Spot on my friend. USPS is by far the most automated Postal Service in the world. Other countries model their modernization of us.
The original claim which I agreed to, which touched all this off, was that China has an unfair advantage under the UPU system by virtue of an improper classification, and that the newest alteration will counter this by making it more expensive for China. All of which is true, and supported.
Your claims have then been that this is a domestic issue. As it also affects places like Norway, and is controlled by an international organization under the UN, I think we have satisfied to most folks that this is not just a domestic problem unique to, or caused by, US circumstances. Neither is what it costs to ship anything out of the US relevant to the original subject. Additionally, it is established that whatever level US shipping costs begin at, participation in this international system will now make them higher still, only further supporting that this is internationally rooted, not domestic, and that high initial US costs will be made higher not from within the US, but from without.
So, you now challenge whether making it more expensive for China will solve anything. At the minimum, it will benefit any post office which elects to raise more revenue by charging China more. This "focus on domestic issues" is "domestic" within any nation that does this. As China is a manufacturing nation, while the US and others are importers, this will not alter that. However, it is was never intended to. It is intended to make it harder for China to bypass the normal global importation network by directly mailing--nearly for free--its goods to consumers in other countries. The intent is then to try to shift consumers back to using the importation network as opposed to the mail systems of the world. How well this will succeed is certainly debatable. I personally find no harm in the effort. Others are free to disagree.
You claim the normal way to reduce costs in a business is not to reduce wages, but invest in technology. Investing in technology replaces a paid human workforce with unpaid machines. The USPS is the most heavily automated in the world. I know. I am retired now because a machine is doing my job. That a good union agreement was in effect allows me to collect a pension rather than being dumped unemployed/wageless into the ecconomy. While China has absolutely no bearing on this, neither does your glib response provide a satisfactory solution.
Basically, the original claim is quiet sound, and I am still in agreement with it. I hope I have addressed your concerns as well.
1.) There was the claim that the former UPU regulations would cause many small shops to close, because it would be cheaper to buy from China. That is actually a global trend that big companies operating in the mail order (e.g. Amazon) and also chains stores grow whereas small shops are in decline. It is not caused by Chinese shipping rates, but it is a trend visible in all countries in all economic sectors that fewer and fewer companies control the market. To think that a change of UPU rules would change that, is is gross simplification of the problem.
2.) The normal way to reduce costs is to invest more in better technology, not reduce salaries. If there is a lack of investment - as you indicate - the solution is there and not in the change of the UPU rules. The "easy answer" to blame foreign powers will not solve anything. More money has to be used for the infrastructure.
3.) It is normally cheaper to buy where something is produced - because otherwise, several additional companies have to make a profit from importing, distributing and selling. It is therefore normal that is cheaper to buy something in China than to buy the same, Chinese-produced article in a shop in the US. Again, to make Chinese shipping rates more expensive will not change that.
It is not surprising with such a focus on non-domestic causes the US trade imbalance gets worse.