Given how ubiquitous ordering stuff from China is these days I'm not really sure the first impression of this being some good deal is accurate.
In fact subsidizing transport to a degree might probably have a progressive effect because low wage earners are more likely to order cheaper foreign goods.
So really what was happening is that other people or companies sending mail or packages were subsidizing overseas mail and packages.
"they're just subsidizing themselves" -> they are spending money that they wouldn't choose to spend if they had fine grained control over the taxes they paid.
You pay health insurance so you don't have to pay the full cost later on. And it could easily be that the shipping cost + taxes generally means that the system stays afloat. And besides, if you tax correctly, it wouldn't be the same rate for everyone (income taxes should be higher for those making more, for example) nor would it be more than the flat shipping costs so long as the tax money actually went to the postal service.
In both cases, are the employees getting paid fair wages?
Does the tax mean I'm not getting charged for receiving packages? Are there hidden costs to the lower amount?
When you buy health insurance you pay more than the expected value of the full cost, both as a result of the cost of providing the insurance and the over-consumption as a result of insurance making patients price insensitive.
The reason you buy insurance is in case your medical bills are more than average and you can't afford them. For the average person the insurance is a net loss but the cost savings of not having it aren't worth the risk.
> And it could easily be that the shipping cost + taxes generally means that the system stays afloat.
If the system is worth more than it costs then it will be able to charge prices that allow it to stay afloat. We generally don't need systems that cost more than they're worth.
> And besides, if you tax correctly, it wouldn't be the same rate for everyone (income taxes should be higher for those making more, for example) nor would it be more than the flat shipping costs so long as the tax money actually went to the postal service.
Everybody always wants somebody else to pay for it. But it's the people in the middle and not at the top who actually pay for stuff, because they're the only ones numerous enough to do it.
> In both cases, are the employees getting paid fair wages?
That sounds like a question for the employees and not the customers. Naturally if they're getting paid below market rates they should consider seeking other employment.
> Does the tax mean I'm not getting charged for receiving packages?
You can already get charged for receiving packages. It's called COD. Nobody really uses it because it's much more convenient to charge up front than have the carrier try to collect payment from the recipient.
In some countries without mandatory health insurance, medical cost is a lot lower and simpler. If major medical emergency happens, then families usually need to take out a loan. But for regular medical issues, you save for it. This includes issues like childbirth which in America very few people can afford without insurance.
I imagine, having health or car insurances gives some sense of false security, which leads to poor lifestyle choices or driving fast, which in turn causes one to experience bad health or accidents, thus using their insurance. Which causes insurance rates to rise. And one is not directly negotiating with hospital or bodyshop, those prices rises too.
... And the system is more efficient because of standardization and pooling money together.
The US system doesn't have much of any standardization, and in general has a lot more facilities than it might otherwise need - plus things like some of the government provided insurance not paying enough and not having the ability to act like public insurances. These all make it more expensive. Heck, even standardizing insurance coding would help.
It is cruel to expect folks to take out a loan for medical emergencies. In some places, you die if you can't pay. It isn't like health is completely under your control: Type I diabetics couldn't prevent it (for example). Many cancers can't be avoided. And so on.
Negotiating with medical facilities is a pipe dream. There are many cases where you simply don't have the choice (emergency) nor the mental space to do it (for example, do you know how to judge what facilities are better for a gall bladdar removal surgery? How about where to get cancer treatment? How does one judge any of that?)
Does care insurance cause you to drive fast? Seriously? Isn't that more cultural than whether or not you have insurance?
"You can see from the above anything under 4 ounces is actually cheaper to ship from China. From 4 ounces to 8 ounces the rates are pretty comparable. Once you start hitting about 2 lbs, the prices from shipping within the U.S. start to get comparatively cheaper and cheaper than shipping from within China."
I seriously doubt this was ever an existential in the sense of the shipping cost itself destroying a business. China is simply able to produce cheaper things because they have lower labour cost and so on, and that is actually good for American consumers. It's simply free trade.
If anything I see a much bigger threat in the ability of the US to raise the prices, because given the current administration it may be used as a protectionist tool.
[1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/974065/cross-border-deli...
How can it possibly be free trade if one side is subsidized and one side is not.
This is a good thing, I hope same thing will happen in Europe, if it haven't already. The law/agreement in europe is to help people send hand written letters across the globe, and to help people from poor regions send letters ro the more developed regions on earth.
This was the case back then, now, the same agreement is used so that you can send stuff worldwide without any fee. That is NOT free trade.
https://www.svenskhandel.se/contentassets/5db334c2740b4b7ebe...
Surely it does the opposite - someone living in the poorest country in world would have to pay rich-European country rates to access their postage system.
