At some point i feel like Amazon or Google will come along with their own delivery service and blow everyone else out of the water. Kind of surprised they haven't tried already.
I thought Amazon used private drivers in some parts of the country for their own items already?
That might be a way to test the waters on becoming fully involved.
Yes there are in my area 97% of amazon packages are delivered by independent contractors and they suck
Yeah, Amazon definitely has Amazon Prime branded delivery trucks for doing multiple drops per day, every day of the week.
I took his initial comment to be related to trying to take "private customer" market share from USPS and UPS/FEDEX, rather than handling some of their own order fulfillment.
That said, I would not be suprirsed AT ALL if Amazon is not operating that delivery service remotely profitably and are doing it as a loss-leader of some kind.
Around here you can deliver packages in your Toyota Corolla
Around here you can deliver packages in your Toyota Corolla
That is crazy and hilarious. Probably the same thing going on here, I'm just never home to see it during the day.
At least with a truck fleet, I can envision logistics that make the per-mile-per-package costs make sense.
But with private car delivery, there is no way the metrics "work" (and it is likely all loss-leader/publicity in terms of same-day shipping services versus ordering from WalMart.com or something)
Around here you can deliver packages in your Toyota Corolla
That is crazy and hilarious. Probably the same thing going on here, I'm just never home to see it during the day.
At least with a truck fleet, I can envision logistics that make the per-mile-per-package costs make sense.
But with private car delivery, there is no way the metrics "work" (and it is likely all loss-leader/publicity in terms of same-day shipping services versus ordering from WalMart.com or something)
All the deliveries here are in personal vehicles, or rental uhaul vans.
The issue has to do with fully pre-funding future retiree healthcare benefit obligations in a way that no other enterprise has to do.
Also, they are forced to invest their pension funds in low-yield treasure bonds. (which probably no other pension program has to do, and guarantees underperformance as treasuries, on average, tend to track inflation and preserve capital only)
Well, when pensions don't get funded, things are much, much worse years down the line. So this is the opposite of a problem, in my view. And funding obligations should be an example for other enterprises to follow, not derided. The government is acting responsibly and taking care of people, and likely avoiding higher costs in the future. It might be better to have higher-yield funds, but that's also more risk. If there was some kind of loss then we would hear about a pension crisis and/or reckless spending.
Yeah, Paul Ryan helped tie up a gross amount of USPS money into unnecessarily funding their future retirement plans way out into the future. I remember reading they had to fund it out in to the distant future with needlessly conservative investments, creating the need for more liquidity to be tied up in constnatly funding low-yield bonds. I understand the need to limit risk but a balanced fund or moderate fund isn't an option.
The end result will be an increase of costs and/or an understaffed and ineffective Post Office. People will lose trust in the Post Office or it won't be economical and then the private sector will welcome them with open arms. Classic GOP playbook. Public services aren't registered in GDP calculations but private services are. This would effectively raise GDP by shifting public monies (and jobs with pensions and good benefits) to the private sector (will suppress wages and traditionally provides poor benefits). A win for politicians through raising costs of shipping services (effectively a regresseive tax on consumers) and pillaging of public jobs.
The issue has to do with fully pre-funding future retiree healthcare benefit obligations in a way that no other enterprise has to do.
Also, they are forced to invest their pension funds in low-yield treasure bonds. (which probably no other pension program has to do, and guarantees underperformance as treasuries, on average, tend to track inflation and preserve capital only)
Well, when pensions don't get funded, things are much, much worse years down the line. So this is the opposite of a problem, in my view. And funding obligations should be an example for other enterprises to follow, not derided. The government is acting responsibly and taking care of people, and likely avoiding higher costs in the future. It might be better to have higher-yield funds, but that's also more risk. If there was some kind of loss then we would hear about a pension crisis and/or reckless spending.
Their pension is and was better funded than the industry standard, from my understanding of things.
Follow the link and read about it, but the bulk of the issue is pre-funding future health benefits in a way that nobody else does.
In terms of being stuck with US treasuries, that is effectively a zero-risk option, zero-post-inflation-yield option, and is needlessly conservative.
A pension system should have enough slush and a long enough funding horizon to weather market ups-and-downs to get a better rate on a diversified portfolio.
Yea, I never sell anything for less than $20, if I have cheaper items, I bundle them together with a small discount. It's just not worth it for me to go lower. I might have to up that to $25 now.
