What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean? • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by fn-mote » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 1:55 AM UTC

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.

All shopping companies lose packages, damage packages, and fail to deliver on time as promised.

The question is just about the rate it happens and the ease with which you can get restitution.

Remember when Amazon’s delivery dates were commitments instead of estimates? That was interesting for me to think about in this context.

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

#42

Post by JustinGoldberg9 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 1:57 AM UTC

It's already a (public) corporation. You can send mail through the non-profit, old postal service. You have to measure the postage yourself and put it in the slot called non-domestic mail.

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

#43

Post by fn-mote » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 1:58 AM UTC

deathanatos wrote: post #36

msandford wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 liv…

Special case pain in your rear. Sorry that happened.

FYI, I am quite sure that you can provide special delivery instructions for your address to FedEx. You should try to figure out how to do that.

Dealing with your bank, though… good luck with that when they don’t care.

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

#44

Post by boston_clone » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 1:58 AM UTC

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.

prime “can’t see the forest for the trees” sort of thinking, here

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

#45

Post by treis » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC

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…

The USPS is about $100 billion short in funds for retiree healthcare. Operationally they're slated to run out of cash shortly and that's going to get worse as they have to directly fund more and more retiree health care.

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

#46

Post by Grombobulous » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 2:02 AM UTC

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…

This argument assumes that Congress does what the electorate wants.

In a system where money in politics is unlimited (US v. Citizens United), elections consist of a first past the post two-party system, the president is not elected by popular vote, investigative media has been gutted and consolidated into oligarchal ownership, and proportional representation doesn’t exist (see: Washington DC residents have no representation, senators per Californian versus senators per Wyoming resident, gerrymandered districts) I don’t think we can blame the electorate for Congress not doing things that the people want.

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

#47

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 2:03 AM UTC

deathanatos wrote: post #36

msandford wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 liv…

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by Grombobulous » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #35

jnellis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Refusing service entirely kinda feels like more like something that fits the word “discrimination.” UPS/FedEx can refuse service to you for almost any reason.

But, perhaps you’re right, maybe the word “discrimination” is the wrong word. Either way, from a national policy standpoint there are very good reasons to subsidize rural areas for basic infrastructure services like mail and internet.

USPS from an operations standpoint is pretty much profitable. Congress basically doesn’t even allow USPS to fix itself when it absolutely can fix itself without major service cuts or privatization. For example, their pension fund can only invest in low-yield securities, while normal companies have more flexibility, so that inflates the cost of their retirement program.

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

#49

Post by wwweston » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 2:20 AM UTC

Grombobulous wrote: post #46

wwweston wrote: post #27

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 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…

This argument assumes that Congress does what the electorate wants. In a system where money in politics is unlimited (US v. Citizens United), elections consist of a first past the post two-party system, the president is not elected by popular vote, investigative media has been gutted and consolidated into oligarchal ownership, and proportional representation doesn’t exist (see: Washington DC residents have no represe…

Money distorts the system in some ways and I agree that’s a problem that could use systemic mitigation (farther back than Citizen’s United probably, Buckley vs Valeo is arguably the deeper roots).

But ultimately, money doesn’t remove the fundamental electoral mechanisms (yet) or opportunity for volunteer direct lobbying. It primarily distorts to the degree that it can be used to buy the focus of the electorate and to the degree it can be used to buy other people’s lobbying time.

People could spend their time managing their own political /public policy focus and volunteer lobbying instead of any other leisure activities. I’ve done it and I know others who do. Most Americans don’t, and that’s a revealed preference. Other leisure activities are more important.

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

#50

Post by PsylentKnight » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 2:29 AM UTC

sanguinesphinx wrote: post #38

wwweston wrote: post #27

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 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.

Why not both? Yes, there are systemic issues in the US. But 70% of the US either voted for Trump or didn’t vote at all in 2024.

(Let me pause to pre-empt any bothsideism by saying that I think that’s silly and I doubt you’ll change my mind on that, but you can try)

Continuing on - liberals tend to point at systemic issues, but personal responsibility is a thing too. I’m a bit tired of the “education this, social media that” arguments. I grew up in rural Texas, one of the most conservative, fundamentalist, and poorly educated states in the US. By the time I was 14 I rejected the then nascent Fox-style fascism and bigotry I was surrounded by at home and church, because I actually bothered to seek out information on the internet and hear the other side even when it was uncomfortable or felt morally repugnant to me

I don’t say this to congratulate myself (or maybe I do, deep down). I try to stay humble and I feel that I succeed in that to the extent that I have often had self esteem issues. I genuinely have tried to see the other side. Everyone in my family is conservative. It would make my life easier if I didn't have the cognitive dissonance of caring about them while at the same time frankly reckoning with the fact that I consider them weak and stupid people that I would never associate with if we didn't have history. It feels mean and bad to say that out loud, but no matter how much I try to repress it, it's the way I feel. I really don't want to be someone that lets politics come in the way of relationships, but at some point it's a matter of personal values

So after 2024, I have to say, what the hell is wrong with the people in this country? Why is everyone so stupid, selfish and easily misled? There are so many legitimately interesting and inherently difficult problems to be solved with politics, and so far in my 30 years I’ve only seen conservatives blowing the United State’s huge lead by clogging up all of the political bandwidth of the entire country with barefaced bigotry. I’m so tired of it. 2024 was a breaking point for me. I don’t know how I can identify with or be proud of this country.

Happy 250th y’all