6 ms·

While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like thi

by cwan 17y ago

While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like this, and it's a wonder that volumes haven't plummeted even faster: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-are-worse-at-the-post-office-than-i-thought/38356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-a...

krschultz 17y ago
And I have equally aggravating anecdotes about issues with private companies' customer service. It doesn't prove anything. I'd take the people at my MVC (NJ's "new" DMV) and post office over the people at my cable or internet provider, my private healthcare, and my cell phone company in a heart beat. Those companies aren't doing themselves any favors but somehow they manage to make it. The Zappos in the world are few and far between. So better to look at the facts than the attitude of the clerk you interact with on a daily basis, fact is no other service reaches every address in the US and that is a necessity that we need to keep up. If they can keep the USPS afloat by cutting expenses instead of using taxpayer money, I'm all for it.
- mmt 17y ago
  my cable or internet provider, my private healthcare, and my cell phone company These aren't exactly archetypes of free market competition, being oligopolies, at best. I can't speak for NJ, but, in California, I consider it telling that they all have a state regulatory agency. Number portability has improved telephony competition, but I don't think we're yet free of the effects of the old A/B cellular duopoly in the US.
  - krschultz 17y ago
    But the same can be said for UPS and FedEx. I actually have more options for TV, internet, and phone than for shipping. My point is that these anecdotes can not be extrapolated to a larger point. Really your dealings with these large corporations or government agencies are few and far between with a handful of people that may or may not be nice as people and may or may not be having a good day. Should we decide public policy based on that?
billybob 17y ago
Good criticisms. But a publicly-funded post office has some advantages, too. They will operate at a loss in tiny areas, which means you can still get mail to Grandma, even though there is only one traffic light in her town. Also - 39 cents to send a letter anywhere in the country? Still a pretty good deal.
- jonknee 17y ago
  39 cents? It hasn't been that since ~2006. They currently cost 44 cents: http://www.usps.com/prices/first-class-mail-prices.htm http://www.usps.com/prices/first-class-mail-prices.htm
  - Avshalom 17y ago
    considering that those 44 cents will get a letter basically hand delivered from Key West Florida to Barrow Alaska. Still a pretty good deal.
    - jonknee 17y ago
      I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just that the OP hadn't actually bought a stamp in a long time (or at least realized the cost).
      - jbooth 17y ago
        I didn't either, and I bought stamps last week. 39 cents vs 44 cents doesn't even show up on my radar.
      - roboneal 17y ago
        15% price increase (39 to 44 cents) in 4 years is not unnoticed "in volume" and easily outstrips inflation.
        dhume 17y ago
        You can cherry-pick intervals where stamp prices outstripped inflation, and I can cherry-pick intervals where stamp prices stayed well below inflation. A 12.8% increase (not sure how you came up with 15%) over a period where inflation was only around 7.8% (based on month-to-month consumer price index report) sounds pretty bad, but you seem to have missed the previous four years, where inflation was 10.1% and the price only went up 5.4%. For the interval between raising to 37¢ and raising to 44¢ (an 18.9% increase), inflation totaled 18.7%. If a difference of 0.2 points makes all that much difference, you probably shouldn't be using the first class rate anyway.
dionidium 17y ago
I don't get it. I am routinely subject to silly, unfriendly, inexplicable () policies and restrictions when dealing with private corporations. It sounds like there's supposed to be some conservative message here about the superiority of the free market, but it falls flat. Actually, such polices are usually quite easily explained by the simple logic that there isn't any money in caring too much about edge cases.
tsally 17y ago
Every time the US postal service comes up in discussion, someone invariably mentions how life would be so much better if the service was privatized. I think this argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of public services; the post office is perhaps the canonical example of an extremely important service that only can exist in the public sector. As others have mentioned already (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236487 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236487), delivering a piece of paper from California to Maine for under a dollar is not something the private sector can provide. As a rule of thumb, if your gut tells you that a particular service is essential to a civilized society the service belongs in the public sector. As a nation we've decided the ability to affordability correspond with others around the country is such a service. Education is another. These two examples are extraordinarily complex problems which the US public sector solves well, all things considered. Yet every time we discuss these services someone always wants to privatize them. For the most fundamental components of our society, privatization is never the answer.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  Can only exist in the public sector? How do you explain FedEx and UPS? I can see both sides of this argument.
  - argv_empty 17y ago
    How do you explain FedEx and UPS? I think GP's claim is not that private parcel services cannot exist, but rather that if they were to deliver first-class mail, they would charge more than $1 per letter.
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      Gotcha. I would argue back that the "under $1" isn't even a legitimate path of arguing, because the post office doesn't deliver mail for under a dollar either; you'd have to factor in the cost of the taxes that subsidize that under a dollar price.
      - 17y ago

