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

531–540 of 575 posts

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

#531

Post by ip26 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #383
djur wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The problem with the USPS is that it's both been exposed to "market competition" and also has legal obligations that its competitors do not have. The cost of those legal obligations now far outstrips the value of their statutory monopolies.

Which legal obligations that it's competitors don't have? If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so. I think it's more accurate to say that PAEA removed an artificial advantage that USPS had. OTOH, FedEx responded to MAP-21 and similar pension funding laws by getting rid of their pension…

To be clear, the pre-funding obligation doesn't mean USPS must gradually fund the pension obligations for an employee as that employee works for them, as would be common in private enterprise. Instead the USPS is basically required to set aside the entire pension obligation, at the date of hire. No one else has to set aside millions of dollars the same day they hire someone.

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

#532

Post by gibsonf1 »

mertd wrote: post #363
gibsonf1 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a silly idea, that a free market would be better and more efficient delivering mail than the government which loses billions a year? Fedex delivers anywhere you want - I'm sure they would love to deliver mail too with their network as would UPS etc. and you know how reliable they are as opposed to USPS.

Free market won't deliver to unprofitable zip codes, won't treat unprofitable diseases and cannot effectively account for negative or positive externalities created by a given business.

Why do you think that? Where does fedex, for example, not deliver?

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

#533

Post by ip26 »

bhupy wrote: post #172
hardtke wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Appropriations, tax revenue, and government budgets can be fickle revenue streams. There is a simple elegance to funding themselves, and you have full transparency into every dollar they receive from you.

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

#534

Post by ip26 »

trts wrote: post #54

Skimmed this long PDF after getting clickbaited by the headline and it begins with the premise that without the USPS, we would be left only with email >The federal agency plays a crucial role in U.S. supply chains, commerce, and basic communication—which email simply cannot replace—by processing and delivering nearly 500 million pieces of mail on an average day. But I did have a number of questions like, Wouldn't it…

Why does this person have a particular issue...

No one knows for sure. This person also has issues with other tiny pieces of the federal budget, such as the CPB.

Various theories are advanced, such as political strategy (kill mail-in-ballots, NPR is seen as leaning slightly left) or profiteering (the USPS has a large pension fund, perhaps an appealing target for a corporate raid).

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

#535

Post by woodruffw »

rayiner wrote: post #477
woodruffw wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok, but even if I was to agree with you about wealthy people supporting structural racism, how do you connect that back to wanting to privatize the Postal Service? Poor people (including, disproportionately, minorities) are more likely to depend on public services! They're also more likely to be hired by public agencies and receive good salaries and job protections[1]. They're less likely to live in areas that priv…

You don't need a public postal service to achieve those ends. Many European countries have partially or fully privatized their postal systems: https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/privat... . The government then pays a subsidy (which can be easily scrutinized) to maintain universal service obligations. Purposefully making public agencies inefficient in order to ensure "good salaries and job protectio…

> Many European countries have partially or fully privatized their postal systems: https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/privat.... The government then pays a subsidy (which can be easily scrutinized) to maintain universal service obligations.

I have one objection to this, and one question. The objection is that, on average, the European countries listed are substantially smaller and more densely populated than the population that the USPS serves by mandate. It's not clear to me that a private company could provide uniform service without (righteously) demanding either obscene subsidies or a change to their service mandates. Neither of these outcomes are particularly desirable.

The question (or questions): given that the US already has private competitors to the USPS, what would you expect the privatization of the USPS to look like? I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I don't think "pay a company to do it" is a canonical interpretation of the Postal Clause. In the context of private delegation, who is doing the delegation? State governments, or the federal one? Subsidies by either feel strictly less scrutable than public budgets.

> Purposefully making public agencies inefficient in order to ensure "good salaries and job protections" for workers is a bad idea.

It's also nobody's idea! The good salaries are a natural consequence of the USPS's coverage and delivery mandates, both of which are desirable (I don't want to wait an extra day for my priority mail because a private company doesn't want to pay overtime). The job protections are standard for any civil service job, and are essential for a nonpartisan and patronage-free workforce.

Furthermore, I just don't buy into the (tacit) argument that the USPS's "efficiency" should be measured with the same metrics used by a business. I expect more from the USPS than I do from a profitable and efficient business because I pay for it with my taxes, and I'd like to keep it that way.

So goes it for public transportation: I'll take my 24/7 $2.75 subway ride over the Stockholm (or Tokyo) metro's limited hours and fare zones.

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

#536

Post by linuxftw »

harimau777 wrote: post #440
linuxftw wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's next to kill off? Libraries? Public schools? I would vote for this. Whatever we spend on public libraries, that money could be used to bring every residence land-line high-speed internet access. I would also defund all public schools. Charter schools seem to be the future, but the legion of bureaucrats don't want to let go of their communist indoctrination pipeline. As a tax payer, I don't want to subsidize…

A problem with this strategy is that libraries are often used by the homeless in order to study and apply for jobs. Librarians also provide expertise in sourcing knowledge that isn't available online; particularly with the way that Google search has evolved. Larger libraries also provide archivist roles and even small libraries may serve to archive local news and history.

Everything is a cost/benefit analysis. Do libraries provide some services that home internet can't? Yes. Does that make them overall a better investment? No.

There's already unemployment agencies. Maybe they can setup computers to assist the homeless. Or you know, the homeless shelter could have a computer for job searching.

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

#537

Post by pseudalopex »

jonahbenton wrote: post #449
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 monopoly on first class mail point is well exercised; will also point out that turning the USPS into a public corporation with shareholders does not itself have any impact on governance. Facebook has shareholders, and Mark Zuckerberg does exactly as he pleases with zero accountability.

Facebook has an unusual share structure that gives Zuckerberg a majority of votes.

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

#538

Post by quickthrowman »

dungdang wrote: post #500
quickthrowman wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more beneficial to have a flat postage rate that doesn’t price people out of living in certain areas simply due to postage rates. First class mail is an essential service.

it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service. soo how that works? locations have different expenses. farms have cheap land. they have expensive delivery cost. taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities. it's benefitial to farmers. how about…

> it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service.

All first-class letters of 1 oz or less are identical. Housing is not identical, which is why it’s fine to have varying prices for housing. Many places have rent controls in place. The utility of having flat rate letter postage for every citizen outweighs any benefit realized from privatization.

> taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities.

This has been done for quite a while in the US, as crop subsidy payments. People in cities benefit by having stable food prices.

> it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week.

You’re not paying for it, hope that helps.

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

#539

Post by mthoms »

DevKoala wrote: post #418
mthoms wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation for the assertion that this portion of their business is not profitable and being "exploited"? I'm genuinely curious.

https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/

Come on. I've seen these numbers, they say nothing about profitability. Your assertion was about profitability, not volume.

Edit: I see in your other comment you claim a 10% subsidy on marketing mail but I see this no-where in the source you provided.

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

#540

Post by seizethecheese »

nxc18 wrote: post #348
seizethecheese wrote: post #268

We are building a just-in-time distribution network on top of USPS (Bottomless - YC W19) We're able to deal with their slowness because we predict demand in advance using data from a smart scale. It's quite astonishing how unreliable USPS is. We frequently see packages get routed to a totally incorrect part of the country, derailing shipments for several days. Also, it seems like even USPS doesn't know when their pac…

Do you have any comparisons to other services? I’ve most often seen UPS route things bizarrely and I’ve had several packages delivered a day or two late.

We are USPS only at the moment.
Post reply on HN