The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by syedkarim » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #273

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.)

"It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people." So food is really important and vital. Should the government be in charge of growing and distributing food? Of course not. This experiment has been tried with horribly deadly results. The basic fact of the matter is that the market is far more effective at fairly distributing goods and services. If you look at the major sources of inequalit…

"which is why killer cops never go to prison but their victims get million dollar damage payments"

Yes, the civil justice system is more private-party focused, but you have conveniently left out why victims obtain judgements in civil courts when cops are not convicted in criminal courts. In civil litigation, a judgement is made based on the preponderance of evidence. In the criminal courts, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's easier for the plaintiff to win in civil court than for the prosecutor to win in criminal court.

Private/public control is inconsequential when compared to the level of proof required for conviction/judgement.

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

#322

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #307

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UPS and FedEx only offer delivery to these locations because they see it as a required feature to remain competitive with USPS. If it isn't profitable to offer delivery there then they would have no reason to compete for it even now, and if it is then they would do it regardless. But more to the point, it's possible that in a competitive market there would be different optimal solutions. In a very rural area, rathe…

> If it isn't profitable to offer delivery there then they would have no reason to compete for it even now Incorrect. They are not competing for that service. Rather they extend their networks to match USPS because they wish to attain feature parity with the USPS. It would be annoying to address a package to a U.S. address, take it into FedEx and find they would not deliver it. This is the case with many smaller parc…

> Rather they extend their networks to match USPS because they wish to attain feature parity with the USPS.

But that doesn't even make sense. If it costs more to ship to a particular address, they have no reason to refuse to do it rather than simply charge an amount that causes it to still be profitable and then turn a profit in doing so.

> This is the case with many smaller parcel carriers.

Presumably because they know they don't have any operations there at all, and so the price they would have to charge wouldn't make them competitive with even FedEx and UPS. That proves nothing about whether the bigger carriers wouldn't still do it when they're positioned to offer the most competitive price.

> That is in fact generally how it works but even still the postage rates for rural areas are subsidized by urban areas.

But why is that a good thing? Cross-subsidies are inefficient. People in urban areas can be just as poor as people in rural areas, especially given the higher cost of living. And if you really want a subsidy like that then make it explicit -- and maybe pay for it on the backs of people who can afford it rather than people who can't.

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

#323

Post by anfilt » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

ZekeSulastin wrote: post #138

armitron wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, regularly losing mail. Regularly misdelivering mail. A lot of effort to get someone to even acknowledge the problem or even myself. My mailbox stuffed with junk mail all the time (even if I have permanent sticker telling them not to do so). I've even talked to the USPS delivery person and told her not to do so. Next week, same issue. Rinse, repeat. I've never, ever, ever had a problem with Fedex or UPS. Th…

Speaking from my anecdata on both the retail customer and business customer side, if you've never had a problem with a given carrier you are damned lucky and should probably go buy lottery tickets.

I have lived in multiple places in the US, and never had problems with USPS. I have had troubles with Fedex, UPS, and DHL though.

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

#324

Post by djur » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:43 AM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #93

vondur wrote: post #52

Why does the postal service need to turn a profit? It's a government agency. Are any other government agencies required to be profitable?

It's not so much a government agency as it is a public corporation. In the days when the postal service was founded, large corporations were rare enough that they had to be created and initially funded by the government. Now we have financial markets and concepts that allow for the streamlined creation of large corporations, but it's closer to the modern concept of a utility than anything else.

It hasn't always been a public corporation. USPS only dates back to 1970. Previous to that it was the US Post Office Department, a cabinet-level agency. It was reorganized in 1970 in response to a strike:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._postal_strike_of_1970

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

#325

Post by TulliusCicero » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:43 AM UTC

Zak wrote: post #284

sudosysgen wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, why not make suggestions to make the government service better and more efficient instead?

The postal service is a good example of a government function that provides some services that cannot be made efficient. My dad lives part-time in an unincorporated village in Alaska which has a population of 13 as of the 2010 census. Once a week, the USPS essentially charters an airplane to deliver mail there, for which senders pay the same rate they would to send mail anywhere else. The postage obviously doesn't co…

> Many of the people who live in remote parts of Alaska have a rugged individualist mentality and a dislike for the idea of subsidies, but tend to get quiet when theirs are mentioned.

