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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by s1artibartfast »

eru wrote: post #101
Arrowmaster wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does a hill billy who insists on living at the bottom of the Grand Canyon deserve a subsidy? I'm going to say this nicely once instead of the reply I really wanted to say because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of not knowing or looking it up. Because it provides postal service to the Havasupai people living on their native land at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Would you like to take a guess as to why…

Eh, just give them an absolute subsidy in terms of money, if you think they deserve it.

maybe it is cheaper to send them letters by mule?

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

#142

Post by eru »

8note wrote: post #120
Eridrus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anot…

it would be interesting to see the navy make a profit and have to pay for its own pensions for veterans rather than hiding it in the defense budget

Presumably the navy would sell military services to the government in that case?

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

#143

Post by eru »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #141
eru wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, just give them an absolute subsidy in terms of money, if you think they deserve it.

maybe it is cheaper to send them letters by mule?

Then they can use the money you give them to pay for the mule.

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

#144

Post by eru »

thayne wrote: post #129
eru wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Post is a natural monopoly, at a national scale. It evidently is not. There's multiple providers.

1. FedEx and UPS are not at all competitive for delivering non-package mail (letters, bills, etc.). Or even small packages. 2. Commercial providers rely on USPS to deliver packages in some situations.

About (1): you know that USPS literally has a monopoly and several legal advantages?

About (2): duh, yes, because they ain't stupid. For an analogy: if there's free municipal water, Coca-Cola would make use of that for bottling, too. Or if there were subsidised electricity available etc.

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

#145

Post by kalleboo »

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…

> Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it.

You can find examples both ways - the Swedish privatization has been a disaster.

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

#146

Post by s1artibartfast »

eru wrote: post #143
s1artibartfast wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe it is cheaper to send them letters by mule?

Then they can use the money you give them to pay for the mule.

that doesnt explain why it is better to spend more money than less.

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

#147

Post by iamnothere »

wwweston wrote: post #138
iamnothere wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that more people should do this, past evidence shows Congress often goes into hiding when there is too much attention to an issue, tasking staffers to give generic, dismissive non-responses or holding pressers with limited, selected audiences to make it appear that public opinion is different than reality. That’s not a reason for non-engagement, but it’s wrong to shift the burden onto the public. Congre…

It does seem to be true that voters are often content to select and re-select congressional representation that will hide from too much critical attention, give evasive responses, or otherwise dodge direct accountability. People's stated preferences are as you say. Most agree we'd like responsive representation that's conscientiously engaged in opinion gauging and fact-finding to determine what the people want and ne…

We collectively flip the winning team every few years and nothing changes. We occasionally manage to put up an outsider and either the establishment changes the rules to lock them out (as with Sanders) or they flood the race with enough money and propaganda to ensure a loss (Massie).

Most people don’t have the background or the psychological fortitude to see through the charade. They are up against world-class propagandists with unlimited budgets, a lifetime of media programming, and an educational system that encourages passive participation. It’s not a fair fight.

Change is coming, eventually—but it won’t be easy, and it will likely only come when the system finally and completely breaks down in a way that can’t be papered over or denied.

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

#149

Post by dragonwriter »

charcircuit wrote: post #139
dragonwriter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Charging people a price relative to the cost of a service is not discrimination. Yes, it is discrimination. Treating people differently on any basis is discrimination on that basis. It may or may not be illegal discrimination depending on the specifics and the governing law, and it may or may not be unjust discrimination depending on the specifics and the applicable moral framework, but all discrimination means is…

I disagree. It is not discrimination between 2 people to charge one $200 for a 2 hour private lesson and the other $100 for a 1 hour private lesson. Even though the name of the service is the same the precise service being provided to each person is not the same

> I disagree. It is not discrimination between 2 people to charge one $200 for a 2 hour private lesson and the other $100 for a 1 hour private lesson.

Sure it is discrimination on the basis of duration sought, not discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics, and while it is discrimination, its fair to characterize it as bot discrimination between people, since different people making the same choice would be charged the same. Its obviously, in any case, not discrimination anyone would object to, but objectionability is a matter of the basis of discrimination, not the fact of discrimination.

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

#150

Post by toomuchtodo »

rainsford wrote: post #128
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.

This is almost always the right answer to people who claim the government should be run like a business in a tone that suggests they believe they're the first person to ever have thoughts. Businesses and governments operate under wildly different constraints, the most significant being the general need of government to provide a broad range of services even where it's inefficient. Now people could make a reasonable a…

“The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act

I hope for representation to at some point arrive that will protect the public good that is the USPS in the same manner the cofounder of Costco, Jim Sinegal, protects the $1.50 hotdog:

> “If you raise the [price of the] effing hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco_hot_dog

(Tangentially, I highly recommend the book “Mailman: My Wild Ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home” by Stephen Starring Grant, ISBN13 9781668018040)

Post reply on HN