
U.S. to leave global postal union next month barring last-minute action - MaysonL
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-to-leave-global-postal-union-next-month
======
AimForTheBushes
I'm not sure what the unintended consequences are but I believe this is the
right move. It is completely unfair that it's cheaper to ship from China to
the United States than it is to ship from Chicago to New York. It naturally
puts American businesses at a disadvantage. There is always the argument of
semantics of what makes a developing country a developing country, but I think
being the second largest economy on Earth isn't afforded that label.

~~~
wbl
The traditional US way to change the rules: get other countries together to
back up your position, suggest a principled approach, be willing to make
concessions in other areas. The new way: flip the table over.

~~~
DuskStar
Hasn't the US been trying to do that (regarding China's categorization in the
global postal union) for years, with no success? At what point does 'flipping
the table over' become an acceptable action under your models?

~~~
ineedasername
_> at what point does..._

That really depends on the economic and other consequences of flipping the
table. Dies a single, albeit large, bad actor like China warrant a table flip?
What proportion of mail comes from them and what from developed nations with
whom we'll need to come to new agreements, drastically increasing the friction
of overseas shipping to everyone involved?

I'm not sure this is the wrong move, in fact I think it might be the right
one, but that's my gut. It doesn't seem like a real economic impact analysis
has been done though, and that is problematic, making this seem much more
politically motivated than from a position of careful consideration of what's
in our best interest.

~~~
shkkmo
There are a variety fraudulent shennanigans that this agreement facilitated
such as people in China shipping random packages to the US so they can use the
tracking details to validate fake reviews.

I purchased a temporary replacement phone via a website that claimed to ship
domestically in the United States when it was actually shipped from China.
There were several issues with the phone, but to return the device I would
have been on the hook for over $100 in shipping. The credit card company
refused to help through their purchase protection coverage because I had not
returned the device.

How was it ever in our interest to force our e-commerce retailers to subsidize
shipping for Chinese e-commerce retailers?

------
mfer
Planet Money on NPR did an episode on the UPU and the impact on the US at
[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/episode-857-the-
postal-illuminati)

It's worth a listen to. I learned that it can be cheaper to ship things from
China than across the street. In the episode the break down some elements of
the UPU, where costs are, and who pays for things.

------
txru
Traffickers were using the UPU to ship Fentanyl into the US from China,
because are almost zero inspections compared to private shipping companies.
This action may still be a pretext in the trade war, but it seems like it
could slow down the overdoses significantly, so I'm all for it.

[https://www.lawfareblog.com/withdrawal-universal-postal-
unio...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/withdrawal-universal-postal-union-guide-
perplexed)

~~~
dmix
I'm sure they could just as easily route it through Mexican cartel channels or
other commercial vectors just as easily.

At the end of the day it will never be economical to search more than even 1%
package and port crate or non-commercial boat coming into the US shores. Those
packages will still get through and millions of dollars of Fentynal can be
hidden in small packages.

The supply of drugs to America has never been seriously hampered for long by
decades of advanced drug interdiction tactics.

------
solotronics
Good! No longer will we be ripped off by funding shipping from China to the US
with taxpayer money.

I actually think it would be better to stay in the agreement with most
countries but slap a "transport fee" or creatively name it, on all the things
coming from China, and use that to pay for the shipping cost. It should be
looked at on a country by country basis, where countries we export more than
import to get to send for free.

~~~
t-writescode
The big problem with this theory is that building manufacturing in the United
States will be expensive, and if the next president is going to undo this,
then what’s the point of building it? It could be less expensive to weather
through those 4 years.