I always wondered why when ultra rich politicians rape tax loop holes/ modify tax code to make themselves even more wealthy, they are "successful". but when a normal public employee takes an agreement that might benefit them with a more comfortable life/retirement/ benefits they are entitled leeches.
if they really are using increases to fund their pensions, i wont miss the 50-100$ a year i might lose in shipping with the amount increase.
Today was 20 Packages a 5.49 increase (accounting for extra pp/ebay fees paid) 27 cents per package I had to trim 2 bubble envelopes to save 52 cents per those 2 packages and keep it at <4 ounces.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
under 4 ounces? my guess. That increase wasnt much regardless of where it went. at 5 ounces it goes up .30-50 cents. If you deal in volume this actually does affect a seller. Even with Scott's shipping load. Its looking like 4-5 dollars per day increase. Thats 150 dollars a month increase overnight. If you offer free shipping before and still have it, you are just eating that 1,800 a year cost increase. Its not nothing.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
under 4 ounces? my guess. That increase wasnt much regardless of where it went. at 5 ounces it goes up .30-50 cents. If you deal in volume this actually does affect a seller. Even with Scott's shipping load. Its looking like 4-5 dollars per day increase. Thats 150 dollars a month increase overnight. If you offer free shipping before and still have it, you are just eating that 1,800 a year cost increase. Its not nothing.
4 and 4.1 ounces. I did have the clerk check to make sure everything was fine (just in case) and she said it was good to go.
The post offices around here, though, will mark a 4.5 ounce and under at 4, and a 4.6+ ounce at 5 ounces. I'm not sure if that's standard everywhere, or just the 2 I frequent. I might also see it as "nothing big" because here, CT taxes you for money you just look at, so we get slammed on shipping costs twice (once from PayPal and once from CT, and I suppose 3 if you count eBay, but that's only a fraction of my sales).
I know it's "not nothing", but it's not some game changing thing that's going to make or break folks.
Originally posted by: VmprHntrD
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
It depends on how you're calculating shipping. You can manually calculate it on the USPS site (or PayPal) and give the buyer the price from there. If you're selling from a website, you can use API's to calculate the shipping cost to them (that's how I do it on my website, though it's not always perfect and will overcharge - in those instances I refund the customer the difference, or they'll email me asking me why it's so high, I explain, then ask if they'd like me to send an invoice). There's plenty of methods to get accurate shipping costs quickly
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
under 4 ounces? my guess. That increase wasnt much regardless of where it went. at 5 ounces it goes up .30-50 cents. If you deal in volume this actually does affect a seller. Even with Scott's shipping load. Its looking like 4-5 dollars per day increase. Thats 150 dollars a month increase overnight. If you offer free shipping before and still have it, you are just eating that 1,800 a year cost increase. Its not nothing.
Assuming you ship that high of quantity, every single day for a year. I know scott sells alot, but not 365 days a year.
You are trying to imply that this is his high package time and it wont be this much. If it was december and he was doing 30-40 packages daily and me using that data? Then youd have a point.
End of january is a slower more dead time overall. He will sell more at christmas and mid feb-april(tax refund season). It averages out. This package load isnt his highest. From experience its just not.
I still feel like Its not that bad, but it doesnt really matter. Looks like its the price of doing business. I am going to stop selling under 15.00 items individually as well. Ill probably still get a bit less on lots, but i will save the time and packing materials.
Assuming you ship that high of quantity, every single day for a year. I know scott sells alot, but not 365 days a year.
You are trying to imply that this is his high package time and it wont be this much. If it was december and he was doing 30-40 packages daily and me using that data? Then youd have a point.
End of january is a slower more dead time overall. He will sell more at christmas and mid feb-april(tax refund season). It averages out. This package load isnt his highest. From experience its just not.
I ship 363 days a year and dump packages every day even Sundays as it goes out because of my regional post office Sunday delivery.
I spent $23,149.01 last year on shipping and my volume is low right now
Additionally I sold a total of 7,557 items last year average postage cost was 3.06 per package. So at 30 cents per package that would be a $2,267 increase. I need to raise up the prices on some items to offset but the back side of that is a lot of people will start charging shipping and stop selling lower priced items which will result in more sales for me. I can raise a lot of items but some you just can't its a give and take. Volume is a big factor in pricing I could squeeze an extra buck out of an item but cut its sales in half. As long as the margin is there and I can move twice as many units at a lower price I don't think it matters that much.
