Slashdot Mirror


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.

29 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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

  2. 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 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
  3. 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".

  4. 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.

    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 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.

    6. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.