To be blunt, that's often true of rural culture in general these days.

The simple fact is that providing services to such communities is incredibly inefficient due to a lack of economies of scale. Without government subsidies, they would simply be unable to get services without paying exorbitant rates. That's not the market being immoral or whatever, it's literally just that the cost of providing the service is so high (same reason such communities often have fewer local government services as well).

They don't want to come to grips with the hypocrisy of claiming independence while actually actively choosing a highly subsidized lifestyle, and most other people are unwilling to call out the behavior because it's seen as bullying in some fashion.

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

#326

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:44 AM UTC

rblatz wrote: post #163

usaphp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because your tax money go to support a “broken” business model in their opinion; without asking you if you want to pay for those services. Edit: I am not saying it’s a right thing to do, I am just trying to list a possible reason why billionaires might try to fight against it, per OP question

The USPS is self supporting from postage. Your taxes aren't funding a "broken" business model. But they are funding a bunch of people trying to interfere with, and force the USPS out of business.

How much tax does the USPS pay? None. No income tax, no property tax, they don't even pay parking tickets. But for some reason, they've been losing money for decades. (yes, even before the whole pension debacle)

UPS on the other hand pays income tax, pays property tax, pays higher wages, fully funds their pension plan, and does not have access to the same zero or low interest treasury loans that the USPS does and still makes a profit AND delivers more parcels every year than the USPS.

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

#327

Post by beepboopbeep » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:44 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #273

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.)

"It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people." So food is really important and vital. Should the government be in charge of growing and distributing food? Of course not. This experiment has been tried with horribly deadly results. The basic fact of the matter is that the market is far more effective at fairly distributing goods and services. If you look at the major sources of inequalit…

The market can be effective, and it can be especially effective for people with money.

However, it should be noted that some people, possibly even MANY people...do not have money or have limited money that must be allocated to stop death in one form or another. The market does not have a solution for them because they are not participants in the market. Yet they exist as a rather defined part of objective reality.

Privatization is charming and all, but it is not an end all, be all to the ills of mankind.

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

#328

Post by grafporno » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:44 AM UTC

sdinsn wrote: post #214

vondur wrote: post #52

Why does the postal service need to turn a profit? It's a government agency. Are any other government agencies required to be profitable?

> Why does the postal service need to turn a profit? It doesn't have to turn a 'profit' in the literal sense, but it needs to make more money than their current spending because they have to pay future pensions.

So they have to turn a profit in the literal sense.

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

#329

Post by InTheArena » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:45 AM UTC

uses wrote: post #56

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…

Your first sentence isn't even true and you can go right here and read the table that shows their revenue sources: https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-... To spoil it for you: in 2019, First-Class Mail and Shipping and Packages made significantly more revenue than Marketing Mail. Yes, USPS needs some new revenue streams. They do provide significant value that others cannot meet, which is daily…

You don't need the personal attacks, and in this case, I suspect that you definition of spam is anything marketing, while ny definition is anything that is sent in bulk to large number of people, or is uninteresting to me:

"irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients."

A non-trivial percentage of "first class" mail is actually spam. The difference is in quality of service (delivery times for first class is significantly faster in some circumstances then marketing).

I do agree that that there is value in daily mail delivery, but my point is that the value needs to be enhanced, rather then just continue in what it is today. Cut service where it doesn't make sense (go to every other day), encourage people to use email, which is way less wasteful, and less harmful for the environment, focus on rural routes.

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

#330

Post by manigandham » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:45 AM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #130

sparkling wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. Dangerous path there, buddy. > [...] to argue for a position that would negatively affect millions of people [...] Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty. > The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is a…

Why should we listen to someone who probably doesn’t ever open their own mail or pay a bill or send a package regarding the postal service? They don’t have to deal with the change they’re advocating for, they have the resources to actually change things. > Dangerous path there, buddy. Their opinion should count as much as any regular person. I’m not arguing for silencing anyone, merely limiting their outsized influen…

Why should we listen to you? Most people don’t experience the change they advocate for.

Removing money from politics is a good thing but I’m wary of outright saying certain people don’t matter. That doesn’t lead anywhere good.