For historical data the last 4 years
2015 7148 items average shipping cost 2.32
2016 5930 items average shipping cost 2.77
2017 12,386 items average shipping cost 3.03
2018 7,557 items average shipping cost 3.06
2019 542 items average shipping cost 3.21 already which is 15 cents per package up over last year but 27 days at the old rates
IN 2018 I Switched to a lighter bubble mailer which cost 7 cents more but shaved an ounce on probably 3,000 packages an investment that was worth it would put the 2018 average at 3.13
I've already changed to buyer pays the shipping on my over priced Ebay store. The extra savings from being top rated really wasnt worth the extra hassle to me. With the shipping increase, I can only hope to continue snagging those impulse buyers, haha.
Comments
At some point i feel like Amazon or Google will come along with their own delivery service and blow everyone else out of the water. Kind of surprised they haven't tried already.
I thought Amazon used private drivers in some parts of the country for their own items already?
That might be a way to test the waters on becoming fully involved.
Yes there are in my area 97% of amazon packages are delivered by independent contractors and they suck
Yeah, Amazon definitely has Amazon Prime branded delivery trucks for doing multiple drops per day, every day of the week.
I took his initial comment to be related to trying to take "private customer" market share from USPS and UPS/FEDEX, rather than handling some of their own order fulfillment.
That said, I would not be suprirsed AT ALL if Amazon is not operating that delivery service remotely profitably and are doing it as a loss-leader of some kind.
Around here you can deliver packages in your Toyota Corolla
Around here you can deliver packages in your Toyota Corolla
That is crazy and hilarious. Probably the same thing going on here, I'm just never home to see it during the day.
At least with a truck fleet, I can envision logistics that make the per-mile-per-package costs make sense.
But with private car delivery, there is no way the metrics "work" (and it is likely all loss-leader/publicity in terms of same-day shipping services versus ordering from WalMart.com or something)
Around here you can deliver packages in your Toyota Corolla
That is crazy and hilarious. Probably the same thing going on here, I'm just never home to see it during the day.
At least with a truck fleet, I can envision logistics that make the per-mile-per-package costs make sense.
But with private car delivery, there is no way the metrics "work" (and it is likely all loss-leader/publicity in terms of same-day shipping services versus ordering from WalMart.com or something)
All the deliveries here are in personal vehicles, or rental uhaul vans.
He is mis-stating the nature of the problem.
https://www.nalc.org/news/nalc-up...
The issue has to do with fully pre-funding future retiree healthcare benefit obligations in a way that no other enterprise has to do.
Also, they are forced to invest their pension funds in low-yield treasure bonds. (which probably no other pension program has to do, and guarantees underperformance as treasuries, on average, tend to track inflation and preserve capital only)
Well, when pensions don't get funded, things are much, much worse years down the line. So this is the opposite of a problem, in my view. And funding obligations should be an example for other enterprises to follow, not derided. The government is acting responsibly and taking care of people, and likely avoiding higher costs in the future. It might be better to have higher-yield funds, but that's also more risk. If there was some kind of loss then we would hear about a pension crisis and/or reckless spending.
The end result will be an increase of costs and/or an understaffed and ineffective Post Office. People will lose trust in the Post Office or it won't be economical and then the private sector will welcome them with open arms. Classic GOP playbook. Public services aren't registered in GDP calculations but private services are. This would effectively raise GDP by shifting public monies (and jobs with pensions and good benefits) to the private sector (will suppress wages and traditionally provides poor benefits). A win for politicians through raising costs of shipping services (effectively a regresseive tax on consumers) and pillaging of public jobs.
He is mis-stating the nature of the problem.
https://www.nalc.org/news/nalc-updates/its-the-prefunding-st...
The issue has to do with fully pre-funding future retiree healthcare benefit obligations in a way that no other enterprise has to do.
Also, they are forced to invest their pension funds in low-yield treasure bonds. (which probably no other pension program has to do, and guarantees underperformance as treasuries, on average, tend to track inflation and preserve capital only)
Well, when pensions don't get funded, things are much, much worse years down the line. So this is the opposite of a problem, in my view. And funding obligations should be an example for other enterprises to follow, not derided. The government is acting responsibly and taking care of people, and likely avoiding higher costs in the future. It might be better to have higher-yield funds, but that's also more risk. If there was some kind of loss then we would hear about a pension crisis and/or reckless spending.
Their pension is and was better funded than the industry standard, from my understanding of things.
Follow the link and read about it, but the bulk of the issue is pre-funding future health benefits in a way that nobody else does.
In terms of being stuck with US treasuries, that is effectively a zero-risk option, zero-post-inflation-yield option, and is needlessly conservative.
