42-ish days for delivery instead of 2 to 10 days for regular mail, or 2-3 days for priority.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Luthair]

Planet Money covered this topic a little while ago, while the imbalance has been tipped against the USA lately for a very long time USA was taking advantage of the postal treaty and was shipping far more out than it was receiving.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Rob Riggs]

Exactly. Canada, EU and AU are my biggest foreign customers. Screwing up our postal relationships with the rest of the world in order to fix a problem with China could be very disruptive.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[lactose99]

I don't know why this isn't understood by more people.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[hawk]

>You haven't explained why that would make the cost
>go down for US exporters though.

Currently, the payment for internationally shipping from the US is basically the price plus a subsidy. For example, a $5 fee paid is $4 for the shipping, and $1 for the subsidy.

If a packages is $5 to a developing country, it might be only 50 cents to ship *from* the developing country. The first world receiver pays more to deliver in country than it is paid on that package--and subsidizes this loss from that extra dollar above.

The reason for this is to let Elbonia pull itself up into the the modern world; it is deliberately subsidized.

The problem is that as China left that developing status, it hasn't given up its rates.

I've actually ordered something for eleven cents, delivered . . .

If China has to pay the rates of an economy of its state of development, subsidy of its shipping no longer has to be built into the other international rates. *That* is where the reduction comes from.

Shipment between the US and Europe don't subsidize one another, and their cost could reasonably be expected to go down without the subsidy for China (or at least not increase as much as they would have).

hawk, wearing his econ professor hat for a change

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Megol]

Then I hope at least an US - EU deal is made. My impression is that there are plenty of places in the EU that would want out of this skewed treaty: the postal services are overloaded with China shit, most imports aren't declared or declared incorrectly, import fees aren't paid, taxes aren't paid. That means the Chinese not only have the advantage of lower wages and worse working conditions but also of bypassing the fees EU companies have to pay. Another example is that electronics in the EU have to be taken care of at end-of-life and manufacturers are required to handle this - which the Chinese avoids. There have been cases where the Chinese products contain dangerous constructions, dangerous substances or other problems like not caring about radio interference. More costs that EU consumers, companies and countries have to take care of.

So let's stop this bullshit.

Re: There goes Aliexpress...

[MachineShedFred]

Sounds like this gets fixed by properly classifying China as a developed nation instead of taking our ball and going home to pout.

I don't know enough about this treaty to know the process for reclassification of a country, or if there is even an instrument to do that, which might be the problem.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[dcw3]

So, because you're happy with your current deal, others should just suck up the imbalance? Sorry, leveling the playing field is long overdue.

Re:There goes Aliexpress...

[Rob Riggs]

So, because you're happy with your current deal, others should just suck up the imbalance? Sorry, leveling the playing field is long overdue.

Where did I ever say any of this? You are putting words into my mouth.

Sounds like a good plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just declare China the winner, and end the race to the bottom once and for all.

Hooray! Chinese are the bottom! The lowest on the planet!

Enjoy your stamped plastic trophy with the misspelled plaque

Re:Sounds like a good plan

[SuricouRaven]

Oh, China aren't the lowest. When you want to pay your workers even less than in China, and with even laxer safety standards, there's Bangladesh.

He found an Acorn

[nhtshot]

Blind squirrel, acorn.. you all know the retort.

Joking aside, this system has been abused extensively and is really in need of an overhaul.

I used to live in China and used the postal service to ship a lot of my personal stuff back home when we moved back to the US. It was ridiculously cheap to move that way. I couldn't believe how cheap it was. Each box was just shy of the 25kg limit and right on the maximum allowed dimensions. Each one shipped from South China to Alabama for about $20. I couldn't even mail them to another city in Alabama for that price, but here they were circling half the globe.

Re:He found an Acorn

[AmiMoJo]

It's because all the smaller, lighter packages subsidise the heavier ones. Most of the stuff being shipped is small and not really worth the effort to carefully weigh and measure just to charge some precise amount.

Courier companies in Europe are the same, I'm surprised it's not that way in the US. People complained because they would get a huge box full of space filler and one small item at the bottom, because the courier charges a flat rate up to a certain size/weight and it's cheaper for the warehouse to buy one size of box in bulk.

Of course such cheap shipping takes a long time to come from China, which saves more money because they can often buy cheap space on flights/boats that would otherwise be unused by more time sensitive packages. If they have to send an aircraft today to meet the deadline on 3 day packets it's more economical to fill it up with cheap slow ones than to let it go half full.

Re:He found an Acorn

[JaredOfEuropa]

I had the same experience when I left Japan: shipped 2 big boxes of stuff home (from Tokyo to Europe) for about $25 each. Even crazier: they arrived the next day. Same for small mail-order packages from Japan: the postage was low and they generally arrive super-fast. But Japan hardly qualifies as a developing nation I should think...

Re:He found an Acorn

[atrex]

I think this issue may be a bit more complicated than you might think. On the face, it certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever for goods from China and other third world countries to ship so cheaply into the US. But, American consumers have benefited significantly from this, though it came at the expense of American factory workers whose jobs are long long gone.

If you up-end the shipping rates from third world countries (because if you mess with just the shipping rate from China then they'll just find some other third world country to funnel products through so you have to mess with all of them) the average American consumer who is already struggling is the one that's going to end up footing the bill for substantially more expensive products. Eventually some manufacturing jobs may move back inside US borders as the higher price of goods makes setting up a heavily automated factory worth the investment, but that'll take years in transition and the number of jobs created will be insignificant to the impact of the increased cost of living.

It's worth noting that many of those third world countries don't have the kinds of regulations and worker protections that the US has (even though many of our protections have been getting eroded, especially under the current administration though it's been slowly happening for decades). So American consumers are benefiting off the back of often horrible labor practices and even child labor in the third world for decades.

If Americans were actually getting paid relative to their productivity then they'd have the wherewithal to afford locally sourced products, even at double or triple the price of imports. Effectively cutting off the US from the global market right now however will have devastating consequences for American consumers in the short term, the same way that the tariffs that have already been implemented have had devastating consequences on mid-western farmers and the auto industry. We need to fix the income inequality in our country first, and I don't see threatening postal rates on imports and setting up tariffs as having any meaningful impact on that problem. Granted, in order to fix the income inequality in our country we need to stop our corporations from buying off most of our politicians and reverse their decimation of organized labor.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Potor]

In Belgium I used to get packages all the time that ended up costing me money. For instance, my parents would mail me something, but somehow once it reached Belgium it got in the hands of a courier, and then the courier would charge another amount (equivalent to around $30) to deliver it.

Re:He found an Acorn

[N1AK]

I'm not sure why this story is on here. It's not like this is a life changing event and the fact it involves Trump doesn't mean it's suddenly more newsworthy. Repulsive is probably the best word I could use to sum up my view of him, but that doesn't mean everything he does needs coverage or criticism. I'm an unashamed globalist and still see valid reasons why one might challenge this rate system. Does it really make sense to discount postage from some nations to others that much? Do we want to encourage delivery of individual small parcels globally over more efficient bulk distribution to more localised centres which then do local postage? Even if your opinion is that this kind of policy is motivated by Trumps worst attributes it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered on its own merits.

Re:He found an Acorn

[AmiMoJo]

Some Chinese sellers offer insurance against this now. For a small fee you can buy customs charge insurance at the checkout and if you get charged you simply submit a receipt and they refund you.

Obviously your parents probably won't be offering this service.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Potor]

This was over 20 years ago ... but for all I know this still occurs. And they were not customs charges. I sometimes had to pay those, but those I understood.

Re:He found an Acorn

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's because all the smaller, lighter packages subsidise the heavier ones. Most of the stuff being shipped is small and not really worth the effort to carefully weigh and measure just to charge some precise amount.

Shipping small packages from China to the US are similarly cheap. Like a 300g padded envelope, via air mail, for around 7 RMB (about $1.00). And then, if you're a business, you can get it subsidized where you can receive a 40% discount on the marked postage level - meaning you can send that 300g package for around $0.60.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

I think this issue may be a bit more complicated than you might think. On the face, it certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever for goods from China and other third world countries to ship so cheaply into the US. But, American consumers have benefited significantly from this, though it came at the expense of American factory workers whose jobs are long long gone.

I'd say that American consumers have so far successfully kicked the can down the road until the day of reckoning has come. It couldn't stay this way forever. The longer we wait, the more painful the correction.

If Americans were actually getting paid relative to their productivity then they'd have the wherewithal to afford locally sourced products, even at double or triple the price of imports. Effectively cutting off the US from the global market right now however will have devastating consequences for American consumers in the short term, the same way that the tariffs that have already been implemented have had devastating consequences on mid-western farmers and the auto industry.

First, the reason we aren't getting paid relative to our productivity is because of crap like the postal system above that allows cheap 3rd world child labor to produce and ship things overseas for less than just shipping the item locally costs. I'd say that's ridiculous and needs to be fixed. Will it "hurt" consumers based on the current unfair status quo? Absolutely. Is it the only correct course of action? Absolutely.

