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

What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

phenomenalworld.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#31

Post by thayne »

msandford wrote: post #20
materielle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know anything about Germany’s postal service. In the US, what the parent comment was getting it, is why are we even talking about this in the first place? What problem is privatization trying to solve? As an American, I have zero complaints about our postal service or how much we pay for it. Apart from the fact that I wish there were more branch offices and a few more workers at most locations. I don’t think…

My problem rate with Fedex or UPS is maybe 0.1% of packages. I can't remember the last time I had a delivery issue. Just this week I had a package that was supposed to be delivered by Monday that lost tracking and didn't show up until Wednesday. It might be "basically fine and good enough" but it's definitely not "amazing and completely beyond reproach" at least in my opinion.

Sure, it's not perfect, but I'm doubtful privatizing it would make it any better. And on the list of things I want fixed in the US, it is far from the top.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#32

Post by AnimalMuppet »

galleywest200 wrote: post #25
limagnolia wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I don't think I would miss the junk mail delivery service if it went away entirely.

USPS does last mile delivery for a lot of rural places. Besides that junk mail might actually increase if a private company was paid to take it to your house since they would have a profit motive - more junk mail delivered means more profits.

Charge junk mail the same rate as first class. More money for the post office? That's a win. Or less junk mail? Also a win.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#33

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

wwweston wrote: post #27
Grombobulous wrote: post #4

I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless. The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion. The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt…

> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt electorate. Congress is composed of people who the electorate sends there. Once there member choices are shaped by the people who contact and persuade them. If the USPS is poorly funded or managed, it’s because US electorate either wanted that, or was inattentive about…

"And if the postal service dies or is captured and privatized, that’s a reflection of the preferences of voters, or a testament to the limits of their attention and intelligence to the point where they voted for people who did things they don’t want."

I hate this. There is plenty of research showing that the opinion of the broader electorate has almost no influence on most policies. Only lobbyists and donors count.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#34

Post by Arrowmaster »

eru wrote: post #7
Grombobulous wrote: post #4

I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless. The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion. The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt…

> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress. Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it. What makes USPS a 'no-brainer public service'? What's the big benefit of having government snail mail? Mail delivery service is not a public good…

USPS as a public entity of the US government is required to deliver mail to all addresses. I don't know all the specific details and I'm sure there's some exceptions for getting service to a new location but existing locations cannot be removed.

There is daily USPS service to a postbox at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that is only accessible by mule paths. I guarantee this service would either be cancelled or go up in cost to thousands of dollars per letter if USPS was privatized. The sheer size and remoteness of parts of the USA is why it's a public good.

https://facts.usps.com/8-mile-mule-train-delivery/

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#35

Post by charcircuit »

jnellis wrote: post #19
eru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress. Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it. What makes USPS a 'no-brainer public service'? What's the big benefit of having government snail mail? Mail delivery service is not a public good…

USA is large and people live everywhere, including hard to get spots. USPS just works in all those places. Privatization would discriminate against those people in a heartbeat. See: rural broadband in the US.

Charging people a price relative to the cost of a service is not discrimination.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#36

Post by deathanatos »

msandford wrote: post #20
materielle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know anything about Germany’s postal service. In the US, what the parent comment was getting it, is why are we even talking about this in the first place? What problem is privatization trying to solve? As an American, I have zero complaints about our postal service or how much we pay for it. Apart from the fact that I wish there were more branch offices and a few more workers at most locations. I don’t think…

My problem rate with Fedex or UPS is maybe 0.1% of packages. I can't remember the last time I had a delivery issue. Just this week I had a package that was supposed to be delivered by Monday that lost tracking and didn't show up until Wednesday. It might be "basically fine and good enough" but it's definitely not "amazing and completely beyond reproach" at least in my opinion.

> My problem rate with Fedex or UPS is maybe 0.1% of packages. I can't remember the last time I had a delivery issue.

Well… I had a package being delivered, and it had missed its estimated arrival; it ended with me have a long discussion w/ their support that I'm sure was fed to /dev/null. FedEx was the carrier, it turned out, and they claimed they had attempted delivery. Problem was, they required a signature. I live in an apartment, & we have a dedicated package room. But FedEx's stance is that they can't deliver to the secure package room: they require a signature. But at my apartment, they come to the door with the street address on it. Weirdly, that is not the door with the buzzer — that's at a separate, more remote door. The delivery person is not going to take the time to find that door, assuming their corporate overlord's maximum dwell time even permits them to. So they can't buzz me. So they sticker an utterly arbitrary window on the building, and leave. The landlord clears the window. I am never notified.

Somewhere this kicks around in their system until I get a call from an unknown number of "hey your package is undeliverable." But the "guaranteed" delivery date was overshot, of course.

I was, of course, home the entire time. These are what spawn the "missed delivery" memes … https://xkcd.com/921/

This is a systemic problem, not just a "one time" issue: every package shipped via FedEx that requires a signature to me is undeliverable.

The shipper (my bank, in this case) was also less-than-helpful: they apparently have no idea who they ship with, let alone what tracking number they used. Worse, they refused to refund me the extra I had paid to expedite the shipment (which, as you can imagine from the above, did not arrive on time; worse, the expiditing fee was extortionary…)

… and this is modern capitalism these days. A fractal of bad service where the customer ends up having to do 90% of the support work.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#37

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cobertos wrote: post #14

Doesn't USPS also play a key role in a lot of other services? * ID verification * Vacant home notifications * Registered mail I have a hard time seeing a private company scrupulously handling these operations when the incentives to manipulate them could be very large.

Also voting.

If you privatize the post office, then either mail-in voting stops completely, or else a private company can control which mail-in ballots get delivered, and which ones don't.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#38

Post by sanguinesphinx »

wwweston wrote: post #27
Grombobulous wrote: post #4

I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless. The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion. The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt…

> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt electorate. Congress is composed of people who the electorate sends there. Once there member choices are shaped by the people who contact and persuade them. If the USPS is poorly funded or managed, it’s because US electorate either wanted that, or was inattentive about…

yawn the old blame the victim. Get lost kid.

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#39

Post by fn-mote »

limagnolia wrote: post #24
Grombobulous wrote: post #4

I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless. The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion. The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt…

Is it? I don't think I would miss the junk mail delivery service if it went away entirely.

Junk mail is a net positive for postal service revenue. Even if you could eliminate it (major free speech concern), would it be a good idea? Who would pay extra when the can just throw out the junk in less than 2 minutes a week?

Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?

#40

Post by Eridrus »

materielle wrote: post #16
eru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress. Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it. What makes USPS a 'no-brainer public service'? What's the big benefit of having government snail mail? Mail delivery service is not a public good…

I don’t know anything about Germany’s postal service. In the US, what the parent comment was getting it, is why are we even talking about this in the first place? What problem is privatization trying to solve? As an American, I have zero complaints about our postal service or how much we pay for it. Apart from the fact that I wish there were more branch offices and a few more workers at most locations. I don’t think…

I think the problem being solved here is largely one of waste.

USPS hides 9bn of unfunded pension obligations every year and underserves urban areas to subsidize rural areas.

Mail volume is also generally falling as everything moves to email, so it is getting both less profitable and less critical.

The US is a rich country, we can afford to waste a lot of money and not notice, and of course one person's waste is another person's easier job or subsidized service, but given the ongoing decline in the importance of mail (vs package) delivery, it's not clear that this is a particularly important utility for the government to maintain any more.

Post reply on HN