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

US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

#81

Post by zamadatix »

defertoreptar wrote: post #75
zamadatix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about that dictates it must be an operational level issue. No other carrier has government mandated delivery schedules to remote areas or laws requiring them to prefund pensions for 75 years. Of course no other carrier has tax breaks and government funding. It doesn't mean it's an operating issue though but maybe it is. The point being "government service isn't making money" assumes the goal for that service…

Prefunding medical pensions is not the reason for their cash flow problem: > In addition, with respect to financial reporting, here are the key figures for 2019: > Healthcare benefits paid out of the Benefit Fund: $3.7 billion. > Normal costs scheduled to be paid into the Benefit Fund to cover current year’s current employees’ retiree healthcare cost accruals: $3.775 billion. > Amortization payments scheduled to be m…

I didn't say it was "the" reason it's just an example of something mandated that doesn't help their cash position. The postal service, having been mentioned even in the constitution, has a lot of such mandates that public companies don't have.

And again it's possible for something to be partially subsidized not just either income based or free. As you mentioned if it were 100% subsidized it'd lead to lots of abuse of the service. That does not mean the only alternative is it be 100% funded via shipping fees and 0% subsidized there is still 1%-99% subsidized which are valid options. Maybe you'd personally like it to not be partially subsidized but there is nothing strictly requiring it to be only one or the other.

Another example of partially subsidized services would be the roads the postal service and everyone else uses. They tend to be 30%-60% paid for by e.g. gas taxes or tolls and the rest subsidized via general taxes. That doesn't mean roads are failing to turn a profit they are also working as intended being somewhat use based and somewhat a public service.

Re: US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

#82

Post by defertoreptar »

zamadatix wrote: post #81
defertoreptar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prefunding medical pensions is not the reason for their cash flow problem: > In addition, with respect to financial reporting, here are the key figures for 2019: > Healthcare benefits paid out of the Benefit Fund: $3.7 billion. > Normal costs scheduled to be paid into the Benefit Fund to cover current year’s current employees’ retiree healthcare cost accruals: $3.775 billion. > Amortization payments scheduled to be m…

I didn't say it was "the" reason it's just an example of something mandated that doesn't help their cash position. The postal service, having been mentioned even in the constitution, has a lot of such mandates that public companies don't have. And again it's possible for something to be partially subsidized not just either income based or free. As you mentioned if it were 100% subsidized it'd lead to lots of abuse of…

The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, but as you mentioned, some use tolls.

When you have rival + excludable, it is straight forward to charge on an individual basis. This efficiently allocates resources and punishes abuses.

It's not as easy to efficiently do that with non- (or perhaps less-) excludable goods. Also, when a good is non-rival, there is much less worry about abusing the system. That makes subsidies and "everybody pay the same" easier to be seen as a fair enough system.

Re: US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

#83

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

jorblumesea wrote: post #79
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt your president wants to limit it, but you have to understand most of the people in the west would see postal voting without proper documentation and system that is verifiable is insanity and borderline corruption.

For some historical context, IDs cost money in most states and there's no national identification system. So if you implement voting ids, all it does is end up being voter suppression because generally the poor cannot afford to get a driver's license or cannot afford to drive therefore don't have a license. State Ids have a similar issue. Historically, voter ID laws have been associated with disenfranchisement.

You could make a sane argument in EU countries since getting documents and keeping them updated in every 8 years costs money here as well but no one would take that argument seriously here.

Re: US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

#84

Post by jorblumesea »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #83
jorblumesea wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some historical context, IDs cost money in most states and there's no national identification system. So if you implement voting ids, all it does is end up being voter suppression because generally the poor cannot afford to get a driver's license or cannot afford to drive therefore don't have a license. State Ids have a similar issue. Historically, voter ID laws have been associated with disenfranchisement.

You could make a sane argument in EU countries since getting documents and keeping them updated in every 8 years costs money here as well but no one would take that argument seriously here.

Yeah but the EU or EU countries will just eat the costs for the populace. In the US, this is a contentious issue (as is every social program for the poor tbh).

Re: US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

#85

Post by zamadatix »

defertoreptar wrote: post #82
zamadatix wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it was "the" reason it's just an example of something mandated that doesn't help their cash position. The postal service, having been mentioned even in the constitution, has a lot of such mandates that public companies don't have. And again it's possible for something to be partially subsidized not just either income based or free. As you mentioned if it were 100% subsidized it'd lead to lots of abuse of…

The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, but as you mentioned, some use tolls. When you have rival + excludable, it is straight forward to charge on an individual basis. This efficiently allocates resources and punishes abuses. It's not as easy to efficiently do that with non- (or perhaps less-) exclu…

The above is your reasoning (or part of) why you would not like the US postal service to be partially subsidized not why it must not be partially subsidized or why we must all consider it A or B. A+B is still a valid legal option and can also be a logical conclusion by others with different arguments.

It's a perfectly valid stance to hold though and certainly brings well thought points to the examples mentioned earlier.

Re: US post office carriers "forced to work fewer hours," leaving "buckets of mail"

#86

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

jorblumesea wrote: post #84
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make a sane argument in EU countries since getting documents and keeping them updated in every 8 years costs money here as well but no one would take that argument seriously here.

Yeah but the EU or EU countries will just eat the costs for the populace. In the US, this is a contentious issue (as is every social program for the poor tbh).

Depends what you mean, usually there's a small 20-30 euro tax for documents.
Post reply on HN