Those tariffs were applied precisely to have the greatest effect on Trump supporters, since Trump instituted the tariffs. I agree with the tariffs in general, just not in the way the administration has implemented them. I've long thought all imports should be inspected at all border/ports of entry and those inspections paid for by the transiting company, thus enhancing our country's general security. No, this isn't border security to keep out all illegals. It's border security to ensure that no contraband nor things like dangerous foreign pests enter the country. In some cases, this might even require full unpacking and repackaging of contents of containers to remove things like cheap pallets that might house invasive beetles. Will it increase prices? Again, yes, but it will do so for multiple good reasons. That a side effect is reducing the benefits of cheap 3rd world labor and stopping the import of sub-standard or other dangerous products is just another benefit.

We need to fix the income inequality in our country first, and I don't see threatening postal rates on imports and setting up tariffs as having any meaningful impact on that problem. Granted, in order to fix the income inequality in our country we need to stop our corporations from buying off most of our politicians and reverse their decimation of organized labor.

Income inequality is a totally different and wholly internal problem that is orthogonal to the shipping out of US jobs and pollution. Yes, we're doing that too, might as well admit to the full range of reasons things are being made overseas in countries with less than exemplar environmental policies in place. But don't confuse 1 with the other, the internal issues are a political issue and could be overcome with election campaign reform, but that's unlikely to happen as any meaningful reform requires those in power to willingly remove themselves from future power.

Re:He found an Acorn

[owlaf]

The loss of factory worker job's in the 'merica isn't just china. It has been quoted around, and I did find a marketwatch which I do think is fairly credible, 'merica has double it's manufacturing since 1984 but is only using one third the workforce. The factories here have a tendency to be better quality products like autos that aren't just the big 3, such as VW and Mercedes in the south. Here in Indiana we hav a GM pickup plant, but also Toyota, Subaru and Honda plants.

Re:He found an Acorn

[AmiMoJo]

It has a big effect on nerds who are now buying all sorts of cool low cost tech from China.

Everything from toy drones to laser cutters to micro RTG batteries to programmable LED strings.

US retailers that specialize in that stuff have already been hit by the tariffs, e.g. Adafruit and Sparkfun. Now even going direct to Chinese retailers like Seeed, Banggood and AliExpress will be more expensive for nerd consumers.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Solandri]

If Americans were actually getting paid relative to their productivity then they'd have the wherewithal to afford locally sourced products, even at double or triple the price of imports. [...] We need to fix the income inequality in our country first,

U.S. income distribution is actually pretty good. Certainly not at European levels, but it's a myth that the 1% control U.S. income. Income stats are readily available from the iRS. The top 1% (about $500k/yr and above) only account for about 19% of total income. The top 5% (about $200k/yr and above) account for about 35% of total income. The problem is the top 25% (about $75k/yr and above) account for 70% of income. And the top 50% (about $38k/yr and above) account for 90% of income.

That is, the bottom 50% only make 10% of the income. So the problem is not limited to the 1%. Even if you confiscated all of the top 1%'s income and distributed it to the bottom 50%, that would only improve their share of income from 10% to 29%. If you make more than about $38k/yr, and especially if you make more than $75k/yr, you are part of the problem.

You're also incorrect in assuming that increased equality always equals more productivity. Aside from city-states and countries with disproportionate oil imports or banking industries, the U.S. leads the world in GDP per capita. That is, there isn't a linear correlation between income inequality and productivity. Extremely high income inequality like in nations with high corruption (Central America, Taiwan, South Korea, and China) reduces GDP per capita (productivity per citizen). But extremely low income inequality like in EU nations also reduces productivity per citizen. The U.S. sits at pretty much near the productivity optimum - the amount of income inequality it has is just about what you need if you wish to maximize productivity per citizen.

I liken it to the checkout lane problem. What's the quickest way to get shoppers checked out of a supermarket? Fast lanes (where a few elite shoppers get their own dedicated lanes with no waiting) obviously slow things down. But if you try to make everything equal (everyone stands in one line, and the person in front goes to the next available checkout lane, so it's impossible for someone who's waited less time to check out before you), that actually ends up being slower than if everyone just picks whichever lane they want. In the pick-your-own-lane model, inequality is higher (you sometimes get stuck in a slow lane so other people who've waited less than you get checked out before you). But on average the extra time added on due to the inequality is less than the time added due to the inefficiency of trying to make everything equal (in the one-line model, each checkout lane sits idle slightly longer while it waits for the next person to move from the one line to the register). Satisfaction is higher because people like fairness and equality, but the higher equality actually results in lower productivity.

So one can argue that income equality is a more desirable goal from a moral standpoint. But economically it is not optimal - a certain level of inequality is needed to maximize productivity per capita. We can still do it, like how we do not discriminate against physically disabled persons holding jobs (non-disabled people subsidize the cost of equipment to allow disabled persons to do those jobs). But understand that it results in lower productivity per capita, not higher.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not complicated at all. china has simply 'outgrown' its status as 'developing nation' with regards to the international postal treaty and they (and hong kong, if it's still considered separate for this treaty) should be re-designated due to their industrial production and international mailing volume.

in true trump fashion, he's clueless as to how to proceed... THIS is how it should be approached.. getting china re-designated.. not pulling out of the treaty like its his daughter.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Luthair]

You should listen to the Planet Money episode 857 - The Postal Illuminati, the idea of the treaty was based on the idea that message flow would be roughly balanced. The part that isn't a good look is that postal flow has been imbalanced for a very long time, but until recently it was benefiting the USA.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Luthair]

Well, it has significant implications for e-commerce.

Re:He found an Acorn

[jeff4747]

First, the reason we aren't getting paid relative to our productivity is because of crap like the postal system above that allows cheap 3rd world child labor to produce and ship things overseas for less than just shipping the item locally costs

You think shipping costing $1 instead of $3 is sufficient to have stopped all productivity-based wage increases since 1978?

We make double the stuff per hour that we did in the 1970s. We use 1/3rd the workers of the 1970s to do it. If productivity and wages scaled like they did up until
about 1978, then inflation-adjusted US wages should have gone up about 6x (1/3rd the workers, making 2x the stuff). Instead, inflation-adjusted wages are flat or negative.

It isn't shipping that's the problem.

Those tariffs were applied precisely to have the greatest effect on Trump supporters, since Trump instituted the tariffs

They also happen to be the main goods we export to China.

But there's good news! We used to utterly dominate things like the soy market. Nobody could compete against us on price, so nobody tried to build a significant soy industry. Thanks to Trump reverting to trade theory that was disproven in the 1600s, Brazil is competing with us now. And they're able to sell soy at the post-tariff US price. And that's going to drop as they continue to build their industry. In other agricultural products, Brazil can sell at the US price, so soy will get there too.

So this isn't something that's going to be "fixed" if there is some sort of trade deal with China. We've given away a monopoly that we will never get back. US soy farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to Trump's tariffs.

Re:He found an Acorn

[rsborg]

American consumers have benefited significantly from this

It's a faustian bargain. American consumers have benefitted in the short term with slightly lower prices, but production capacity in the US is depressed or in some cases, gone.

I'm not fan of Trump, but how does this postal deal benefit US consumers when the local options cost so much so they can't compete?

Re:He found an Acorn

[rsborg]

The stats lie by omission. Most of the 1% make their billions on passive and unreported income, sheltered in corporations or other vehicles so they don't have to say they earned 10-100M that year. We found out in 2012 that Mitt Romney has a $100M 401k. No normal person gets to even 1/10 of that value without a LOT of tax-deferred income (457 plan). That isn't reported as income.

I support a micro-cent financial transaction tax that would could rake in billions and virtually eliminate HFT and front-running. Now that'd be a tax that actually taxes the rich.

Re:He found an Acorn

[IcyWolfy]

It's the custom's lookup charge.
When I was mailing to the EU more often, it was cheaper for the receiver if I manually looked up all the country-of-origin of each product, and found the import codes used to identify each product.
It's the classification and country of origin search that is being charged for.
It wasn't a 100% guarantee that the processing fee of 30EUR is not charged, but it seemed to help.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Kaenneth]

Please, won't someone think of the soyboys!

Re:He found an Acorn

[Kaenneth]

It would just move those markets overseas, unless all countries with markets did it at once.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Kaenneth]

Would doing this earlier have saved Radio Shack?

Re:He found an Acorn

[whoever57]

I liken it to the checkout lane problem [thetvaddict.com]. ...

You have misinterpreted that article. In fact, what it tells us cannot be extrapolated to other fields. The reason the single line is slower on average is very specific to grocery store lines: "The reason for the longer time was that waiting in the serpentine line, it took longer to get from the end of the line to the open cashier stand"

Re:He found an Acorn

[serviscope_minor]

but here they were circling half the globe.

That's the cheap bit. Loading a whole lot of stuff into a bunch of shipping containers is cheap and easy. Loading the container onto the ship is cheap and easy. Getting the ship to go from China to the US is incredibly cheap per item shipped.

Likely more fuel was burned getting the item to your door within the US than was spent moving it all the way from China. And that is expensive road fuel not incredibly cheap bunker oil.

The expensive bit of handling the packages etc is much cheaper in China because labour costs are much lower.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

First, the reason we aren't getting paid relative to our productivity is because of crap like the postal system above that allows cheap 3rd world child labor to produce and ship things overseas for less than just shipping the item locally costs

You think shipping costing $1 instead of $3 is sufficient to have stopped all productivity-based wage increases since 1978?