edit: could, not would

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Do you know that the next president is going to undo this? If the bar for
action is that someone might undo it in the future, why do anything?

~~~
bluGill
You have to make a decision given the information you have. You can chose to
wait, but that is a decision. You will always have to choose again in the
future based on new information, but often once you set a plan in motion you
should continue even if though without the sunk costs of the past you
wouldn't.

I don't know who the next President will be. The current president could die
in an hour. The current president could win or lose re-election. The current
president could become a military dictator for life. The above applies to any
president of any country (not just Trump). You have to decide what the risk of
each is and prepare accordingly.

------
mikl
The current pricing system is nuts, the European nations should consider doing
the same. In Denmark, sending a package within the country (a country the size
of Maryland), is more expensive than getting one sent around the world from
China.

------
kludgeaudio
You'll notice all those cheap packages from China come stamped "Petit Paquet,"
which is to say surfaces mail. Now go to the post office and try to ship
something out surface mail and you will find it's impossible... express
service is the ONLY way that the USPS will ship internationally, as of a
decade or so ago. You cannot compare shipping prices to and from China because
you are comparing two totally different services. If the USPS would once again
start doing surface mail abroad it might be possible for American companies to
sell small items abroad again.

------
legitster
Yikes. This seems to set a bad precedence.

For the majority the union's existence, the US has had the net benefit. It
doesn't benefit us anymore? Time to leave. It just reinforces the idea that
the US only participates in the world when it unilaterally benefits us.

~~~
chipperyman573
What other countries have a record of regularly doing things that cause direct
harm to itself for the greater good of other countries?

~~~
darkarmani
> that cause direct harm to itself for the greater good of other countries?

That's not what he said. "unilaterally benefits us." This agreement greatly
benefited the US which is why we were in it this long.

------
pravda
Get your Aliexpress and Banggood orders in ASAP!

~~~
irrational
I've never shopped on these sites. What are people typically buying? Is there
something I should be stocking up on?

~~~
pravda
Oh gosh.

Head over to banggood.com and see what you've been missing.

~~~
mistermann
Are any such companies like this listed on a US stock exchange? I'm thinking
this has got to hit some companies with serious risk to sales or profit?

~~~
knd775
Alibaba is on NYSE as BABA (AliExpress is the internationally facing version
of Alibaba/Taobao)

------
chewyland
Ohh NO. Does this mean I won't be able to get a 79 cent LED bike light shipped
from Chi na to my seaside Bulgarian Village (or Vancouver, Canada apartment)
for free anymore?

~~~
Symbiote
No. The USA might pull out, not Bulgaria or Canada.

------
black_puppydog
That's great news for anyone looking for business opportunities. Just start
selling all the stuff to Europeans that so far was too cheap to ship over from
the US. /s

------
droithomme
Good and bad.

I find it quite useful to purchase parts and goods directly from China at 1/10
the cost of buying the exact same Chinese made goods from a middleman for 10x
more.

Now if I was buying non-Chinese goods that would be a different issue of
course. But such are not available, nor will changing shipping costs make
these goods made in USA.

Going forward we will be able to buy the exact same Chinese goods as before,
but at much greater cost. However it will enrich middlemen whom we didn't need
before.

In any case this will mostly affect small shipments. Larger shipments than
China Post air packets (let's say 2-20kg) currently are sent through services
like DHL and SF Express. SF Express is able to handle mid size (>1kg) packages
economically. They send a container load of Chinese goods to the US at which
point they are broken out and dropped into the US postal service, paying full
domestic rate at that point.

Pulling out of this treaty will also affect our costs of shipping overseas.
Granted we don't ship to China so much but we do ship other places. Also
things like buying books from UK booksellers, and selling books to the UK, is
feasible under this treaty. That will be less feasible. Prices will go up.
Which has its advantages and disadvantages.

------
post_break
This is probably going to hurt China big time. They will either have to open
US warehouses or China will subsidize shipping even more.

~~~
sschueller
China will just pool shipments to US ports and mail them from inside.

~~~
erichocean
That's just as expensive as it is for US shippers now, so it doesn't fix
anything.

Source: I ship 10K+ packages overseas per month using that exact method.

~~~
magduf
Maybe his idea was that domestic postage fees would go down, so that this
would be economically viable.

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
No more 1 dollar 4 week shipping from Hong Kong?

------
p1mrx
For products that currently cost $1 to order from China, what will be the
typical cost after this change?

~~~
cr0sh
Let's say that $1.00 item now costs $5.00 with shipping after the change.

How much would that item cost to purchase and ship here in the USA?

