Shipping from China will soon cost what it should cost

[Winston]

Does U.S. Postal Service Subsidize China-based Merchants?
Dec 12, 2017

https://www.practicalecommerce.com/u-s-postal-service-subsidize-china-based-merchants

Practical Ecommerce: It’s sometimes cheaper for an international seller to ship into the U.S. than it is for a domestic U.S. merchant to ship across the country. Why?

Paul Steidler: I believe you’re referring to the ePacket program from China, which is a program that the U.S. Postal Service instituted in 2010. To understand programs like the ePacket and why it’s far less expensive to ship goods from foreign countries to the U.S. than to send goods within the U.S. itself, it’s important to understand “terminal dues.”

The Universal Postage Union sets common rates and common standards for 192 countries around the world. Within this system, the United States is classified as a group 1 country, meaning we’re going to pay the most for goods that are shipped to another country.

China has gotten itself designated as a group 3 country, which gives it a tremendous advantage in shipping goods from China to the United States. It costs less to send a package from Beijing to San Francisco than it does from Los Angeles to San Francisco. And this puts U.S. ecommerce merchants and others at a competitive disadvantage.

---------

The very next question should have been why in the hell isn't the cost based upon how much it actually costs to ship the item rather than what "Group" a country is in? If the answer was then "Because of the treaty" as it would have been, the next question should have been "Why in the hell would we have signed such a treaty?"

---------

EPACKET: CHINA WINS, AMERICA LOSES
Jul 3, 2018

https://www.productpro.io/blog/epacket-china-wins-america-loses

The Postal Service is losing millions a year to help you buy cheap stuff from China
12 Sep 2014

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...heap-stuff-from-china/?utm_term=.5d1aa361fb32

---------

That is why I really welcome this:

US ANNOUNCES WITHDRAW FROM POSTAL TREATY; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING PRICES EXPECTED TO RISE
17 Oct 2018

https://hackaday.com/2018/10/17/us-...ternational-shipping-prices-expected-to-rise/

The United States has announced plans to withdraw from a 144-year postal treaty that sets lower international shipping rates. The US claims this treaty gives countries like China and Singapore an unfair advantage that floods the US market with cheap packages. The BBC reports the withdraw of this treaty will increase shipping costs from China by between 40% and 70%.

The treaty in question is the Universal Postal Union, which established that each country should retain all money it has collected for international postage. The US Chamber of Commerce has said this treaty, ‘leads to the United States essentially paying for Chinese shipping’. This is especially true since 2010, when the US Postal Service entered an agreement with eBay Greater China & Southeast Asia and the China Post Express & Logistics Corporation. This agreement established e-packet delivery where packages weighing up to 2 kg would be delivered at lower prices. If you have ordered inexpensive products shipped from abroad, it is likely the e-packet price that made this possible.

This will affect businesses that capitalize on imports and exports; the storefronts on Amazon and eBay that resell Chinese goods rely on cheap shipping from China. It will also affect companies based outside of the United States that ship to US customers. Small businesses within the US who manufacture at low enough quantities to get their components/raw-materials shipped under the e-packet rates will also see a hit. An increase in shipping costs will mean higher prices for all of these products.

The move is also being justified as a way to even the playing field for US manufacturers who are shipping from within the US and may be paying higher rates to ship to the same customers as foreign-bought goods. It is the latest development in a growing trade war between the US and China which has already seen several rounds of tariffs on goods like electronics, and even 3D printing filament. It’s hard to see how the compounding effect of these will be anything but higher prices for consumers. Manufacturers seeing the pinch on raw materials and components will pass this on to customers who will also soon see higher shipping prices than they are used to.

Now we need to try to fix THIS, a much more serious issue IMO. BTW, I don't see a dependence on Canada to be a great problem. Sources for US strategic minerals:

USGS Mineral Report

https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2018/mcs2018.pdf

 

[Zeus-cat]

I agree that it should cost what it costs to mail stuff and not be subsidized.

 

[Peartree]

I agree that it should cost what it costs to mail stuff and not be subsidized.

That makes sense in one respect, but if I recall correctly, the original treaty began as an attempt for national post offices to just keep the money they charged for overseas mail, rather than keeping track of every single letter sent here by each country and billing each individual country for services provided (ie. delivering the mail). The treaty therefore also removes the need for each country to write checks to every other country for the serves that they provide in delivering mail from the US to addresses in their country. Just billing the sender once, at the time of receipt, and keeping the money was a lot simpler.