We make double the stuff per hour that we did in the 1970s. We use 1/3rd the workers of the 1970s to do it. If productivity and wages scaled like they did up until about 1978, then inflation-adjusted US wages should have gone up about 6x (1/3rd the workers, making 2x the stuff). Instead, inflation-adjusted wages are flat or negative.

It isn't shipping that's the problem.

Stuff's also cheaper than it was in the 70s. You can now buy a computer for wrist for a few hundred dollars that is more powerful than $40,000 desktop (in today's dollars) So what the real comparison on wages and products should be is purchasing power for value received. Not everything scaled the same way, but that's a discussion that would go on for pages....

To get back on track - when a Chinese company can make and ship you a product from China for less than an American company can ship the same product within a town, there's definitely a problem.

Those tariffs were applied precisely to have the greatest effect on Trump supporters, since Trump instituted the tariffs

They also happen to be the main goods we export to China.

But there's good news! We used to utterly dominate things like the soy market. Nobody could compete against us on price, so nobody tried to build a significant soy industry. Thanks to Trump reverting to trade theory that was disproven in the 1600s, Brazil is competing with us now. And they're able to sell soy at the post-tariff US price. And that's going to drop as they continue to build their industry. In other agricultural products, Brazil can sell at the US price, so soy will get there too.

So this isn't something that's going to be "fixed" if there is some sort of trade deal with China. We've given away a monopoly that we will never get back. US soy farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to Trump's tariffs.

My point was those Chinese tariffs hurting US farmers and autos were put in place specifically as a retaliatory measure where it would hurt the administration the most. I agree with the rest of the tariff analysis. Trump has done irreparable harm to US interests across many areas. But he's not doing it alone.

I never thought I'd wistfully think of the "good" ole days of W who was pretty well hands-down the worst president in history. Sigh... the gold old days.

Re:He found an Acorn

[MrNiCeGUi]

I get your point, but the example you used might not be optimal. Where I am now (Belgium) when there is one line the system is as follows - people waiting in line get a prompt to which register they should go once they reach the top of the line. But that register is one that is already serving one customer, so that you have the time to arrived put your stuff from the cart on the belt before the clerk finishes with the previous customer. So, at any one point at every register there is one customer served and another one preparing to be served, and there is no loss of productivity because of that, while the waiting time still remains equal for everyone.

Re:He found an Acorn

[AmiMoJo]

The UK equivalent, Maplin, lost out to Amazon and bigger high street retailers. The nerds left it long ago because it was 500x more expensive for components than other suppliers.

Re:He found an Acorn

[jeff4747]

Do you not understand the concept of "an example"?

Re:He found an Acorn

[jeff4747]

Stuff's also cheaper than it was in the 70s.

You are literally arguing that inflation has not occurred since the 1970s.

Also, there's more things in GDP than computers.

To get back on track - when a Chinese company can make and ship you a product from China for less than an American company can ship the same product within a town, there's definitely a problem.

You're not on track. The US makes twice as much stuff as it did in the 1970s. Goods from China does not change that statistic, because it's only measuring domestically-produced stuff. Bringing in China is like saying you weigh 180 lbs when we're measuring height.

Re:He found an Acorn

[hawk]

>If you up-end the shipping rates from third world countries

That's *not* what this is about, and not what is being sought.

It's about *China* getting that third world subsidy, which should have ended some time ago.

hawk

Re:He found an Acorn

[Victor_0x53h]

I disagree that income inequality isn't a problem or a problem we should desire to fix. The top 1% has traded places with the bottom 50% since the 80's. To say we're pretty good, but maybe not as good as Europe is misleading when you know that most European countries are at the top of the charts, and the US is at the bottom. [1]

Countries in Europe seem to be doing pretty ok in terms of production and equality. And they're all happier than we are in the US with more vacation time. I think we can and should demand both.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

Stuff's also cheaper than it was in the 70s.

You are literally arguing that inflation has not occurred since the 1970s.

Also, there's more things in GDP than computers.

I'm am being realistic. Computers, TVs, radios, cars. All are cheaper than they were in the 70s. Now, you may get more junk to keep prices up, but they're still cheaper, after adjustment for inflation. So are telephone service, cell phones, eyeglasses, contacts, tires, wheels, and a whole host of other things. Gas, for instance, has pretty much fluctuated around the current 10 year average for 15+ years. Now some essential basics such as milk, bread, vegetables, etc, have gone up in prices, but as far as inflation goes, it's a tough call. Housing has gone up in price, but again, with the major drop due to 2008 it's hard to tell how much without considering a specific time period as well as general trends over a long time. Inflation is not some magic ever increasing line that dictates prices, especially when things vary as much as they do even day to day. For instance, my house sat at it's value for 12 years, then suddenly jumped 30% in 3. I know others that lost 50% of their value in the same time period.

TL;DR essentially there's a lot more wrapped up in inflation and cost of living than any simple statement can adequately describe.

To get back on track - when a Chinese company can make and ship you a product from China for less than an American company can ship the same product within a town, there's definitely a problem.

You're not on track. The US makes twice as much stuff as it did in the 1970s. Goods from China does not change that statistic, because it's only measuring domestically-produced stuff. Bringing in China is like saying you weigh 180 lbs when we're measuring height.

We also have more than 60% as many people as in 1970, so technically, you're saying we're just a little more productive as we were in the 70s.

And you have a funny way of looking at things. I'm stating that when you can build a wagon for $5 and have to pay $5 to ship it to your neighbor, and a guy in China can make and ship that wagon to your neighbor for $4 total, you've got a major problem. That's what we're looking at here, regarding jobs being shipped overseas. It's even worse when that $4 wagon actually costs you an extra $5 via taxes, but it's a "hidden cost". That's the current situation with regards to China directly shipping things to US customers. Now, if we were to shift that $5 shipping cost to the Chinese shipper, and he's now charging $9 for his wagon, and yours is $10 but will get here a month earlier, well, that changes things a lot. It changes even more if the recapturing of previously subsidized costs actually lower your shipping to $4 and you're now equal footing.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Hognoxious]

Likely more fuel was burned getting the item to your door within the US than was spent moving it all the way from China. And that is expensive road fuel not incredibly cheap bunker oil.

The bunker oil probably generates more pollution though. Filthy stuff.

Re:He found an Acorn

[HeckRuler]

Even if you confiscated all of the top 1%'s income and distributed it to the bottom 50%, that would only improve their share of income from 10% to 29%

....TRIPPING their income, and increasing a lot of their cash-on-hand value by an infinite amount because they previously had ZERO. You can't say something like "it's not that much". This is HALF the nation. 164 million people. The poor half. The people whose main problem is lack of money. And as every single one of these people earn, by definition, less than that threshold where more money doesn't mean more happiness ($85K last I checked), this is DIRECTLY IMPROVING their quality of life. Sweet jesus, if this is your argument that "it wouldn't do much" you seriously need to go find someone making 40K a year and ask them how much their life would change if they instead made 120K a year. (fun fact: They'd likely pay more taxes than the 1%ers, so all the bureaucrats also have incentive for this plan).

No, the angle you have to take with all this is that there's no way to implement this without a revolution. Violating that whole "right to own property" thing would cause enough people to fight back or simply pick up and leave. And revolutions ALWAYS have things go from bad to worse before things get better. It'd be GREAT if we could cut off the fat and have a lean-mean-GDP-producing machine instead of a bunch of fat slugs getting paid to simply own things. But the way to get there is through a progressive tax structure and steady moderate inflation. Don't rock the boat. The boat is massively unbalanced, but trying to rock that weight around is going to capsize it.

Re:He found an Acorn

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah tons more sulfur.

Re: He found an Acorn

[MachineShedFred]

Rising incomes don't cause people to buy low quality local-made shit instead of low-quality shit made in China. It either causes people to buy even more cheap shit from China, or higher quality shit also made in Asia.

Short version: if American manufacturing actually made quality shit, it would sell regardless of postage rates.

Re: He found an Acorn

[MachineShedFred]

W wasn't even close to the worst. William Howard Taft and James Buchanan would like to have a word with you about that.

Re: He found an Acorn

[J. T. MacLeod]

As someone looking to ship some packages from Japan soon... Were those packages light or were you using someone other than Japan post?

Or was surface mail just unbelievably fast?

Re: He found an Acorn

[JaredOfEuropa]

They were about 25kg, sent through regular Japan Post.

Re:He found an Acorn

[houghi]

Only once had this issue living in Belgium and that was because of taxes. Many people order stuff from China and either suddenly need to pay taxes or do not get it at all, because they where fake goods and where confiscated at the border.

Some people then insist they want them and have to pay a fine and still not get the goods. They then try to reclaim the money from the Credit Card Company, because their 20 EUR Luis Vuitton was not delivered.

So please elaborate WHY the extra money was asked. They will inform you what the reason was and what the country of origin was.

I send and receive plenty of packages and never have encounterd such a thing, except for the tax one.

Re: He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

Taft? Are you daft?

Sorry, had to. Taft doesn't even register as a bad president. On the low side of mediocre, sure.

Buchanan was weak and ineffective. That certainly makes him a bad choice for president. However, I'd argue that precisely because of his weakness, he's incapable of being worst, because he took no actions that took us down the wrong path, only failed to turn the ship from the pending civil war. Could he have done it? It's highly doubtful - you had 2 sides polarized to the point that each thought the other was infringing on its rights as a people. And those sides were not only defined by beliefs, but by geography. In those circumstances, I doubt anything could have been done to keep everything harmonious.

