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

61–70 of 156 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #29
comrade1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Congress shall have Power...To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" The wording "shall" is what I meant by weird wording. But no roads? No post offices? Whatever. The constitution is extremely flawed and should be abandoned.

That's quite a non sequitur there. The wording is weird, so we should abandon the entire constitution? Not so fast, comrade. Not so fast. You've got a lot of work ahead of you to fill in the gaps in your logic here, before any of us are going to agree with your conclusion.

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by msandford »

Swizec wrote: post #28
msandford wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem rate with Fedex or UPS is maybe 0.1% of packages. I can't remember the last time I had a delivery issue. Just this week I had a package that was supposed to be delivered by Monday that lost tracking and didn't show up until Wednesday. It might be "basically fine and good enough" but it's definitely not "amazing and completely beyond reproach" at least in my opinion.

> Just this week I had a package that was supposed to be delivered by Monday that lost tracking and didn't show up until Wednesday. This is the sort of problem you solve with more funding not privatization. Here’s how these privatizations work: 1. Cut funding for public service 2. Service becomes bad 3. Cut more funding because service is bad and unused 4. Service becomes worse 5. Privatize 6. Strip the service for p…

1. They do a really bad job because you can't get fired

2. My package is delivered late yet again

3. I don't bother calling because the other 8 times I did I wasted an hour, nobody did anything (because nobody can get fired) and I didn't get any money back

4. Look how great we're doing! Complaints are down

5. Give us more funding because we're doing such a good job

This is just as likely of a spiral if we keep it publicly owned. It's also not good. How do you get good outcomes with.no accountability?

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

#63

Post by queenkjuul »

PsylentKnight wrote: post #50
sanguinesphinx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yawn the old blame the victim. Get lost kid.

Why not both? Yes, there are systemic issues in the US. But 70% of the US either voted for Trump or didn’t vote at all in 2024. (Let me pause to pre-empt any bothsideism by saying that I think that’s silly and I doubt you’ll change my mind on that, but you can try) Continuing on - liberals tend to point at systemic issues, but personal responsibility is a thing too. I’m a bit tired of the “education this, social medi…

>Why is everyone so stupid, selfish and easily misled?

The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on conditioning them to be that way

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

#64

Post by jltsiren »

Arrowmaster wrote: post #34
eru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

USPS as a public entity of the US government is required to deliver mail to all addresses. I don't know all the specific details and I'm sure there's some exceptions for getting service to a new location but existing locations cannot be removed. There is daily USPS service to a postbox at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that is only accessible by mule paths. I guarantee this service would either be cancelled or go up…

Public goods can be contracted out to private entities. And this can be done independently in each region, without having a single central contractor.

EU countries privatized their postal services decades ago, because governments are not allowed to compete with private entities in the market (unless explicitly allowed by EU-wide laws). And because the idea felt good, the same privatization extended to territories outside the EU, such as Greenland.

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

#65

Post by eru »

comrade1234 wrote: post #21
eru wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, where's the postal service in the constitution? As far as I can tell your constitution allows the federal level to regulate postal services, but it does not require the establishment of government snail mail.

"The Congress shall have Power...To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" The wording "shall" is what I meant by weird wording. But no roads? No post offices? Whatever. The constitution is extremely flawed and should be abandoned.

> But no roads?

What's so confusing about that? Presumably the constitution assumes that normal roads are for the more local layers of government to deal with.

I interpret 'shall have power' to mean 'if they want to, they can do it'. Doesn't mean they have. Eg they have the power to levy tariffs on foreign trade, but the constitution is perfectly happy with free trade, too.

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

#66

Post by eru »

Grombobulous wrote: post #48
charcircuit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging people a price relative to the cost of a service is not discrimination.

Refusing service entirely kinda feels like more like something that fits the word “discrimination.” UPS/FedEx can refuse service to you for almost any reason. But, perhaps you’re right, maybe the word “discrimination” is the wrong word. Either way, from a national policy standpoint there are very good reasons to subsidize rural areas for basic infrastructure services like mail and internet. USPS from an operations st…

You can auction off the universal service obligation to willing bidders without having a state owned enterprise with a government monopoly.

> Either way, from a national policy standpoint there are very good reasons to subsidize rural areas for basic infrastructure services like mail and internet.

Please tell me a few.

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

#67

Post by eru »

Guvante wrote: post #26
eru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Germany is 4% of America in size. A single US state with decent population density wouldn't need a nationalized system either. The USPS gets a monopoly because it is required to go everywhere. If a private company doesn't want to go into Michigan it doesn't have to. Without a monopoly protection USPS goes from being slightly unprofitable to very unprofitable by companies competing only in cheap areas. Basically USPS…

They could auction off a universal service obligation to willing bidders. No need to run a federal agency with a monopoly for that.

(And everything you explain could also be accomplished by state-run services, no need to involve the federal level.)

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

#68

Post by bulbar »

German railroad system worked pretty well, then it got partially privatized around 20 years ago. Supposingly cheaper that way. Turned out, cost were cut regarding infrastructure to make it cheaper. Today, the railroad system is terrible and the administration just agreed to spend 100 billion dollars on it.

Do you want quality sustained over decades? Then prioritize quality over cost and keep it public. Do you want inevitable enshitififaction and something that barely works good enough? Privatize it.

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

#69

Post by 7bees »

Eridrus wrote: post #40
materielle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know anything about Germany’s postal service. In the US, what the parent comment was getting it, is why are we even talking about this in the first place? What problem is privatization trying to solve? As an American, I have zero complaints about our postal service or how much we pay for it. Apart from the fact that I wish there were more branch offices and a few more workers at most locations. I don’t think…

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…

I'm not aware of any organization that has the same requirements to fund its future pension obligations that the USPS has. That requirement was created by Congress as part of a sustained campaign to damage the USPS.

It seems like your argument is actually that Congress should rescind that requirement, so that USPS can afford to better service urban customers while continuing to be a critical lifeline to rural areas.

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

#70

Post by eru »

Arrowmaster wrote: post #34
eru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

USPS as a public entity of the US government is required to deliver mail to all addresses. I don't know all the specific details and I'm sure there's some exceptions for getting service to a new location but existing locations cannot be removed. There is daily USPS service to a postbox at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that is only accessible by mule paths. I guarantee this service would either be cancelled or go up…

> There is daily USPS service to a postbox at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that is only accessible by mule paths. I guarantee this service would either be cancelled or go up in cost to thousands of dollars per letter if USPS was privatized.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why does a hill billy who insists on living at the bottom of the Grand Canyon deserve a subsidy? That public money would be better spend helping poor people.

Post reply on HN