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

51–60 of 156 posts

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

#51

Post by Grombobulous »

wwweston wrote: post #49
Grombobulous wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 process of lobbying Congress involves physically showing up to the congressional offices in Washington DC, meeting with congressional staff, and often submitting draft legislation, which essentially requires a law degree to have the technical ability to write something of that sort.

Walmart is the largest private employer in America and they are have the most employees in America who receive SNAP benefits due to their lower income status.

I think we can’t create the step-by-step plan and budget for someone who works at Walmart as a cashier for how they’ll engage in the lobbying system. It’s just not possible.

Sure, there’s a lot of free things you can do to be an activist and make your voice heard, but it’s not at the same amplitude.

We can’t blame apathy and leisure when so many people don’t even have the budget for most forms of leisure.

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

#52

Post by wwweston »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #33
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…

"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.

Elections still have consequences, right? I’d think the fallout between fall of 2024 and now illustrates that. And that was the choice of the electorate (unless someone can demonstrate results were tampered with). So voter choices count.

There are differences in how individual congress members and coalitions handle policy, so who voters choose matters.

Also, some of that research you’re invoking shows that most officeholders try to keep their promises:

https://theconversation.com/do-politicians-break-their-promi...

I agree lobbyists have influence. What is a lobbyist and why aren’t more people lobbying?

Donors also have influence, and yet the electorate has every opportunity to determine who donors must influence every election. Why would they choose someone who is only beholden to donors?

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

#53

Post by thayne »

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…

Post is a natural monopoly, at a national scale. It is much more efficient to have a single centralized service doing all mail delivery than several competing services doing the same.

It isn't completely non-rivalrous, but the marginal cost of delivering a parcel diminishes as the number of parcels delivered in an area goes up.

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

#54

Post by wwweston »

Grombobulous wrote: post #51
wwweston wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 process of lobbying Congress involves physically showing up to the congressional offices in Washington DC, meeting with congressional staff, and often submitting draft legislation, which essentially requires a law degree to have the technical ability to write something of that sort. Walmart is the largest private employer in America and they are have the most employees in America who receive SNAP benefits due to…

You’re correct that time is the fundamental challenge. It’s also really what the money is always a proxy for at some level.

Meetings in DC are probably not the right focus. Every congressional officeholder has offices in the region they represent, most have multiple. Most people don’t use them for the same reason they outsource their understanding of current events to Fox News or Rogan & guests. Some people do contact offices by phone or message, but fewer band together with others who care about a policy topic and leverage collective influence.

Sure it’s hard and time consuming. I’m not speaking from a position of full ability or particular privilege (though I have enough time to post on HN). But it’s also a bit like the old saw about meditation — 10 minutes a day, and if you’re too busy, 20 minutes. The activities themselves don’t always produce immediate leverage but once they lock in the return is powerful.

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

#55

Post by Grombobulous »

wwweston wrote: post #54
Grombobulous wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of lobbying Congress involves physically showing up to the congressional offices in Washington DC, meeting with congressional staff, and often submitting draft legislation, which essentially requires a law degree to have the technical ability to write something of that sort. Walmart is the largest private employer in America and they are have the most employees in America who receive SNAP benefits due to…

You’re correct that time is the fundamental challenge. It’s also really what the money is always a proxy for at some level. Meetings in DC are probably not the right focus. Every congressional officeholder has offices in the region they represent, most have multiple. Most people don’t use them for the same reason they outsource their understanding of current events to Fox News or Rogan & guests. Some people do contac…

I get where you’re coming from, truly. I do also wish people were more politically engaged. But I just can’t go that far toward victim blaming, especially when so many forces work against people doing exactly what you suggested they do.

Just look at how Occupy Wall Street was broken up and twisted into irrelevancy by our media. It was a nonpartisan movement that corporate influence successfully split off into the two warring sides so that critical mass could never be achieved.

Any issue that is perfectly partisan never gets resolved, and the oligarchs know exactly how to turn most issues in that direction.

My prediction is that the data center and AI backlash could work exactly the same way if resistance grows too strong.

Anyway, perhaps I’m too far off-topic now.

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

#56

Post by wwweston »

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.

When the electorate is literally the mechanism by which officeholders are selected, how is the electorate not responsible?

This is not the same situation as someone who is the victim of a violent crime they didn’t volunteer for, choosing language that creates that confusion won’t change the reality that officeholders are chosen by the electorate.

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

#57

Post by queenkjuul »

hingler36 wrote: post #11

Pretty important asterisk concerning the privatization of the Japanese rail network: this privatization led to the closure of a lot of rural, unprofitable lines. IMO this would play out similarly for the USPS; it's not hard to remain profitable when you can just cleave off the parts of your public service that are in the red.

JR also owns tons of valuable real estate that brings them recurring revenue

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

#58

Post by queenkjuul »

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.

I spent many years shipping out online orders every day via UPS, Fedex, and USPS. USPS was not meaningfully worse in aggregate, UPS and FedEx still fucked up plenty

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

#59

Post by Grombobulous »

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.

I still think the USPS banking idea would be a really great one.

Easier profit than a regular bank because the “branches” already have to exist, closes banking gaps for underserved populations, perhaps some other benefits I haven’t even considered.

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

#60

Post by delichon »

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.

> USPS does last mile delivery for a lot of rural places.

Not in the rural places I've lived, including my current one for 20 years. UPS and FedEx deliver to my porch. USPS has never been here. I drive to my PO box in the nearest town. I think that in this whole county they only deliver to post offices.

Post reply on HN