Btw. I strongly suspect that the international rules on charging for postage were chosen for simplicity of implementation and not out of a sense of altruism for people in poor countries.
If you believe it's still neccessary to keep sending letters across the world a neccessity, well, then we could only allow thin letters that can not hold anything else than a written letter - no items, what so ever.
Your original message seemed to express concern that the original purpose of the rules for international shipping was to support people in poorer countries?
If this cross-subsidisation is removed, then people in poorer countries will pay more and people in richer countries will pay less to send stuff to each other. That's simple arithmetic.
And I was wondering how someone could simultaneously support such a policy while expressing concern about access to international post in poorer countries.
It was definetly not designed to be abused by the world's biggest companies to be able to ship stuff for near zero cost world-wide. If you can't see how it's clearly being abused, I don't know what to say.
A trade union created in the late 1800's that made sense then, may need a change now. Although alot of damage is already made.
The problem is not physical letters, it's the postage of goods across the world, being cheaper because of subsizidies.
I've read many e-commerce blogs with US sellers lamenting that they can't compete with China on $5 items because shipping costs are 5X as much within US. Maybe not killing businesses, but definitely keeping many out of the market.
> China is simply able to produce cheaper things because they have lower labour cost and so on, and that is actually good for American consumers
Lower, but not nearly as low as it used to be. Minimum wage in China is almost 1/2 of US now.
There's real instances of shipping cost offsetting lower labor. Manhole covers are a somewhat famous example. They're still made in USA because shipping offsets increased labor and materials. Would it be the same for ecommerce? I'm not aware of any studies but to me, the increased cost and shipping time make it plausible
The major thing compared to local stuff is lack of VAT on cheap foregin goods. Noone locally can compete with that.
Also most of the stuff I buy on Aliexpress (electronic components, SBCs, ...) simply isn't available locally, or is simply bought there and resold locally (because the manufacturer's main shop is Aliexpress).
This was the most nonsensical self-destructive American policy that strangely never caught much mainstream media attention.
1. https://www.affirmhealth.com/blog/word-on-the-street-fentany...
Please read this briefing by the US trade commission https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/e...
"The illicit trade follows the standard e-commerce model of small-scale shipments and B2C and B2B distribution channels. The trade is SME-focused, with small-scale Chinese suppliers primarily exporting to individuals and small independent U.S. criminal networks.China was the source of 97 percent of inbound shipments of high-purity fentanyl during 2016 and 2017"
"Given the high purity of Chinese fentanyl, most illicit imports are less than 700 grams (1.5 lbs.) per shipment. "
So what? 100 grams would be bought, by the numbers above, for $600 and sold for $8,000. If shipping cost $200, no one would care. That would add $2,000 in shipping costs to the full kilogram, but, again, no one would care. It's just not significant.
Do you have an argument to advance that isn't ludicrous on its face?
1. Chinese fentayl shipments do not need to have high weight due to purity. Mentioned explicitly in the trade commission report linked above.
2. Due to 1), it is convenient to leverage e-packet shipment as inspection of massive volume of e-packet shipments is near impossible.
3. Small-scale US businesses were adversely affected by e-packet rates https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump...
> It is not a matter of the shipping cost.
Seems like your original point was centered on shipping costs destroying domestic businesses. In light of the downvotes it became mostly a matter of drug imports in small, cheap packages:
> most fentayl imports are less than 700 grams - which get lost in the massive flood of UPS e-Packet shipments and thus near impossible to inspect
Which is irrelevant, shipping costs (within reason) won't change this.
I made both points right at the beginning, though the thread got focused around one of them.
1. e-packet shipping cost adversely affecting US businesses
2. e-packet being used to hide fentayl shipments thanks to massive volume and delivery convenience. (cheap and fast)
"Which is irrelevant, this will be the case regardless of the shipping costs, within reason."
I fail to understand this statement. How will reduction of e-packets - one of the major causes of the bloat of international packages not help in inspection ?
If you reduce the total number of e-packets by removing the subsidy, then it becomes far easier to inspect which packages have fentayl and which do not. EMS shipments apparently quadrupled after the e-packet scheme was introduced which adversely affected all inspection procedures as agencies could not cope with the volume.
Reduce the volume by removing the subsidy - the inspection agencies can then manage their job.
[1] https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-...
Just because opponents will likely evolve their tactics in the future should not prevent one from mitigating their extraordinarily successful tactic that is running in the present.
In FY 2012, USPS handled about 27 million ePackets from China. This increased to nearly 500 million ePackets by 2017. (Thanks to that disastrous subsidy agreement in 2011)
None of our inspection agencies could cope with this volume. Remove the discount-from-China subsidy, this will automatically reduce the volume of all e-packets and thus will ameliorate the load on inspection agencies.