Had you sad Woodrow Wilson, I could certainly agree to a case for it. He did have a major part in setting up the world for WW2, among many other bad actions he took. But few have had the direct world-wide effects of bad actions than W. He failed to head warnings about pending terrorist attacks in 2001, based on what we know today. He chose to do nothing and read children's books while the attacks took place. Not only did this attack do material damage but led to the first major economic calamity of his administration. Then with a completely arbitrary invasion of Iraq, he set up the environment for a complete collapse of middle eastern governments. But that's not all! He also through direct action by him and his leadership in pushing to deregulate banks and markets created an economic freefall leading to a world wide depression (still called a " deep recession" by many) with the effects only recently put behind us, more than 8 years after the initial crash.

I'd say that based on scale and direct attribution, W is hands down the worst president we've had, as his mismanagement and idealism have negatively affected the US far beyond his presidency. We're still experiencing negative effects directly attributable to him, and it's been 20 years since he took office.

While putting the bad in focus, it all that pales in comparison to the damage Trump is causing in less than 2 years. It's too early to sum up how bad Trump is, it may even take years to truly measure how bad he was for the country, but it's already obvious he's worse than W in damaging the US's standing in the world despite W destroying a sovereign country and being directly responsible for 2 major world-wide economic downturns.

Re: He found an Acorn

[HornWumpus]

FDR. His kited checks still haven't landed.

After SS breaks the budget, there will be no debate.

Re:He found an Acorn

[HornWumpus]

Why would we save a cell phone store?

It's not like RS sold parts anytime in the 21st century.

Re: He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

FDR. His kited checks still haven't landed.

After SS breaks the budget, there will be no debate.

There will be huge debate, as to who is actually at fault for "kiting" those checks. And who refused to fund the increasing demand. Speaking of increasing demand, who presented a $26B/year unfunded medicare mandate when he signed it? Right - forgot to add that to W, but then, this is peanuts compared to his other flaws, at least for now, that one hasn't fully come to roost either yet. I mean it's only been a few trillion in outlays with no offsetting revenue over the years. At least SS is still solvent after 80 years, despite the best efforts of Republicans to torpedo it. Yep, those ever "small government" loving Republicans, that love to saddle up more debt on the country while giving money to the rich and corporations. Medicare Part D might be their crowning achievement to destroy the country, we'll just have to wait and see.

Re: He found an Acorn

[HornWumpus]

There will be blame to go round. But SS was broken from day 1.

FDR set it up broken by design, LBJ was first to raid the trust. Those are the two biggest villains.

If the tax rate was higher, there would just be more IOUs in the trust.

Re: He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

SS was brilliant, from day 1. If nothing had changed, there'd never be a run on the trust. Average age was only about 68 in 1935, and had been pretty steady around that number historically. It didn't start going up noticeably until the 50s. But yes, under LBJ the SS system started being used as a combined slush fund, as was every other fund except the highway fund, for some reason.

Now if only we got some reasonable taxation schemes in place to reduce the ever growing debt we're currently being saddled with. Perhaps a 90% tax for all income above 10X the poverty line would help things? I kid, maybe 50% above 10X and not hitting 90% until 30-40X above the poverty line. FYI - the income tax has been higher. I'm also for removing property deductions, as that only helps subsidize increased costs of property.

Re:He found an Acorn

[Gr8Apes]

You sound like one of those people who will look at someone who lives in poverty, and say they're not poor because they have a cellphone and a television.

I'd say that person made poor choices.

It just wasn't fair

[Anonymous Coward]

It was really dumb that China could send a $1 item to us but to return it would cost some absurd amount like $30. Now shipping will be fair. Sad thing is no more cheapo depot items flooding in from China. Say goodbye to Aliexpress and Ebay!

Re:It just wasn't fair

[MrMr]

Probably not coincidentally: I recently read a news item that Alibaba plans to open a new distrition center in Europe. Alledgedly to reduce shipping times..

Re: It just wasn't fair

[Miamicanes]

I'd argue that a fair reform would be one that slightly raised the amount charged by USPS to deliver packages from a customs point... then made the same rate available to US companies willing to handle their own logistics up to that point. So if USPS charges $1.50 to deliver a package from their facility near JFK to someone in Miami, someone like Amazon or Walmart should be able to get the exact same rate by showing up at the USPS facility near JFK with 40 million packages per day.

Ultimately, it IS kind of fucked up that it costs less to mail a half-pound package from Wuhan to Miami than it costs to mail a fucking POSTCARD from Miami to Fort Lauderdale. A fair rate structure would be one that would be available to domestic mailers under identical terms, but wouldn't induce domestic shippers to do logistically-silly things to take advantage of it.

Right now, USPS rates are lopsided at BOTH ends... USPS *radically* increased the cost of mailing small, light padded envelopes ~2 years ago. Prior to that, you could mail almost anything physically-capable of fitting into an envelope that's within weight limits for the cost of first-class letter-rate postage. NOW, you get hit with multiple surcharges for "non-flat" and "more than 1/8" thick" packages that make it 2-4x more expensive. This new rate policy has utterly DESTROYED the ability of Americans to compete with Chinese sellers of things like small USB cables, microUSB-C adapters, etc, by driving the cheapest possible shipping cost for anything that's thicker than 1/8" and not consistently-flat up to $2-3/envelope. Merely raising the amount charged to Chinese shippers by 10-25c & using it to abolish the non-thin/flat surcharge charged to US shippers would go a long way towards restoring fairness & parity.

Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[jellomizer]

Yes Negotiations are long and complex, they take take a long time. At the end of the day there are often some smaller changes where no one is happy.

The Trump administration goes threw this process as well. However during the process he kills what is going on currently, thus putting everyone in pain until the process which would had happened would complete anyways.

When an agreement is made, business connections and contracts are lost. Making going further much more complex. While the inital threat causes a hording instinct, thus inflating short term numbers.

Trump is winning sprints, in a marathon run.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[Phaid]

Not in this case. He is threatening pain, but giving the UPU nations time to broker a new deal before the US withdraws.

The U.S. is hoping to renegotiate the rates, known as terminal dues, but was frustrated with opposition from other nations in the UPU. According to the report, "The withdrawal would not take effect for one year, allowing the U.S. some time to broker a new deal." .

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[Anonymous Coward]

This particular one is only controversial if you're an idiot. Amazon, the USPS, FedEx and UPS are some of the groups in the US alone who have been complaining about this for years. According to a BBC article I was reading (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45894346 which seems to have been edited since yesterday, grr, can't they at least leave previous versions available, they cut out all the UPU negotiation stuff), the UPU negotiates rates every 4 years and was already planning on redoing Chinas rates in 2020 or 2021 due to international complaints about Chinas abuse. Trump is simply trying to move this renegotiation that was already going to happen forward in time. This is called manufacturing outrage.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[Luckyo]

It's funny how you managed to make the conclusion that is the opposite of reality. In short term, it's a loss, because during the period of conflict, there's suffering.

After there's a better deal in place, it's a long term win. So losses in sprints, win in the marathon. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a really nasty illness.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes Negotiations are long and complex, they take take a long time. At the end of the day there are often some smaller changes where no one is happy.

The Trump administration goes threw this process as well. However during the process he kills what is going on currently, thus putting everyone in pain until the process which would had happened would complete anyways.

Without that "pain" you typically get no motion - or glacial, at best, motion. There is no sense of urgency or a push to get things done until there is some "pain" in the system. Note how quickly the trade deals with Canada and Mexico came about, once the Administration declared NAFTA dead.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[AndrewFlagg]

agreed. not pain, just forced negotiations, or else.. that's how it works. if i can't hurt you, you won't pay attention. if I can hurt you, you might pay attention.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[DRJlaw]

It's funny how you managed to make the conclusion that is the opposite of reality. In short term, it's a loss, because during the period of conflict, there's suffering.

After there's a better deal in place, it's a long term win.

Tell that to the Brexiteers.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a really nasty illness.

Yes, all opposition is derangement. Have fun with the next two years. You'll need that attitude to offset the loss of the House.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[jeff4747]

Nope. Let's talk about Soy.

The US used to utterly dominate the soy market. Nobody could grow it as cheap as we did, so we exported a huge amount to China. Nobody tried to compete with us because of the natural monopoly - they couldn't sell it as cheaply initially and could not afford to mature their industry enough to get the price down to compete with the US.

Enter Trump. China now has a hefty tariff on US soy. So now other countries can compete.

Brazil now sells soy at less than the post-US tariff price. And thanks to the time it will take to negotiate a trade deal, Brazil can afford to mature its soy industry. Brazil has been able to compete with the US directly on cost in other crops, and there's little reason to think Brazil won't be able to do so with soy now that they have some breathing room.

So no, there will not be a long-term win. We gave away a monopoly via tariffs. US farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to these tariffs.

That that effect isn't limited to soy. We will be making less money forever because these tariffs have created alternatives to US products.

There's a reason mercantilism was disproven in the 1600s. Trump reverting to mercantilism now doesn't change the results.

Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate.

[jeff4747]

So we should run the government policies to help soy farmers at the possible expense of everyone else?