I always use the example of Ametek vs TSiny - they are both DC electric
gearmotor manufacturers, both are fairly international, but Ametek is
headquartered in America, and TSiny in China.

They make comparable products, though I would have to say that the quality of
the Ametek brands could be said to be better.

That's where things kinda stop.

If you purchased (from a supplier/vendor) a single TSiny motor, it might cost
you right now $15.00 USD, and free shipping. An equivalent motor from Ametek,
however, might cost you anywhere from $50.00 to $75.00 USD before shipping.

So - if the shipping of that motor from TSiny rises to say, $5.00 USD, and
they also increase the cost of the motor by $5.00 USD (just because they can)
- now that same motor costs $25.00 USD.

Versus $50.00-75.00 USD (sans shipping) for the USA made motor from Ametek.

I'm a company in the USA that builds widgets with motors in them - which
supplier should I go with, assuming comparable products, in order to make the
better profit?

Hint: It ain't gunna be Ametek, unless they can offer a sweetheart deal for
me...

------
Svip
Have the USPS decided which UPU member they would route their international
mail through?

------
jack12
I know the concern is about parcels specifically, but doesn't this agreement
also cover all international mail?

Is the US going to be essentially cut off from international mail delivery
until the USPS can negotiate pricing and a contract with each individual
country's postal service (i.e., not in place over Christmas)?

------
phy6
I wonder if this would spur the creation of shipping consolidation centers in
China, where orders from multiple vendors (on a site like
AliExpress/Alibaba/DHGate) are combined into a single box before sending (like
Fullfilled by Amazon tries to do)

------
kludgeaudio
You'll notice all those cheap packages from China come stamped "Petit Paquet,"
which is to say surface mail. Now go to the post office and try to ship
something out surface mail and you will find it's impossible... express
service is the ONLY way that the USPS will ship internationally, as of a
decade or so ago. You cannot compare shipping prices to and from China because
you are comparing two totally different services. If the USPS would once again
start doing surface mail abroad it might be possible for American companies to
sell small items abroad again.

------
29_29
Goodbye Wish?

~~~
bdcravens
More than just Wish. There's more than a few companies in the US whose
business model revolves around cheap (total cost, including shipping) goods
from China.

------
kevingadd
I wonder what this is going to do to US electronics/devices manufacturing. If
companies were previously importing some/all of their components and then
building the final product here, will they just move assembly & mfg overseas
to only get dinged once instead of eating massive costs on the import of every
component?

