Even if we assume the information in that video is correct, just charging the extra $1 or so for delivery would not cause any significant number of jobs to the US. Firstly, the movement of jobs from the US to China pre-dates consumers wide availability of ordering packages straight from China. Secondly, factories in China shipping a lot of products aren't going to be sending their entire inventory in the small $2-$3 packages mentioned in the video, they'll be making larger freight shipments not involving the USPS at all. Thirdly, the cost of shipping is just one thing that's cheaper for China, their labor costs are also so much lower, that just charging an extra $1 per package won't make it cost more than it would to make in the US.
Lastly, the assumption the video makes is that the USPS loses $1 per shipment, without backing it up with any evidence. The exact amount it costs the USPS to deliver a package is competitive information and likely very closely guarded against public disclosure. If you pause the video where they show the US vs China price chart, you see the China cost is about $1 less for each. So it seems they assumed the US cost was the exact cost with no margin. The other way of assuming, is that the China cost is the exact cost, and the US cost is just extra profit to the USPS because the market will bear it. And the $1 the USPS "loses" is just extra profit they didn't make. Additionally, other countries also benefit from the same price China does, but it has not benefited them as much as China.
So there's a lot more to the economics than just $1 per package that the video seems to lead to.
It seems you're misundestanding the problem entirely.
Secondly, factories in China shipping a lot of products aren't going to be sending their entire inventory in the small $2-$3 packages mentioned in the video, they'll be making larger freight shipments not involving the USPS at all.
This was precisely what Chinese factories were doing: dividing up shipments to the US into smaller packages that qualified for the USPS treaty rates, because it cost them pennies per item.
The other way of assuming, is that the China cost is the exact cost, and the US cost is just extra profit to the USPS because the market will bear it.
It cost the USPS more to collect and move these packages within the US then the Chinese sender paid in total shipping costs (China and US combined). These aren't "lost profits," they're actually increased expenses that eat into actual revenues resulting in actual financial losses on Chinese parcel shipments.
Those would be good points if you can back them up with a source. But even the video I was responding to showed the prices as $1.63 for a 1oz package, not "pennies" as you say. A 2oz package costs $1.96, and a 4lb package costs $21.15 which is higher than the US cost of $7.15. So it would be far cheaper for them to bundle the 1oz packages into a 4lb package and pay the higher rate. So I think you'd be better off questioning the source of your information.
Lastly, the assumption the video makes is that the USPS loses $1 per shipment, without backing it up with any evidence. The exact amount it costs the USPS to deliver a package is competitive information and likely very closely guarded against public disclosure. If you pause the video where they show the US vs China price chart, you see the China cost is about $1 less for each. So it seems they assumed the US cost was the exact cost with no margin. The other way of assuming, is that the China cost is the exact cost, and the US cost is just extra profit to the USPS because the market will bear it. And the $1 the USPS "loses" is just extra profit they didn't make. Additionally, other countries also benefit from the same price China does, but it has not benefited them as much as China.
So there's a lot more to the economics than just $1 per package that the video seems to lead to.