by cwan 17y ago

krschultz 17y ago

And I have equally aggravating anecdotes about issues with private companies' customer service. It doesn't prove anything. I'd take the people at my MVC (NJ's "new" DMV) and post office over the people at my cable or internet provider, my private healthcare, and my cell phone company in a heart beat. Those companies aren't doing themselves any favors but somehow they manage to make it. The Zappos in the world are few and far between. So better to look at the facts than the attitude of the clerk you interact with on a daily basis, fact is no other service reaches every address in the US and that is a necessity that we need to keep up. If they can keep the USPS afloat by cutting expenses instead of using taxpayer money, I'm all for it.

mmt 17y ago
my cable or internet provider, my private healthcare, and my cell phone company These aren't exactly archetypes of free market competition, being oligopolies, at best. I can't speak for NJ, but, in California, I consider it telling that they all have a state regulatory agency. Number portability has improved telephony competition, but I don't think we're yet free of the effects of the old A/B cellular duopoly in the US.
- krschultz 17y ago
  But the same can be said for UPS and FedEx. I actually have more options for TV, internet, and phone than for shipping. My point is that these anecdotes can not be extrapolated to a larger point. Really your dealings with these large corporations or government agencies are few and far between with a handful of people that may or may not be nice as people and may or may not be having a good day. Should we decide public policy based on that?

billybob 17y ago

Good criticisms. But a publicly-funded post office has some advantages, too. They will operate at a loss in tiny areas, which means you can still get mail to Grandma, even though there is only one traffic light in her town. Also - 39 cents to send a letter anywhere in the country? Still a pretty good deal.

jonknee 17y ago
39 cents? It hasn't been that since ~2006. They currently cost 44 cents: http://www.usps.com/prices/first-class-mail-prices.htm http://www.usps.com/prices/first-class-mail-prices.htm
- Avshalom 17y ago
  considering that those 44 cents will get a letter basically hand delivered from Key West Florida to Barrow Alaska. Still a pretty good deal.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just that the OP hadn't actually bought a stamp in a long time (or at least realized the cost).
    - jbooth 17y ago
      I didn't either, and I bought stamps last week. 39 cents vs 44 cents doesn't even show up on my radar.
    - roboneal 17y ago
      15% price increase (39 to 44 cents) in 4 years is not unnoticed "in volume" and easily outstrips inflation.
      - dhume 17y ago
        You can cherry-pick intervals where stamp prices outstripped inflation, and I can cherry-pick intervals where stamp prices stayed well below inflation. A 12.8% increase (not sure how you came up with 15%) over a period where inflation was only around 7.8% (based on month-to-month consumer price index report) sounds pretty bad, but you seem to have missed the previous four years, where inflation was 10.1% and the price only went up 5.4%. For the interval between raising to 37¢ and raising to 44¢ (an 18.9% increase), inflation totaled 18.7%. If a difference of 0.2 points makes all that much difference, you probably shouldn't be using the first class rate anyway.

dionidium 17y ago

I don't get it. I am routinely subject to silly, unfriendly, inexplicable () policies and restrictions when dealing with private corporations. It sounds like there's supposed to be some conservative message here about the superiority of the free market, but it falls flat. Actually, such polices are usually quite easily explained by the simple logic that there isn't any money in caring too much about edge cases.

tsally 17y ago

Every time the US postal service comes up in discussion, someone invariably mentions how life would be so much better if the service was privatized. I think this argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of public services; the post office is perhaps the canonical example of an extremely important service that only can exist in the public sector. As others have mentioned already (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236487 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236487), delivering a piece of paper from California to Maine for under a dollar is not something the private sector can provide. As a rule of thumb, if your gut tells you that a particular service is essential to a civilized society the service belongs in the public sector. As a nation we've decided the ability to affordability correspond with others around the country is such a service. Education is another. These two examples are extraordinarily complex problems which the US public sector solves well, all things considered. Yet every time we discuss these services someone always wants to privatize them. For the most fundamental components of our society, privatization is never the answer.

steveklabnik 17y ago
Can only exist in the public sector? How do you explain FedEx and UPS? I can see both sides of this argument.
- argv_empty 17y ago
  How do you explain FedEx and UPS? I think GP's claim is not that private parcel services cannot exist, but rather that if they were to deliver first-class mail, they would charge more than $1 per letter.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    Gotcha. I would argue back that the "under $1" isn't even a legitimate path of arguing, because the post office doesn't deliver mail for under a dollar either; you'd have to factor in the cost of the taxes that subsidize that under a dollar price.
    - 17y ago