~~~
kevin_b_er
No, that hit has already been taken. The trump tariffs already added tariffs
on the electronics components, hurting the US manufacturing of any electronics
already.

~~~
cr0sh
Only for manufacturers and resellers, from what I read. If it's for domestic
use and not resale, then you shouldn't have to pay the tariff to import the
item.

Problem is - once the tariffs on the electronic components and other similar
items went into effect, Chinese vendors - even those selling to individuals -
raised their prices.

Still - it's cheaper for me as a hobbyist to buy these parts from China, than
it is from anywhere else here in the United States. Sometimes, for certain
parts, you can get it cheaper from Mouser or Digi-key, but that's really rare,
and usually limited to fairly "new on the market" parts (those introduced in
the last 10-15 years). But anything older (ie - PDIP 5 volt TTL/CMOS variant
ICs - for instance), it's cheaper to go to China (usually, they aren't even
available via major parts suppliers anyhow) - or if you're lucky, you can find
it surplus domestically.

So even if it now adds an extra $5.00 for shipping an epacket from China - the
parts, components, modules, motors, whatever - are still going to be much,
much cheaper than the USA version (in most cases, unobtanium anyhow).

All these changes have done - at least with electronics - is make it more
expensive for hobbyists; small manufacturers will get a break on the shipping
(at least competition-wise - in theory - because they'll still be paying the
same, maybe a little less - and China will be paying more), but they still
have the tariffs working against them (because they can't buy their parts here
in the USA cheaper than what they can get them for from China - even with
tariffs and shipping costs).

The only ones who might "win" here are larger manufacturers - but I'm not sure
how many of those we really have (in the electronics realm - that is, who make
Arduinos here in the USA besides maybe Adafruit and SparkFun?) - but I doubt
even they will "win".

I really think this is going to end up being a net overall loss for the USA,
that it will do nothing to stimulate manufacturing, and that shipments from
China will hardly slow at all.

It's crazy in my view - it's like none of our lawmakers have stepped foot in
Shenzhen, where there are litteral multi-story buildings where vendors sell
nothing but LEDs, where if you need a particular screw purchased or specially
made, you can walk a block or two and find a manufacturer and it can probably
be pumped out by the end of the day. It is literally a city for hi-tech
manufacturing, supply, design, tooling, you-name-it-you-can-get-it-there-and-
cheap. A maker/hobbyist/hacker's fantasy dream 24/7 technology store city-
sized.

They can't seem to understand that if you wanted to have any hope of
replicating what China is doing, you'd have to literally build something (with
ports) the size of Los Angeles that does almost nothing but design and
manufacture cutting edge technology and parts 24/7 - using everything from
people who live in the factories to lights-out robotic systems.

In other words, it ain't ever happening here - never.

------
mrb
Here is something practically all news article about China exploiting these
low terminal dues fail to reveal:

Since 2018 the UPU moved 40 countries, including China, to a new tier and this
actually _is_ causing them to already pay higher terminal dues. This decision
was made in resolution C 7/2016, see the list of 40 countries in "group III"
at page 212 of
[http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/actCompendiumDeci...](http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/actCompendiumDecisionsCongressEn.pdf)

The tiers that countries are classified into are called "transitional"
(developing country) and "target" (developed countries.) Transitional
countries pay lower terminal dues. Target countries pay higher terminal dues.
The longer you have been a target country the higher are your terminal dues.
And again, China has been a "target" (developed) country since 2018. This is
explained in
[http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/questionnaireTdrA...](http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/questionnaireTdrAnnex1En.pdf):

Countries in the target tier prior to 2010 pay the most

Countries that entered the target tier between 2010 and 2012 pay less

Countries that entered the target tier after 2016 pay even less

Countries that are still in the transitional tier pay the least

Every few years these dates change (by approving agreements amongst UPU
members) and countries pay more and more. So everything is set for China (and
39 other countries) to pay more and more as the years go by, since they've
been moved to the target tier in 2018.

This 2015 USPS report explains it
([https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-
library...](https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-
files/2015/RARC-WP-16-003.pdf)): « _Forty of these countries, including all of
the BRICS except for India, will join the target tier next year. However,
moving these countries to the target category may not immediately lead to
significant terminal dues payment increases. The UPU Congress will approve new
rates, for the period from 2018 to 2021, next year — meaning implementation is
2 to 6 years after a decision. The new target countries may continue to have
an advantage during this period._ »

Keep in mind this USPS report was written in 2015. This is now 2019 so the
terminal dues have already been increasing 2 years in a row (2018 and 2019)
and will continue to increase until 2021:
[https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/terminal-dues-time-end-
dr...](https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/terminal-dues-time-end-drain-u-s-
economy/)

They increase 13% every year. In 2019 they are up 27.7% since 2017. In 2021
they will have increased 63% since 2017.

So the reality is that the US leaving the UPU is no because China pays low
terminal dues. They want a deeper reform that address other issues as stated
by the 2015 USPS report: excluding packages (as opposed to letters) from
terminal dues, stopping private carriers from being at a disadvantage compared
to national posts who receive terminal dues, etc

~~~
m000
> stopping private carriers from being at a disadvantage compared to national
> posts who receive terminal dues, etc

So, basically private carriers lobbying US govt. to handle them the baseline
postal service market.

------
ausjke
that means aliexpress and those purchases from HongKong will get much more
expensive I guess? good for US exports I hope, assuming we will start making
things here again.

------
ausjke
that will help 'made-in-usa', or at least, 'make in mexico' assuming they can
get the drug-war-violence under control, which is unlikely considering the
drug dealers have much better weapons than the government army nowadays.

