Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the times-they-are-a-changin' dept.

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.

59 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. There goes Aliexpress... by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then how will we get our cheap junk?

    1. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

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

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then how will we get our cheap junk?

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

    4. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by Luthair · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    6. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by hawk · · Score: 4, Informative

      >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

    7. Re:There goes Aliexpress... by Megol · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. Sounds like a good plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Sounds like a good plan by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. He found an Acorn by nhtshot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:He found an Acorn by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:He found an Acorn by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:He found an Acorn by atrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:He found an Acorn by Potor · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:He found an Acorn by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:He found an Acorn by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:He found an Acorn by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    8. Re:He found an Acorn by MrNiCeGUi · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:He found an Acorn by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:He found an Acorn by Victor_0x53h · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. NPR Planet Money Podcast on this Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  5. And? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:And? by Phaid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:And? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:And? by gaiageek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No matter what any president does, someone will complain.

      --
      www.gaiageek.com
    4. Re:And? by Xylantiel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:And? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      '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.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:And? by hierofalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:And? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:And? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:And? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:And? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  6. Re:Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  7. Stating the obvious. by thunderclees · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Stating the obvious. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  8. Re:Nice slur against the disabled you leftist jerk by Tristao · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. in SI units by Tomahawk · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

  10. Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate. by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Link by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Link by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

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

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Re:Only means US citizens will pay more by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  13. About time! by p51d007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  14. No Insight at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Predictable by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. Re:Maximize pain then try to negoatate. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  17. Re:if that's the case... by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Put me out of business before I could start. by Blinkin1200 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Put me out of business before I could start. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      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.

  19. Re:if that's the case... by jonsmirl · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  20. Customs Duty by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. I was going to complain, but... by stikves · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  22. Yet another attack on the US consumer by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Yet another attack on the US consumer by hawk · · Score: 3, Informative

      >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

  23. Re: other considerations by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  24. Re:Only means US citizens will pay more by lgw · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Re: It just wasn't fair by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

    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.

  26. Re: Trump pulls out. by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  27. Re:Only means US citizens will pay more by lgw · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.