Do you need me to link you the definition of "Example"?

NPR Planet Money Podcast on this Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

The Planet Money podcast did a good story relating to this topic on August 1st, 2018. The episode was titled "The Postal Illuminati".

I wondered how long it was going to take the

[mark_reh]

Great One to catch onto this. When he started complaining that Amazon.com was bankrupting the PO, I wondered why he wasn't complaining about the free delivery of goods from China. He's probably pissed off because he found out he could be shipping his neckties from the factories in China for free instead of packing them onto ships and paying whatever duties and delivery costs might be.

And?

[cascadingstylesheet]

China has fallen under the developing nation category, a designation the U.S. says it no longer deserves because of its booming economy.

That seems ... reasonable?

Re:And?

[Phaid]

No matter what Trump does, someone will complain. He could achieve permanent world peace, and half the US would complain he's decimating the defense industry and costing jobs.

Re:And?

[cascadingstylesheet]

He could achieve permanent world peace, and half the US would complain he's decimating the defense industry and costing jobs.

Frankly, he couldn't. He has neither the competence nor the desire to try.

Whoosh.

Re:And?

[gaiageek]

No matter what any president does, someone will complain.

Re:And?

[AmiMoJo]

China is still in the development phase. Far from everyone has been brought up to a first world standard of living there, in fact the majority have not.

The developing nation status helps those people by making it easier for small businesses and even individuals to sell to relatively wealthy consumers in the west.

I'm sure someone will ask why they should care about people in China or helping China develop. I'll assume that humanitarian arguments won't work so I'll use an economic one. As China develops it opens up opportunities for the US to sell to China. European and Japanese cars are becoming quite popular, for example, not to mention tourism.

Re:And?

[Xylantiel]

Trying to get China reclassified out of developing nation status sounds fine. Trying to get to unilaterally set rates sounds tantamount to pulling out of the agreement, and so makes no sense. This seems like typical Trump administration strategy. Complain about one part of something then try to pull out of the whole thing. Maybe that works in underhanded real estate negotiations, but in international agreements it tends to just piss off the people who are trying to agree with you.

The deeper issue is that the Trump administration doesn't understand the importance of economics in national security. It is in our interest that truly developing nations do have things a bit easier, since they are less likely to become unstable and/or terrorist breeding grounds threatening global shipping lanes. This lack of understanding of the role of economics in world stability is, in fact, the source of Tillerson's comment that Trump is an idiot. Trump is willing to risk putting a major trading partner in a large-scale armed conflict if it saves the US a modest sum in international aid. It is tough to call that anything but stupid from a policy perspective.

Re: And?

[WindBourne]

Which the new nafta deal addresses. It requires a large % of content to come from that nation to count. So importing into America does not simply allow us to ship to Mexico/Canada for free.

Re: And?

[WindBourne]

BS. They are NOT 3RD world which is what all this help was for. They basically 2nd world. Yes, undergoing devevolpment, but more than 1/2 of China is no longer in poverty. If you want to see true 3rd world conditions, you can find those in ANY nation. All Europeans have them. So does America ( go look small towns in Mississippi ). In fact, this mailing agreement needs to be redone for a number of nations. Singapore, Israel, etc have been in the 3rd world classification and do not belong there. They, along with China, should not have advantages like this.

Re:And?

[HornWumpus]

'European' and 'Japanese' cars that are made in China (by minimum 50% Chinese owned companies) as the tariffs are so high they are unaffordable when imported? Those cars?

China has been at 'Trade war' with America and Europe for 20+ years, America is starting to fight.

Re:And?

[hierofalcon]

I agree that just as in the US, not every Chinese citizen has benefited from the changes in China. However, once a country starts its own export import bank and starts trying to buy influence in other poorer countries (African operations come to mind), it is arguable that the developing category is no longer appropriate.

China can't have it both ways. It can't make a case for moving the world reserve currency away from the dollar and make massive investments in the rest of the world buying a presence in many countries and then whine that they are still developing. That time is long past.

The fact that much of the country hasn't benefited isn't really the world's problem. It is China's.

Re:And?

[N1AK]

No matter what Trump does, someone will complain.

Can you back that up by pointing out some examples of where he has done something that someone is in favour of and they've criticised him for it? He gets criticism from people for just about everything he does because they think just about everything he does is incompetent, malicious, or immoral.

Re:And?

[jasenj1]

1000 times this. Wish I had mod points.

I've been to China and they certainly have subsistence farmers who live in mud huts. They also have a huge population that lives in modern cities. When their population is 3x that of the USA, they have a much broader economic spread.

But as a nation, they left "developing" a long time ago.

Re:And?

[Ogive17]

At what point is it enough, though?

China is a major global player now, even opening up military bases in Africa to protect regional interests.

As someone that does not agree with much of Trump and his administration, how he's dealing with China is something I do agree with. Level the playing field. Now of course all China needs to do is give Trump or his family some sweet real estate deals and we know he'll back off his rhetoric.

Re:And?

[AmiMoJo]

The EU shipped â16.3 billion worth of vehicles to China last year.

https://www.acea.be/statistics...

Re: And?

[stealth_finger]

he's so far started less wars than Obama did.

More fool him. Do you know what a good war can for gdp?

Re:And?

[AmiMoJo]

This problem would resolve itself if China was not a developing nation, as China wouldn't be making stuff much cheaper than the US and people living there wouldn't be able to survive on the kind of wages they have to pay to hit those prices. If the Chinese economy was as developed as westerners they would be importing just as much from us.

Re:And?

[bobbied]

He could achieve permanent world peace

Frankly, he couldn't. He has neither the competence nor the desire to try.

And there you go, proving the original poster's point that some people wont' be satisfied no mater what he does... Way to go Jeremi...

Re:And?

[jasenj1]

The entire population of the USA does not have a "first world" standard of living. Are we developing too?

What percentage of a country should be "first world" before they are no longer "developing"? China has a space program, aircraft carriers, huge modern cities, and also rice farmers living in mud huts. The population living at first world levels is probably as large or larger than the population of the USA. And that first-world population is actively competing with/against the USA. Why should the USA give that country any concessions?

Re:And?

[AmiMoJo]

I'm not saying that the relationship with China shouldn't keep evolving and changing, but blunt tactics like this and starting a trade war is not the best way to go about it.

Re:And?

[HornWumpus]

China sells 2 million cars/month. 1 car in 24 in China is not European (your cite claims .5 million cars/year, but growing fast in last year). They are clearly counting parts imports or playing another statistical game.

Re: And?

[AmiMoJo]

Developing economy != 3rd world

Re:And?

[LynnwoodRooster]

China is still in the development phase. Far from everyone has been brought up to a first world standard of living there, in fact the majority have not.

According to the World Bank, China has over 420 million middle-class citizens, and that's based on purchasing-power parity. They have a larger middle class than the entire population of the US and Canada combined.

I don't know when was the last time you were in China (I'm heading back for the 6th time this year - I spend 4-5 months total year in China), but the bigger cities are quite "first world" when you compare them to many places around the EU and the US. Yes, they still have hundreds of millions of poor, but China as a whole is high-2nd-world if anything, a lot better off than most of the rest of the BRIC nations and the 3rd world.

Re:And?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Note that China's nearly 3 times the population of North America - which includes everything North of Colombia. For the US, they're almost 5 times the population.

Re:And?

[LynnwoodRooster]

So far, Trump's approach of "we're going to take our ball and go home now - we can start talking about new rules as we're walking off the field" seems to be working quite well. Yeah, it pisses people off - but it gets the job done, and new deals made - and those pissed off people typically are fine at the end.

Re:And?

[AmiMoJo]

Have you been to China? European cars are extremely popular.

Some of them are refurbished, but some are new as well.

Re: And?

[eaglesrule]

If they are capable of constructing entirely new islands to put military bases on, then they are far enough developed that we don't need to subsidize them.

Re:And?

[sexconker]

He could achieve permanent world peace

Frankly, he couldn't. He has neither the competence nor the desire to try.

Destroyed ISIS.
Actively defusing shit across the Middle East.
Avoided a war with Russia that Hillary was actively orchestrating.
Began actual negotiations between North and South Korea, including getting North Korea to stop launching missiles and developing its nuclear weapons program.

Yet Obama got a Nobel Prize for empty rhetoric.

Re:And?

[sexconker]

Of course that strategy works. Nearly every other nation in the world NEEDS some combination of US trade or US military protection, either directly or indirectly (through shit like the UN). Most other nations in the world can't even feed themselves on their own.

Trump isn't winning because he's some genius. He's winning because he has the balls to say "fuck you" and walk away from a bad deal.

Re:And?

[Kaenneth]

Fuck off Nazi.

Re:And?

[eaglesrule]

Risk of large-scale armed conflict? We're still talking about postal rates, aren't we?

Besides, propping up China economically without the expectations of any kind of democratic reforms was a mistake, likely made by those who only had their own short-term profits in mind. Inevitably we'll face a conflict with a China that has mastered oppression of its own people through censorship, surveillance, and social engineering, and the ordinary Chinese citizen will have our own tech firms to thank for that.

While I don't expect that Trump takes the potential for inescapable tyranny over a billion human beings into much consideration, some of us do and should.

