Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking The Postal System

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#41

Post by rdl »

chernevik wrote: post #39
rdl wrote: post #9

IMO it would be pretty easy to change the USPS to be profitable or sustainable, but politically difficult. Preserving universal service (expensive rural routes and facilities) should be done via direct government subsidy, vs. commercial cross subsidization. Reducing or contractorizing staff (to cut medical and retirement costs) would have been done already by a really private company, but would have political and eco…

Wages, staffing and work rules are huge problems. I strongly suspect that the USPS falls very, very far short of UPS and Fedex on almost any productivity measurement. Because it is politically impossible to take on the postal unions. Universal delivery is a very important service, but it probably ought to be directly subsidized by Congress. Because the current system of subsidy through monopoly gave a false sense of…

UPS is union, actually, and not horrible. I think some of the elements of FedEx are as well (FedEx Ground is basically RPS via an acquisition, and their employees have universally sucked in my experience, but they're not union -- there's a push to unionize. I do believe FedEx pilots and maybe some other parts of the air operations are union.)

I don't think USPS is that inefficient for some of its operations.

FedEx (Air/Express) is the gold standard for premium delivery.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#42

Post by chernevik »

rdl wrote: post #41
chernevik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wages, staffing and work rules are huge problems. I strongly suspect that the USPS falls very, very far short of UPS and Fedex on almost any productivity measurement. Because it is politically impossible to take on the postal unions. Universal delivery is a very important service, but it probably ought to be directly subsidized by Congress. Because the current system of subsidy through monopoly gave a false sense of…

UPS is union, actually, and not horrible. I think some of the elements of FedEx are as well (FedEx Ground is basically RPS via an acquisition, and their employees have universally sucked in my experience, but they're not union -- there's a push to unionize. I do believe FedEx pilots and maybe some other parts of the air operations are union.) I don't think USPS is that inefficient for some of its operations. FedEx (A…

But UPS isn't run by political appointees, has an equity return objective, and is disciplined by market forces without a monopoly protection.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#43

Post by niggler »

rdl wrote: post #23
wildgift wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. They have to fully fund the pension for 75 years, and do that in 10 years. That would reduce their operating budget deficit. Second, they need to push their parcel service, and open the counter all week long. The internet has caused a reduction in regular first class postal mail, but is also increasing the numbe…

I don't really understand the pension funding issue -- I assume it was that the pensions were previously underfunded, and this was to correct it. The issue is that even the GAO thinks there are "pyramid" issues -- the USPS revenue is going to be in a long-term decline, and peak-retirees will hit in a period where the revenue is lower than today. So, pre-funding makes a lot of sense. Similarly, SS (and I think medicar…

The one sentence summary that explains the entire situation is: the 2006 pension funding requirement change was written and pushed by congresspeople who have taken campaign contributions by UPS and Fedex.

The reality is that most of the losses since 2006 were directly due to the overfunding requirement (they had to prepay 75 years of projected liabilities in 10 years time -- a requirement that no other agency has). They are also prohibited from cutting back service because they need congressional approval to do so (and a bunch of rural congresspeople are pushing back against it), so the USPS is in a real bind where they are being essentially forced to make changes but don't have the authority to do so.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#44

Post by glabifrons »

They've raised the postal rates for first-class mail (that normal humans all use) many, many times. Not a complaint, just an observation.

Why not raise the rates for junk-mail?

Sure, megacorps will scream and cry that it'll put them out of business, but it won't. They'll continue sending out junk-mail as it draws in far more in customers than they spend on it. If some don't, that much better for the environment, since I'd guess >99% of junk-mail goes straight into the garbage (with a small percentage of that being recycled).

Seeing as the vast majority of mail I've received over the decades has been junk-mail, it should be an easy way to increase revenue.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#45

Post by niggler »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36
quinnchr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPS hasn't taken tax payer money since 1982 and has posted profits almost every year up until 2006 when the new retirement pre-funding requirements were introduced. The USPS is the only agency required to pre-fund their retirement plans for 75 years. You could certainly cut the facilities producing the least revenue, but then you'd be closing mostly rural post offices. Incidentally Fedex and UPS use USPS infrast…

Since we're all guaranteed postal service in the constitution... Could you cite the relevant part of the constitution? As far as I know Congress has the power to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads", but there is no requirement that they do so.

All the constitution says is:

"The congress shall have power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

I haven't chased down future acts, but the post office act of 1792 definitely does mandate certain postal routes to be maintained by the postal service.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#46

Post by bdunbar »

I suspect the poster is neglecting the cost to switch over from the current system of scanning packages to the new one.

Either you need to add the ability for reading a 16 digit code to the existing system, or build a second, new, system to handle 'the new codes'. Either solution ain't gonna be cheap.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#47

Post by bdunbar »

frasierman wrote: post #7
wereHamster wrote: post #3

SilkRoad customers and merchants would love this!

Well, maybe... If the police were to work with the postal service, they could find the originating post office. Then again, they could more or less do this now, and they don't.

I'm pretty sure the postal police take a dim view of people using USPS to ship illegal goods.

Or at least I've always assumed they do.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#48

Post by russell »

jivatmanx wrote: post #14

Why do they need giant, expensive buildings in the center of every town, rather than partnering with convenience stores like in Europe?

Post Offices in small towns were often located in other businesses, like a Starbucks in a supermarket, although they may have all been closed by now as a cost cutting move.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#49

Post by russell »

bdunbar wrote: post #46

I suspect the poster is neglecting the cost to switch over from the current system of scanning packages to the new one. Either you need to add the ability for reading a 16 digit code to the existing system, or build a second, new, system to handle 'the new codes'. Either solution ain't gonna be cheap.

I think you can do that now. Pay by credit card and it prints out a label. The current system converts the address into some sort of coded tracking information, so I dont think the article is proposing anything that doesnt exist in some form.

However, the website needs vast improvement. I once tried to find out how much it would cost to send a package from my house in CA to Richmond, VA. It should need only the package type, weight, and the two zip codes, but it took 10 or 15 minutes of filling out forms.

Re: Rethinking The Postal System

#50

Post by Kliment »

frasierman wrote: post #6
joshualastdon wrote: post #4

That's smart! But if you get the number wrong, there might just be no way to link the package to whoever was sending or tracking it. Well, then at least the problem will be on the end of users other than what we currently have.

Thanks! Yeah, I'm not quite sure how to prevent human error without everyone having barcode sticker printers, which seems extremely unlikely.

Automated barcode sticker vending machines attached to parking meters?
Post reply on HN