The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

binsh wrote: post #178

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say this. I grew up in an extremely rural area. It's still extremely rural, forty years after I move away. When I was a teenager there was one grocery store, no department stores, no electronics stores, no restaurants. Just the grocery store, the feed store, the auto parts and hunting goods store, and mile upon mile of pasture. And the post office. The mail came every day. Sending a letter to anywhere…

This is the critical piece. It's provided as a government service to absolutely _everyone_, for a low price. Like you said, the fact that you can send a letter to any US state or territory for the same price, and it gets there in a few days, is a miracle, and arguably one of the remaining functioning bits of American government. What happens to people in small towns who rely on the mail for prescriptions? Or importan…

Post by acdha » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

treis wrote: post #84

acdha wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major problem the USPS has is the 2006 law requiring them to prefund employee pensions at the time of retirement, which no other business has to do. Changing that to normal accounting alone would substantially transform their finances. A secondary problem is that Congress will interfere with decisions to reduce service in unprofitable areas but not officially subsidize it. This makes the post office appear to be…

>The major problem the USPS has is the 2006 law requiring them to prefund employee pensions at the time of retirement, which no other business has to do. This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made any of those payments since 2013. Their current financial woes aren't caused by the requirement since their not making the payments. (2) Pensions are required to be fully funded. In…

Post by refurb » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #142

8ytecoder wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also extremely hypothetical. And counter examples on why it won’t work is plenty abound. The concept that market and competition will result in better services and price and efficient operations is true only when then there are checks and balances in place. Market collusion, using monopoly power to squish and consolidate power and extort people happen in almost every industry. I do share their concern that govt…

Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets. The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail, I don’t trust any private company to treat a first-class letter with the care the USPS generally does. The Post Office actually makes money, but they’re legally required to fund a new hire’s entire projected pension at the time of hiring which lets Republicans point at how the post o…

Post by andrewlgood » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #61

InTheArena wrote: post #13

The USPS's primary revenue source is as a Spam delivery service. That basic problem is why it has refused to modernize. Anything with any significant value is already sent via Amazon, FedEx, DHL or UPS, or hand-delivered (in the case of really valuable stuff). See: https://www.insidesources.com/outbox-vs-usps-how-the-post-of... The USPS has to be reformed and it needs a new purpose in life, other then stable governme…

> That basic problem is why it has refused to modernize. Anything with any significant value is already sent via Amazon, FedEx, DHL or UPS, or hand-delivered (in the case of really valuable stuff). Hundreds of millions of people use first class mail to pay their bills, rent, etc. and for all sorts of other things where those other delivery services would be needlessly expensive. The "basic problem" is that the post o…

Post by posguy » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

dungdang wrote: post #189

bmitc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same argument of being harmful to competition could be extended to schools and libraries and . It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people. So what if it's harmful to competition? What merit does that have? (These aren't questions for you. They're rhetorical.)

i do care about people. myself included. why do i, paying insane urban rent, subsidize a farmer who already gets my tax dollars to grow too much corn? it costs probably $10 to deliver a letter to his farm. he pays ¢42. i pay the rest. his letter should be $10. mine should be a penny. you know - the actual cost of delivery, paid by the actual person. fuck the post office.