Re:And?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Trump isn't winning because he's some genius. He's winning because he has the balls to say "fuck you" and walk away from a bad deal.

Sometimes, genius is just recognizing the obvious and ignoring the nay-sayers. Like Einstein and his answer to the letter from 100 scientists saying he was wrong.

Re:And?

[hierofalcon]

Using 2017 IMF numbers from Wikipedia, the GDP per capita of China puts them at 72/188. The US, which you pointed to as a counter example is 7/188. The question isn't when are they at the top or in the top 10. The question is at what point does developing make no sense. At this point, it doesn't.

Re:And?

[rahvin112]

Trump is an expert at alienating the people on your side. He does it over and over again.

He opened his trade war by attacking our allies instead of rallying them to stop Chinese trade abuses.

Re: And?

[WindBourne]

Here
This home is nicer than many that I saw in rural black mississippi, which DID have open sewars, no electricity/gas, etc.
More
More.

Every nation has elements that are basically poverty. The only real difference between a 1st, and 3rd world, is the degree of poverty. In America, the extreme 3rd world condition probably affects less than 5%. OTOH, when I was in India, I saw that it was rampant, and I would guess that a good 70% or more of population was in poverty.

Re:And?

[bobbied]

Seriously, NOBODY here on earth can do the world peace thing, at least not right now, including Trump. There are way too many groups out there intent on killing or die trying to make that possible, and despite their rapid removal from the gene pool, they are multiplying faster than they die. I don't care who you are or what power you have on earth, world peace isn't something within your grasp. Certainly not in my earthly lifetime.

But this truth has nothing to do with Trump, his abilities or desires. Not even the exalted Obama could do this in his 8 years. Although he got a peace prize (on the come) it was before actually achieving anything. He had done nothing he promised including making good on his "I'll leave Iraq" promise, which is widely viewed as the primary reason for the rise of ISIS, nor had he closed Gitmo. Yet, he cashed the check...

Re:And?

[quantaman]

No matter what Trump does, someone will complain. He could achieve permanent world peace, and half the US would complain he's decimating the defense industry and costing jobs.

He can do good things, the problem is he and his administration have also proven himself to be very dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent. So if he announces permanent world peace you need to check that he's actually talking about this planet.

And if he's announces that he's going to withdraw from a major international postal treaty you need to check that:
a) This is a concrete action and not an announcement that will be forgotten 5 minutes later.
b) It's competently thought out and doesn't turn into a counter-productive gong show.
c) He isn't just throwing a tantrum because he likes the idea of leaving international agreements and causing a mess.
d) There isn't some aspect to this that will turn out to profit him immensely.

I mean, maybe this will turn out to be a good idea... but he lost the benefit of the doubt a very long time ago.

Re:And?

[HornWumpus]

Ronald Reagan did more for world peace than any other 20th century president.

Kinda like Net Neutrality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I charge my customers, you charge your customers and we just kinda deliver packages that cross over? Not the best analogy because most traffic goes to a different carrier on the internet, but I have found the discussion around this vs NN entertaining (and I just like trolling a little bit)

Not to worry

[ugen]

I buy a lot of that "cheap junk" off of ebay, that comes directly from China. I've noticed that over the last year a lot of it no longer being sent using China mail (i.e. the official government mail that is part of the postal union and is at issue here). Most has moved to "private carriers" - who, from all the appearances, ship things in bulk to the US and then separate and ship packages internally as domestic first class mail.
Some of it started coming from Malaysia (likely based on their advantageous mailing rates, and the fact that they are not in the crosshairs of the current administration much).

My guess is, by the time this administration successfully stomps into the ground the existing legacy system, there will be a ready and nimble replacement not subject to the "old rules".

And so it goes with most of their undertakings - huffing and puffing and breaking all the china in the store, losing what little goodwill we may have had, to protect industrial interests that are past their prime. Auto, coal, what else?

Meanwhile, our only friends now may be in Saudi Arabia and we are so afraid to lose them, that we cannot call them out on an political murder. Even Israel is sucking up to Russia so hard you can hear it from across the ocean. Yes, the last paragraph is a rant, but the world is very small now, and mail is not the only thing that unites (or divides) it.

Re: Not to worry

[WindBourne]

Huh? How is Israel sucking up to Russia when Russia falsely accuses them of firing on their troops?

Re: Not to worry

[ugen]

I believe you are talking about unrelated issues. Israel is the one doing the "sucking up". Russia is in no way required to reciprocate. Israel has been particularly deferential and accommodating to Russia recently. That, however, is well outside the current discussion topic.

Re: Not to worry

[LynnwoodRooster]

The same way that Trump is Russia's pawn even though he's slapping more meaningful sanctions on Russia in 18 months than Obama did in 8 years...

Only means US citizens will pay more

[gweihir]

Because most of the stuff you order from China is actually only made there. So US citizens will have the choice to order for higher shipping fees or pay a lot more for exactly the same goods from an US vendor that imported them from China.

Re: Only means US citizens will pay more

[WindBourne]

Or, we will see businesses pull out of China and go elsewhere.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[lgw]

Right: the point is to make American manufacturing more competitive with jobs going to China. This is one of a hundred way the government has been subsidizing corporations to offshore jobs. Each one down is a good thing.

The US government is for the benefit of US citizens, not global megacorporations with giant bribery budgets. Any little but we can claw back democracy from the megacorps is a good bit.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[ledow]

If the US thinks it can make everything it needs, or currently gets from China and other such countries, I think it's sadly mistaken.

Cisco manufactures in China and Russia. Apple does. Ford just took a huge hit because most of their stuff is outside the US.

You've basically just added a "US jobs tax" on everything you buy, from critical network infrastructure to consumer goods to automobiles. And it'll work. Once. What will happen is that it won't CONTINUE to work, even if you could survive that and bring everything "in-house".

Similarly, China's will just reverse that situation and do the same back to you, like they do with trade deals. So everything you make in the US, other countries aren't as interested in buying any more.

It's fine so long as you can make everything you need for yourself and don't need to sell outside the US. There isn't a country in the world that's that closed on trade and comes out smiling about it.

Go look at how much stuff you BUY from China, and how much you sell back to them.

https://www.census.gov/foreign...

You buy four times more from them than you ever sell back to them. Decreasing that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. People buy from China because the US stuff is too expensive, your plan is to make everything yourself under US law, US wages, US supply chains. Literally at the moment, you're "abusing" foreign labour... when you stop doing that, everything's going to rocket in cost:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co....

It costs as much as 25 times more to pay a US worker than a Chinese one.

What you're saying is "Let's make all our own mops in-house, that'll be cheaper than buying them from the home-store." It isn't going to be cheaper than saying some kid in China to sit and make them for you. It's gonna be 25 times more expensive.

You just cut trade with the world's largest economy. And pissed off the largest lender to the US.

And when those Chinese companies just move all their manufacturing out of China to avoid your silly tariffs (like they are already doing to Vietnam, etc. that aren't affected)... you'll still be in the same position.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[Blinkin1200]

Show me a factory in the US that makes small electronic components. I was in the process of establishing a small business. Some of the key components I need are only made in China. This increase in shipping costs will kill my business before it starts.

Re: Only means US citizens will pay more

[LynnwoodRooster]

Already happening! Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Indonesia are exploding with relocating factories from China, for the low-cost stuff...

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[lgw]

It's not about isolationism, it's about a level playing field. We should not be subsidizing offshoring (nor should we put up with unbalanced tariffs).

If a country can naturally make something cheaper, e.g., it's close to heavy raw materials, making something light, that's different. That's just efficiency, and we all benefit from economic efficiency. But when a government makes something cheaper, though subsidies, or more expensive, through tarriffs, that's inefficiency, and economic inefficiency is a net loss. For sure, our government shouldn't be introducing economic inefficiency for the benefit of someone else. That bullshit needs to stop, even if it means less profit for the 100 richest families in the world.

You just cut trade with the world's largest economy. And pissed off the largest lender to the US.

We should not consent to being the victim of unfair trade subsidies just because they're bigger. That does not help us in the long run. Insist on fair trade, and they'll relent eventually.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[lgw]

Gee, I wonder how we got to the point that there aren't any? Let's fix that.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[gweihir]

An if you believe this will have that effect, then you are dumber than your president.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[gweihir]

If the US thinks it can make everything it needs, or currently gets from China and other such countries, I think it's sadly mistaken.

I agree. For many things, the price-increase would destroy the market, basically nobody could afford them anymore. And for many other things, the capability is just not there anymore or was never there.

It is right-wing/fascist ideological thing to claim that you can make everything yourself and need nobody else. It is universally untrue, but the idea appeals so much to these people that they will come up with the most ridiculous lies in order to just be able to believe how great and at the top of everything they are.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[gweihir]

Indeed. Start with paying Chinese-level wages. I bet the people already working 3 jobs to make ends meet will absolutely love that.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[lgw]

How does that have anything to do with stopping US government subsidies of Chinese manufacturers? If you think subsidies are OK, subsidize US manufacturers with your tax dollars.

Or, you know, level playing field with no subsidies.

Re:Only means US citizens will pay more

[lgw]

Or block imports from manufacturers that don't follow US rules for pollution and worker safety. Or remove those rules in the US, whichever you think is moral.

Re:Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughter was born bent out of shape, you insensitive clod!

