Seems like a positive development from an enviromental point of view.. less low quality crap from Shein and Temu means less energy shipping it and less garbage later. Win win.
The environment cost is higher with the middleman "small business" because they need their own logistics (likely Amazon). So instead of a carrier driving from the boat to USPS/OnTrac, it goes into the warehouses at Amazon. Wow! Thanks! World saved! In the eloquent words of our dear leader: SAD!
In any event, volumewise I presume Ali does more environmental damage than hobby electronics being shipped through Amazon.
It's easy to be snobbish about "low quality crap" from Shein etc if you have the money and preference to buy better, but for many people cheap stuff from China, whether bought in Walmart or online, is a godsend.
In terms of jobs and American manufacturers, there is zero demand for clothing sweatshop jobs in America, just as you don't see Americans lining up to replace illegals for low wage crop picking jobs.
All this is doing is making things more expensive for consumers. It's a consumer tax paid for by those who can least afford it.
[1] https://copenhageneconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/S...
[2] https://www.postnord.dk/siteassets/pdf/forretningsbetingelse...
If you import goods into this country at below the threshold, you are very likely to pay more than the original price of the good itself. That's the truth. There is de minimis in name only.
This is completely false. I buy tons of cheap things from outside of EU, including China, and they're insanely cheap (often for the price of quality of course). Maybe it's a Denmark problem?
There is a reason shipping stopped.
US consumers have long enjoyed the privilege of actual de minimis, that is straight to their door, no fuss, no additional fees goods below the threshold.
Let me introduce you to VAT.
If they dont, the package will be inspected in the destination country and taxed there. Making the shipment take longer and more expensive for the customer, as shipment companies levy additional fees.
I'm happy if there's an environmental improvement from this (never bought from the stores you mentioned), but a counterpoint may be in how all this impacts those trying to operate repair shops, labs, and teach science. Bunnie Huang had some arguments on tariffs back in 2018: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2018/new-us-tariffs-are-a...
There were some arguments from repair youtuber Louis Rossmann also from a few months ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xR2_eqNL604&pp=ygUWbG91aXMgcm9...
People think that this just means that their nieces will stop buying junky fast fashion or whatever but that their own clean aescetic lifestyle will be unimpacted. But, no, that avocado toast is bankrolled by your employer and IRA and investment accounts or whatever, none of which are prepared for a 10% GDP contraction (or whatever) because the rubes can't buy their skorts anymore.
Economies are boats. We all sink or swim together.
I don't think this will give big advantage to US shops, it will mostly be extra expenses for consumers.
Surely you must realize that's a very atypical use case and is dwarfed by people buying cheap clothes and trinkets? Just go to aliexpress or temu right now and see what the items on the front page are. It's not niche components that you can only order from china, it's the same cheap shit you can order off amazon or buy at a local discount retailer.
That comment was not an attempt to evaluate the policy, bit an attempt to make it sound better due to made up environmental concern.
We are overall already treating too many clearly bad faith arguments as if we all were naive polaynnas. There is no reason to insist on that as mandatory strategy.
For the actual shipping, even if we pretend this rule removes the trip across the ocean, that trip across the ocean would have let out a very small amount of pollution per pound. Worrying about cargo ships is iffy to begin with. But GP was talking about the concern being made up, not the underlying issue they're pretending to be concerned about. Fake motivations in a bad faith argument.
Not sure I can say anything about the claim that some/most/all people expressing concerns over the environmental impact of low quality products are participating in bad faith. I guess you win?
I don't think you understood my post at all. The point was to disentangle low quality products from de minimis and cross-ocean shipping. I am not making the claim you're accusing me of making. watwut was also not making the claim you accused them of making.
To put it a different way: The environmental concern you're expressing is valid but not affected much by this rule change. The actual environmental impacts of this rule change are pretty small, so be critical of anyone using those impacts as a major reason to support it.
And there is a trend of people claiming whatever they wanted anyway is better for the environment, especially when the claims are small and hard to measure. Again in this situation that would be people talking about the effect of this specific rule change, not the general concern over mass produced junk.
Americans are rich and will buy wastefully made expensive item if cheaper alternative is not available.