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

151–156 of 156 posts

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

#151

Post by charcircuit »

dragonwriter wrote: post #149
charcircuit wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wou…

We are using different definitions of discrimination so this conversation is pointless.

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

#152

Post by eru »

Guvante wrote: post #112
eru wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would a state run service be better? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Each post office has individual leadership which serves the purpose of that principle.

That workaround justifies nearly anything.

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

#153

Post by Guvante »

eru wrote: post #152
Guvante wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each post office has individual leadership which serves the purpose of that principle.

That workaround justifies nearly anything.

Unless you have an elected position or the position needs to be filled ignoring the wishes of the local group that would select a replacement that is kind of true.

Local elections have real value.

But splintering a government entity just because you can isn't automatically better.

For instance who pays for the last mile? Who pays for the first mile? With a federal program it doesn't matter the answer is the same. With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state.

You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete.

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

#154

Post by ElevenLathe »

afpx wrote: post #113
ElevenLathe wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most extremely rural areas don't have home delivery and never have. It's been this way for literally centuries.

Their web site seems to suggest they have last mile delivery everywhere because they're under universal service obligation. But, when I lived rural, I remember my mom having to drive to the post office to pick up the mail.

The universal service obligation is not that they have to provide home delivery for everyone, but that they can't close your podunk post office and make life even more hellish for the the 12 households that rely on it that it already is.

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

#155

Post by eru »

Guvante wrote: post #153
eru wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That workaround justifies nearly anything.

Unless you have an elected position or the position needs to be filled ignoring the wishes of the local group that would select a replacement that is kind of true. Local elections have real value. But splintering a government entity just because you can isn't automatically better. For instance who pays for the last mile? Who pays for the first mile? With a federal program it doesn't matter the answer is the same. Wit…

> With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state.

Yep, aligns incentives nicely!

> You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete.

Sounds like a good outcome, no? Yes, down with monopolies, especially government enforced ones.

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

#156

Post by Guvante »

eru wrote: post #155
Guvante wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have an elected position or the position needs to be filled ignoring the wishes of the local group that would select a replacement that is kind of true. Local elections have real value. But splintering a government entity just because you can isn't automatically better. For instance who pays for the last mile? Who pays for the first mile? With a federal program it doesn't matter the answer is the same. Wit…

> With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state. Yep, aligns incentives nicely! > You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete. Sounds like a good outcome, no? Yes, down…

You presume that saving money on stamps (which are less than $1 and locked to inflation) is more important than universal service.

Why?

Post reply on HN