Re: Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jer

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof right here that the right is full of retards, I guess.

Stating the obvious.

[thunderclees]

When you have nuclear weapons and space program you are no longer a developing nation.

Re: Stating the obvious.

[WindBourne]

India, like Brazil, are both close to being 2nd world. They will no doubt be next on this in about 20 years.

Re:Stating the obvious.

[ledow]

Does that mean that Switzerland is a developing nation and North Korea is developed then?

The criteria are a bit tougher to define that you suggest.

Re: Stating the obvious.

[WindBourne]

Funny how those definitions shifted over time to mean "the shit-hole scale of 1-3"

Well, that is pretty much the case. It really is a question of how developed a nation is. But yes, originally, it was all about politics.

Re:Stating the obvious.

[thunderclees]

I did not set the criterion but it still is true that if you have either nukes or space programs then you are not a developing nation.

Re: Stating the obvious.

[WindBourne]

Caffeinated Bacon/Crimson tsunami; your nation remains one of 5 Communist nations.
People's Republic of China
Republic of Cuba
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Democratic People's Republic of Korea[a]

Re:Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jerk

[Tristao]

My great-grandmother was born insensitive, you person of generic attributes!

in SI units

[Tomahawk]

4.4 lbs == 2kg

(for those people wondering why it wasn't a whole number -- it's a whole number is the rest of the world)

other considerations

[bugs2squash]

It does sound like it needs a re-negotiation but as well as China getting too good a deal out of it...

Does the US benefit from it too, if we withdraw how does that affect our ability to send items abroad

The Chinese get a good deal compared with domestic postal rates in the US. Maybe postal rates in the US are also too high

if the last mile is the costly part then maybe it's time to look for a cheap way to address that. For some items I would not mind waiting 30 days for them to cross the US and having to go pick them up from a downtown location if it meant that the shipping costs were really low

Re: other considerations

[WindBourne]

1St world all pay normal rates to send anywhere. Iow, 1st/2nd world gets nothing out of it.

Re: other considerations

[jeff4747]

1st/2nd world gets nothing out of it.

Those aren't economic tiers.

"First World" is a relic from the cold war. It refers to the non-communist developed nations that were allied with the US. "Second World" is the communist developed nations that were allied with the USSR. "Third World" is everyone else.

Third World nations were poor due to not being developed. They aren't all poor now. And they don't move into "second world" unless they become communist.

Re: other considerations

[HornWumpus]

How many times do you have to be wrong on one thread?

They've been economic tiers for 40-50 years now.

Link

[JBMcB]

Came here to post this :) Here's the link:
https://www.npr.org/sections/m...

TL;DR version - Yes there is a postal "illuminati." The treaty states that, when sending things via international mail, the sending country handles the cost to get the package to the country being delivered to, and the country being delivered to covers the cost of delivery from the point of entry to the final destination. As you can imagine, sending something from China on an enormous container ship to a port in Los Angeles is relatively cheap, especially when most of the manufacturing and shipping is done near sea ports. Shipping that thing from Los Angeles to Miami is pretty expensive. The cost of the last part is covered by the US post office.

Re:Link

[AmiMoJo]

Sounds like it could be mitigated by having the stuff arrive at a port in Miami. There is canal for just that purpose. A bit of cooperation could sort it out.

Re:Link

[HornWumpus]

The way to get China to do that is to make the sender pay the freight. They minimize their costs, not anybody else's.

Re:Link

[MobyDisk]

So if they sent it from China to to Guam then the US postal service would take it the rest of the way?

Re:Link

[JBMcB]

I think the treaty only covers shipments to the continental US. Shipping stuff to Hawaii costs a *ton* no matter where it comes from.

Re:Link

[jeff4747]

As you can imagine, sending something from China on an enormous container ship to a port in Los Angeles is relatively cheap, especially when most of the manufacturing and shipping is done near sea ports. Shipping that thing from Los Angeles to Miami is pretty expensive. The cost of the last part is covered by the US post office.

:facepalm:

A shipping container is not a piece of mail that weighs less than 1.1 lbs. So no, that last part is not covered by the US post office.

Re:Link

[suutar]

"something" and "that thing" do not appear to be intended to refer to entire shipping containers, but individual orders. For example, a padded envelope containing a dozen blue LEDs.

Sweden has already done this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not pulled out but sabotaged. Any letter from China is levied with a a fee of approximately $10USD, no matter the value. Even if the value is specified as zero and the value only is a few cents. The reasoning is that you always have to pay sales tax no matter how small the value and I guess a sheet of paper DOES have a value...
The 10USD is the administrative cost of handing your letter.

Re: Sweden has already done this.

[WindBourne]

Smart. Hopefully that is only China. Other than India and Brazil, all 3rd world nations deserve the help. And IMHO, India/Brazil are still too far from 2nd world to yank it, though both are close.

Predictable

[sycodon]

I expect there are many things that hamstring the Post Office that the public doesn't know about.

I don't think it's unfair or cynical to point out that it is run in the best tradition of Government operation. When your Board of Directors consists of 486 politicians, the outcome is predictable.

Re:Predictable

[bobbied]

I expect there are many things that hamstring the Post Office that the public doesn't know about.

One of my best friends has worked for the Post Office since he was 18 as a letter carrier. I can assure you that you are exactly correct.

The economics of the Post Office operations is hamstrung by arcane ancient regulations at all levels. The 6 days a week delivery schedule is among the most stupid and costly ones I can thing of. Then, when you cannot control what you charge without a literal act of congress, it's ridiculous to expect the Post Office to run as a zero cost entity.

In the face of rising employment rates, the Post Office simply cannot hire and train enough carriers to deliver to every address everyday but Sunday so my friend has been working 6 day weeks for almost two years now, getting paid overtime for every hour over 40, which turns out to be about 20 hours a week. He's a senior carrier with 20+ years of seniority so he's maxed out what he gets paid and the ONLY thing that keeps him walking the streets is the generous retirement that keeps accruing. Once he maxes out the retirement payments, in about 18 months, he's going to retire, collect his government pension and take an easier job. I fully understand why the younger carriers are leaving in droves, I'd give a job like that the heave ho too and go work for Amazon or UPS where at least the hours would be better.

Re:Predictable

[bobbied]

Yep, they even deliver on SUNDAY using the USPS around here. My friend hates it and thinks it is a mistake. I don't know if I agree, but I sure hope the USPS is able to cover it's costs for doing this.

About time!

[p51d007]

Good! China has too many "poor developing nation" breaks. Level the playing field for a change. Yeah, the UN (useless nations) will probably flood the airwaves with videos of the poor parts of China, but won't show you the ghost cities. Cities the corrupt communist government wasted money on building, then, abandoned them. Monuments to the stupidity of the communist regime. If China were forced to play on a level playing field, other than their self imposed slave labor of around 1.5 billion people, you'd see more manufacturers leaving China.

Re: Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jer

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born without genes, you ugly bag of mostly water.

No Insight at all

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFS, maybe even RTFA. There's not a chance of getting the UN to apply pressure to China. The only options are to unilaterally withdraw or to straight up nuke the treaty. Trump made the saner choice.

Re: Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jer

[stealth_finger]

Proof right here that the right is full of retards, I guess.

Proof that the left doesn't care about retards! Um.

Children, please!

Re: Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jer

[Anonymous Coward]

My nephew was born fully dehydrated, please watch your mouth!

Re:if that's the case...

[nogginthenog]

It works like this pretty much everywhere.

Cooperation

[JBMcB]

Problem is, maybe a fraction of the stuff on the giant container ship is going to go to Miami, or all of Florida for that matter. So you'd have to load a ship with *just* stuff going to Florida, which kind of defeats the purpose of the giant container ship.

Also, due to laws protecting US shipping companies, you can't pull into a port from a foreign country, unload some of your cargo, then sail to another US port. All your cargo has to be transferred to a US-owned ship, at which point you might as well throw it on a train or truck and send it on it's way to it's final destination.

Re:Cooperation

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, but it would be better if all the stuff going to the east coast was shipped to the east coast, right? It costs less to ship stuff over sea than over land, even with the longer sea route.

Re:Cooperation

[whoever57]

Also, due to laws protecting US shipping companies, you can't pull into a port from a foreign country, unload some of your cargo, then sail to another US port.

Are you sure about that? I am aware of the Jones act, but I think it only comes into play if the ship were to load up at the port. Just partially unloading and proceeding to another port is, I think, allowed.

Of course, unloading, then proceeding to another port (now partially loaded) is inefficient and probably not cost effective.

Re:if that's the case...

[jonsmirl]

This is being blown out of proportions. There is only an advantage for small packages under 1lb. Over 1lb international rates are much higher than domestic. Under 1lb there is about a $1 advantage to foreign shippers. But the USPS is not losing money on delivering these packages, the foreign rates cover the cost of delivery. The argument is over pension contributions and that extra dollar from a price increase for foreign packages will go into postal worker's pensions.

Put me out of business before I could start.

[Blinkin1200]

I've been working to set up a small business. Some of the components I need would have been coming from China as we don't manufacture them here in the US of A. This increase in shipping costs will put me out of business before I can get started.

No, I cannot increase the price of my product to compensate to the increased shipping costs.

His punishment of China killed me.

Re:Put me out of business before I could start.

