Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

inthepublicinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 575 posts

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#171

Post by ip26 »

bhupy wrote: post #161
ip26 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common argument is if USPS did not have that monopoly, then other providers would enter only the profitable regions. The result would be the USPS would not have the revenue to serve the unprofitable regions, and would either be forced to end service in the unprofitable regions or simply collapse.

Right, and that exposes the reality that the USPS is at best, a state run subsidization scheme for rural mail delivery. But if that's the case, why subsidize it indirectly through selectively inflated prices, which regressively hurt poor people in urban markets)? Sounds like if the problem is that rural mail is socially important, we ought to subsidize it directly.

The USPS is entirely self-funded and they're still trying to kill it. Good luck getting appropriations for it.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#172

Post by bhupy »

hardtke wrote: post #156
bhupy wrote: post #74

Something I don't normally see discussed re privatization of US Postal Service is that it doesn't appear to be a novel idea. Singapore's postal service, SingPost, is a publicly traded company[1]. The UK's postal service, Royal Mail, is a publicly traded limited company[2]. Germany's postal service, Deutsche Post AG, is a publicly traded company[3]. Japan's postal service, Japan Post, is a publicly traded company[4].…

The cost of sending a letter to any address in the US is the same. The cost of delivering that letter varies wildly. Think New York City vs. rural Alaska only reachable by plane. If USPS did not have monopoly, they would be severely undercut in profitable areas and would only service hard-to-reach areas where prices would spiral out of control. So if you want to keep the price of a stamp the same nationwide you need…

> If USPS did not have monopoly, they would be severely undercut in profitable areas

So in essence, residents of "profitable areas" are overpaying for mail to subsidize mail service to those in unprofitable rural areas.

But then the next question is: why go through this roundabout subsidization? Why not just subsidize rural first class mail delivery by the state directly?

This also ignores the fact that the USPS does not have a monopoly on sending packages, and is still able to serve package deliveries to rural areas, aren't they?

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#173

Post by ceejayoz »

DevKoala wrote: post #76
ceejayoz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, get rid of the “you have to make a profit” requirement, fund it via taxes, and charge the spammers normal rates.

How do you know it is spam?

It’s not worth spending 55 cents to mail it?

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#174

Post by BoysenberryPi »

dungdang wrote: post #159
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of billionaires is far more harmful to competition than government is.

[flagged]

I don't understand what this Whataboutism has to do with the topic at hand.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#175

Post by nickff »

quickthrowman wrote: post #142
8ytecoder wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also extremely hypothetical. And counter examples on why it won’t work is plenty abound. The concept that market and competition will result in better services and price and efficient operations is true only when then there are checks and balances in place. Market collusion, using monopoly power to squish and consolidate power and extort people happen in almost every industry. I do share their concern that govt…

Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets. The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail, I don’t trust any private company to treat a first-class letter with the care the USPS generally does. The Post Office actually makes money, but they’re legally required to fund a new hire’s entire projected pension at the time of hiring which lets Republicans point at how the post o…

What you're saying about pension payments is all wrong. They have the same obligation to fund promised benefits as any private company (which is different from government entities), and they haven't been making the payments.[1]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#176

Post by AnthonyMouse »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #148
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USPS, libraries, public schools provide basically guaranteed service to anyone, anywhere. Libraries are a public service. They're free. The people who use them don't have to pay anything for it, which is a boon to those who otherwise couldn't afford it. It's basically a public subsidy for access to books. The postal service is a business. There isn't supposed to be any subsidy, you pay for it through postage, a…

The reason for public involvement in the postal service is to ensure parcel and letter carrying to all. I have many friends in rural Montana who would not have parcel or letter service if a strictly profit oriented company were the only delivery service. Or the price of delivery would be so exorbitant as to be prohibitive. UPS and FedEx only offer delivery to these locations because they see it as a required feature…

> UPS and FedEx only offer delivery to these locations because they see it as a required feature to remain competitive with USPS.

If it isn't profitable to offer delivery there then they would have no reason to compete for it even now, and if it is then they would do it regardless.