A pension system should have enough slush and a long enough funding horizon to weather market ups-and-downs to get a better rate on a diversified portfolio.
if they really are using increases to fund their pensions, i wont miss the 50-100$ a year i might lose in shipping with the amount increase.
Totally breaking the bank...
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
under 4 ounces? my guess. That increase wasnt much regardless of where it went. at 5 ounces it goes up .30-50 cents. If you deal in volume this actually does affect a seller. Even with Scott's shipping load. Its looking like 4-5 dollars per day increase. Thats 150 dollars a month increase overnight. If you offer free shipping before and still have it, you are just eating that 1,800 a year cost increase. Its not nothing.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
under 4 ounces? my guess. That increase wasnt much regardless of where it went. at 5 ounces it goes up .30-50 cents. If you deal in volume this actually does affect a seller. Even with Scott's shipping load. Its looking like 4-5 dollars per day increase. Thats 150 dollars a month increase overnight. If you offer free shipping before and still have it, you are just eating that 1,800 a year cost increase. Its not nothing.
4 and 4.1 ounces. I did have the clerk check to make sure everything was fine (just in case) and she said it was good to go.
The post offices around here, though, will mark a 4.5 ounce and under at 4, and a 4.6+ ounce at 5 ounces. I'm not sure if that's standard everywhere, or just the 2 I frequent. I might also see it as "nothing big" because here, CT taxes you for money you just look at, so we get slammed on shipping costs twice (once from PayPal and once from CT, and I suppose 3 if you count eBay, but that's only a fraction of my sales).
I know it's "not nothing", but it's not some game changing thing that's going to make or break folks.
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
It depends on how you're calculating shipping. You can manually calculate it on the USPS site (or PayPal) and give the buyer the price from there. If you're selling from a website, you can use API's to calculate the shipping cost to them (that's how I do it on my website, though it's not always perfect and will overcharge - in those instances I refund the customer the difference, or they'll email me asking me why it's so high, I explain, then ask if they'd like me to send an invoice). There's plenty of methods to get accurate shipping costs quickly
First class seems if you're in the same zone or one off for delivery you won't see the increase, but when you go further out it seems to be like 50 cents more give or take a bit. It kind of complicates doing flat rate shipping. You have no idea who your buyer is, so you either just jack it up and they eat it, or quietly be nice and start issuing tiny refunds.
FWIW, one package I printed the label out for was 3/4th across the country. Cost the same as the one mailed a state away.
under 4 ounces? my guess. That increase wasnt much regardless of where it went. at 5 ounces it goes up .30-50 cents. If you deal in volume this actually does affect a seller. Even with Scott's shipping load. Its looking like 4-5 dollars per day increase. Thats 150 dollars a month increase overnight. If you offer free shipping before and still have it, you are just eating that 1,800 a year cost increase. Its not nothing.
Exactly
Assuming you ship that high of quantity, every single day for a year. I know scott sells alot, but not 365 days a year.
Exactly
Assuming you ship that high of quantity, every single day for a year. I know scott sells alot, but not 365 days a year.
You are trying to imply that this is his high package time and it wont be this much. If it was december and he was doing 30-40 packages daily and me using that data? Then youd have a point.
End of january is a slower more dead time overall. He will sell more at christmas and mid feb-april(tax refund season). It averages out. This package load isnt his highest. From experience its just not.
Assuming you ship that high of quantity, every single day for a year. I know scott sells alot, but not 365 days a year.
You are trying to imply that this is his high package time and it wont be this much. If it was december and he was doing 30-40 packages daily and me using that data? Then youd have a point.
End of january is a slower more dead time overall. He will sell more at christmas and mid feb-april(tax refund season). It averages out. This package load isnt his highest. From experience its just not.
I ship 363 days a year and dump packages every day even Sundays as it goes out because of my regional post office Sunday delivery.
I spent $23,149.01 last year on shipping and my volume is low right now
Do you think the first class increase is going to cost you four or five dollars a day?
on average I would say $4 a day my biggest months of the year are may june july and oct nov dec
For historical data the last 4 years
2015 7148 items average shipping cost 2.32
2016 5930 items average shipping cost 2.77
2017 12,386 items average shipping cost 3.03
2018 7,557 items average shipping cost 3.06
2019 542 items average shipping cost 3.21 already which is 15 cents per package up over last year but 27 days at the old rates
IN 2018 I Switched to a lighter bubble mailer which cost 7 cents more but shaved an ounce on probably 3,000 packages an investment that was worth it would put the 2018 average at 3.13
Damn that is a lot of volume.
Thanks the Nes/Snes classic killed me last year