[Anonymous Coward]

IE: exact same thing that happened already the last time he started doing tariff wars. Saved probably 50k jobs in particular industries by killing off 500k jobs that depended on the cheaper components that the tariffs screwed.

This will do the exact same thing from a different angle.

Re:Put me out of business before I could start.

[strikethree]

His punishment of China killed me.

Business is rough. I feel empathy, but not sympathy for you. Time for a new business model eh?

Re:Put me out of business before I could start.

[CanadianMacFan]

If your business was only viable due to the lower costs of China Mail other than the other shipping methods available then I don't think that your business was really that viable in the first place.

Re:if that's the case...

[jonsmirl]

This situation in the media is being distorted by comparing Priority Mail rates to international EMS. My Priority Mail packages arrive in 2-3 days. My EMS packages take at a minimum of 9 days and many take closer to 21 days to arrive. These services are not comparable. If I want three day service from China it costs over $50.

Customs Duty

[Roger W Moore]

In Belgium I used to get packages all the time that ended up costing me money.

The same thing happens in Canada and elsewhere. This is the reason why only the US is seeing this problem. Most other countries have a value limit on what can be shipped without taxes (import duties, VAT/sales tax etc.) being charged. While the taxes themselves might not be particularly high the agent costs to collect and process that parcel through customs are often significantly higher.

The problem is that for a long time the US used to be the cheapest place to produce goods and so they had no need to worry about charging duties and taxes on imported goods. However, the world has changed and this is no longer the case. If they applied a low-value limit for tax-free retail shipping the problem would solve itself without the need to lose all the political capital that this treaty withdrawal will cause.

I think that's one of the biggest problems with Trump. Even when he is right about a problem he always seems to pick the most damaging and disruptive method to address it.

I was going to complain, but...

[stikves]

It seems like a reasonable thing to do.

A while ago, I decided to clean up some clutter by selling all my extra chargers, cables, and whatnot. But I had to cancel that, since it turned out that I had to pay more for postage than what they sell the same thing for from China. Yes, even if I were to sell the used stuff at $0, a new one from China was cheaper than the USPS package price.

This is not sustainable, and US might bet a fair deal if one year period is used correctly.

Rate

[JBMcB]

Probably, but there's no incentive for China to do so, if we are going to eat the cost of postage. The underlying problem is the pricing structure is broken. The Post Office is, essentially, subsidizing shipping stuff from other countries. When you have a massive trade deficit with most other countries, it's a problem.

You can sort-of fix it by making a bunch of deals on where cargo needs to be shipped, or you can fix it by charging what it actually costs to ship something. The latter is what Trump is (hopefully) trying to do, and really what makes the most sense.

Yet another attack on the US consumer

[TomGreenhaw]

We /. types benefit greatly by being able to buy arduino clones and electronic stuff like that on eBay and getting it at an affordable cost. Most of us will just stop playing with that kind of thing when the cost goes through the roof if its even available at any cost. This will have a lot of unintended consequences.

During the debate, the president said he was going to add 28 million more jobs. I was confused, because we didn't have 28 million people out of work (unless the unemployment figures are rigged). Add on top of that a rejection of immigrants so it will take generations to expand the labor force. Now I read in the news that there are substantially more job openings than applicants.

Who is going to make our stuff if we can't make it here or import it at a reasonable cost? Mythical robots and AI?

Re:Yet another attack on the US consumer

[hawk]

>I was confused, because we didn't have 28 million
>people out of work (unless the unemployment figures
>are rigged)

Speaking as a displaced economist . . .

"rigged" is an overstatement, but they sure don't measure what normal people think of as unemployment.

The most commonly reported figure is U-3, which just takes those with no work at all in the "labor force", and divides by the size of that force. The labor force is defined (roughly) as those actively looking for work.

U-3 can, in an economy that isn't changing much, tell you about employment trends.

One problem is that in long poor economies, people give up and stop looking. These are called "discouraged workers" and are not counted as part of the labor force.

Another is that the guy that got two hours of work but needs 40 still counts as unemployed.

U-4 to U-6 take that into account. By the time you get to U-6, the folks that have given up and those that can't get enough work count towards unemployed.

In "normal" times, U-3 and U-6 kind of move together. But as we went about eight years after the last recession (which was really a run of the mill recession, it's just that we hadn't had a "real" one since the early 80s) without a normal expansion, U-3 and U-6 diverged more and more widely.

So once we got back to "normal" economic growth, some discouraged workers resumed working, and some of the underemployed got more hours. This is reflected by U-6 moving *far* more than U-3, with large numbers of people becoming employed with only small changes in the labor rate.

So there are always more people out of work than the common U-3 shows--they've just been redefined as out o the labor force. In normal times, there aren't as many.

Frankly, I'd phase out U-1 to U-5 entirely . . .

hawk, economist at large

Re:Yet another attack on the US consumer

[CanadianMacFan]

Kicking out all of the immigrants opens up a lot of jobs.

Re:Yet another attack on the US consumer

[houghi]

I do not buy anything from eBay. The rest of the stuff I buy, I get from European dealers. So my impact would be 0%

Sure, I have bought some things from China in the past. I just can not bother to wait for up to three months so I pay 2 EUR less. And I then know I paid the needed taxes. From China they could stop any package and then charge me the tax plus the tax handling fees. So no thanks.

So what will happen is that you will have a few resellers that will have their warehouses in the US and/or EU and ship from there. There are already several companies who do it that way.

Re:Yet another attack on the US consumer

[TomGreenhaw]

In the US they have been just sending small parcels straight through without taxes, duties or paperwork. Except for drug smuggling, it has been a tremendous boon for everyone. The drug smuggling issue is being addressed with dogs and technology,but its taking time to get it right.

The middlemen are benefiting from the current loose arrangement. The increased cost will choke off demand and then supply and then innovation and competition.

Re:MAGA ...

[sexconker]

Thanks for being a member of Share Blue, your $2 check is in the mail.

ePacket was started in 2011

[KalvinB]

https://about.usps.com/news/na...

HONG KONG — The U.S. Postal Service has initiated a new service with Hongkong Post that is structured to foster growth in e-commerce. The new ePacket service expands the array of options offered to e-commerce merchants in Hong Kong seeking to reach consumer markets in the United States. The ePacket shipping solution features tracking and Delivery Confirmation in the Postal Service network for lightweight goods and merchandise ordered by consumers in the United States from merchants in Hong Kong.

---

This agreement is not likely to change. The Post Office makes a lot of money on this deal because people tend to buy a lot of stuff in bulk and then ship pieces of it domestically. Or they buy lots of parts, build something and then sell that domestically. Amazon.com is filled with people reselling stuff from AliExpress

If the price were to go up substantially it would hurt the USPS.

Re:um...

[gweihir]

And fail. Absolutely no manufacturing "moved" to China because of small-parcel shipping costs.

Re: Trump pulls out.

[dfenstrate]

IsTrumpdetected = true
Initiate.outrage
Variable set (postal rates)
Run...
Compiling results...
output = "ORANGE MAN BAD. CHINA POSTAGE GOOD"
Restart (IsTrumpDetected)
Scanning input...

Brazil already implemented similar actions

[rrconan]

Since september 2018, Brazil post office (Correios) charge for all overseas shipments a R$ 15 fee (~US$ 4). At first I was mad with that, but, with some reasoning, I can only agree. Don't want my taxes to subsidy china companies, our post office has a large deficit, and has drooped quality in services, with was historical pretty good. All this coincidental related to a increase in internet commerce. Can't really say about causation, though.

W.A.S.T.E.

[Stormy Dragon]

We Await Silent Tristero's Empire

Re: Orange Man Bad

[MachineShedFred]

Now only if "American" corporations actually manufactured anything here. Even large durable goods which were the backbone of American industry are made in Mexico due to NAFTA.

So all this trade war bullshit does is raise prices for Americans, offsetting any gains from the tariffs and increased postage rates and then some, just so some populist asshat who doesn't listen to advisors and experts can score cheap points with the largely ignorant public with oversimplified talking points and applause lines that mean nothing.

Note that it's fine that the public is largely ignorant on global economics and foreign trade treaties - that's why we have experts and the US Department of State.

As it turns out, details and nuance matter in the long term, and this president is far too happy to trade the long term for the short term self enrichment. I guess that's what we get when we elect someone who "will run the country like a business" - we get a government more concerned with the next quarterly numbers and not the next 20 years.

Re: Typical Amerikuk Excuses

[MachineShedFred]

Why is he wrong? Oh, you can't argue with the logic so you'll just reach into the ad hominem bag.

Go away.

Re: Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jer

[dcw3]

Proof right here that the right is full of retards, I guess.

Proof that the left doesn't care about retards! Um.

Proof that there are retards on both sides

Re:About time

[HornWumpus]

Almost all Saudi exported oil goes to the EU or China. Just based on logistics.

Re: Orange Man Bad

[jpaine619]

The US is the second largest exporting nation (by value) on Earth. $1.55 T in exports last year.

You are an idiot.

Re: Orange Man Bad

[jpaine619]

You think lefties are more self aware? They change genders at whim. They don't know who they are from day to day.

You are an idiot.

Re: Aluminium too Asshole!

[jpaine619]

But whats 50 Billion in lost dollars right? MORAN.

It's spelled MORON, you moron