But more to the point, it's possible that in a competitive market there would be different optimal solutions. In a very rural area, rather than sending a mail truck on a fifty mile trek through the wilderness to deliver one parcel, everyone in the area might have a mailbox in the town center and pick up their mail whenever they go into town, because that would be cheaper by enough that people would choose it over the more inefficient/expensive alternative. You can't justify the entire USPS just to avoid that sort of increase in efficiency.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#177

Post by sudosysgen »

imgabe wrote: post #121
bmitc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same argument of being harmful to competition could be extended to schools and libraries and . It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people. So what if it's harmful to competition? What merit does that have? (These aren't questions for you. They're rhetorical.)

I think the belief is that a competitive business would be incentivized to offer a better service than a government monopoly. This doesn't work out though in rural areas where it's unprofitable for a business to open a branch or provide service. This would be the case for postal service in large parts of the country just like it's the case for Internet providers.

In that case, why not make suggestions to make the government service better and more efficient instead?

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#178

Post by binsh »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #58
standardUser wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...any significant value is already sent via Amazon, FedEx, DHL or UPS" And then those things are handed off to the USPS for "last mile" delivery to the millions of rural addresses that UPS and FedEx don't delivery to directly with their own vehicles. USPS serves some very critical purposes, and ensuring mail 'works' for all citizens, even those with deep rural addresses, is one of them.

I came here to say this. I grew up in an extremely rural area. It's still extremely rural, forty years after I move away. When I was a teenager there was one grocery store, no department stores, no electronics stores, no restaurants. Just the grocery store, the feed store, the auto parts and hunting goods store, and mile upon mile of pasture. And the post office. The mail came every day. Sending a letter to anywhere…

This is the critical piece. It's provided as a government service to absolutely _everyone_, for a low price. Like you said, the fact that you can send a letter to any US state or territory for the same price, and it gets there in a few days, is a miracle, and arguably one of the remaining functioning bits of American government. What happens to people in small towns who rely on the mail for prescriptions? Or important paperwork? "Sorry, ma'am, but since the post office was privatized, we'll need an extra $30 to deliver your insulin. But if you subscribe to our Super Shipper Preferred program, you can save 10%..." Imagine losing all connection to the outside world because your city wasn't deemed profitable enough. That's some Gilded Age hell right there.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#179

Post by spfzero »

armitron wrote: post #2

Having lived in four different US states and in a number of European countries (currently resident in Germany), all I can say is good riddance. USPS is by far the worst mail service I have ever encountered. It's so bad that there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that one can do a lot better, assuming one is allowed to compete. And even though they proudly say they receive NO money from the federal government, they do…

Just anecdote, but I probably mail about 100+ packages a year through USPS, about 40% to international addresses. Never had one fail to deliver. I always use USPS to ship, because it is reliable and the fees are reasonable.

Also receive lots of documents, periodicals, and packages through USPS, never had a problem there either, always in the mailbox or right at the front door. Of course I'd like to skip the junk mail.

USPS seems technically up-to-date as well, more or less. I can schedule pickups on-line, as well as buy and print postage. No complaints.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#180

Post by derwiki »

tdeck wrote: post #105
teslabox wrote: post #25

There are various advocates for allowing the USPS to return to the banking business. They would put the exploitative check cashing stores out of business. Ellen Brown's has written a copy pieces advocating for postal banking. What We Could Do with a Postal Savings Bank: Infrastructure that Doesn’t Cost Taxpayers a Dime - https://ellenbrown.com/2013/09/23/what-we-could-do-with-a-po... (2013) This piece concludes by su…

> C.B. Richard Ellis (CBRE), the company holding the exclusive contract to negotiate sales for the $85 billion postal real estate portfolio, has sold off 52 postal properties for at least $79 million less than their fair market value. Worse, the buyers included its own business partners and shareholders, including Goldman Sachs. CBRE is chaired by Richard C. Blum, the husband of US Senator Dianne Feinstein, a family…

It’s probably not fair, but I give her a lot of credit for stepping up when Moscone and Milk were gunned down. Yea that was a long time ago and this is unrelated. Doesn’t excuse it; I just try to remember what she has done for SF as a whole.
Post reply on HN