5 ms·

Yes, because our post office is doing great in comparison with its private competition these days.

pdkl95 10y ago
I can stuff a few papers in an envelope, scribble something resembling an address on the outside along with a few coins worth of stamps and leave it to be picked up without prior notification to be delivered anywhere in the country only a few days later. Maybe longer if I was particularly bad at writing the address. This is practically a super power.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 10y ago
Yes, because our post office is doing great in comparison with its private competition these days. It is! The US Postal Service is required to operate under rules designed to financially destroy it (never mind that private shipping services often use USPS behind the scenes -- privatization would lower costs by making them, um, do more work and have to invest in more of their own infrastructure), and still manages to to keep working well. Make UPS or FedEx or DHL operate under even a rough facsimile of things like the USPS pension-funding requirements, and they'd issue you a tracking number for their bankruptcy proceedings.
paulmd 10y ago
I don't know what world you're living in but I have a side business selling on eBay and my fiance runs an Etsy store and the Post Office's service is head-and-shoulders above that of private carriers. I suspect you don't have any experience in this area and based on your other posting you seem ideologically motivated. In practical terms, USPS package shipping rates are typically 1/2 to 1/3 of those of an equivalent service from a private carrier. It's often cheaper to send something via USPS 2-day than via UPS/Fedex ground service. Their bulk rates are even cheaper - Media Mail is usually the only cost-effective way to ship textbooks for example. And Fedex/UPS simply have no service that competes with first-class or second-class mail. In fact USPS's service is so effective that UPS and Fedex actually piggyback on their service to save money. Fedex and UPS will get the mailpiece to the local post office and the post office will handle the last-mile delivery. This is called SmartPost service and I can tell you from experience that the private carrier's involvement significantly worsens the quality of service. It often spends multiple weeks in the hands of the private carrier and I've noticed significantly more damage to mailpieces with it. They also provide subpar customer support on these packages, you cannot refuse delivery or do other basic postal operations with these packages. The opinion of the private carriers essentially seems to be that the blame will fall on the postal service so quality of service is irrelevant. Nobody is perfect, and all carriers are subject to variation in the quality of the last-mile delivery. If your USPS or UPS or FedEx guy is particularly terrible then you will get damaged packages.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Yes, I do have a strong belief that environments that allow private individuals the freedom to experiment/innovate and compete with one another produce massively better outcomes. However, my comment about the USPS was based on a series of stories in the news over the past several years about their financial difficulties and the closing of numerous Post Offices in small towns across the country. Keep in mind the USPS has locked in one massive customer that continues to rely on post mail instead of electronic communication for virtually everything - the U.S. Government. So while yes, the USPS may produce better outcomes for the last-mile delivery, it is most likely being subsidized by the U.S. Government using their services to communicate virtually everything to 330 million U.S. Citizens. In that regard, UPS and Fedex are saving money off the back of taxpayers when they use the USPS to deliver packages to homes beyond their most profitable routes.
  - ryneandal 10y ago
    I thought the reason for the massive debt solely related to the unfair pre-funding mandate of retirement benefits enacted by Congress.
digi_owl 10y ago
How much of that is because of gutting by the people in charge? I seem to recall that British Railways was privatized basically by having politicians cut funding, then claim privatization would fix the problems that underfunding was producing...
- UK-AL 10y ago
  If you actually look at the data though, the railways are actually better. They're more likely to be on time, and have higher customer satisfaction.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Yes, when you ask people "and how are things apart from the eye watering, wallet haemorrhaging, income annihilating cost?" they're mildly positive about the railways. Mildly.
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      Thats because that what it costs to get it up scratch. Taxes distribute the burden across everyone, and can be politically hard to get through. Privatization puts the burden on the people who use it.
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        Check your facts. They were and still are massively subsidized. Supplying the profit margins of the train operating companies were made the burden of people who use it.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Actually, British passengers seem to be the second-most happy railway users within EU. [0] I'm from the happiest country of railway users (Finland), and I can tell you that also here, lots of people complain about the national railway service, both about reliability, speed and price. ([1] is a joke on announcements of VR, the train operator, about four seasonal outages in train service due to spring, summer, autumns and winter (clockwise).) And the (government-owned) railway company here offers train travel that is more expensive than in Britain (just checked my most recent trip, 37 € is the cheapest fare for a 250 km distance that is equivalent to London-Manchester). [0] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf [1] http://www.riemurasia.net/kuva/Juna-kulkee/176387 http://www.riemurasia.net/kuva/Juna-kulkee/176387
creshal 10y ago
Actually it is in many countries. Sending a package from Germany to Austria via UPS takes longer than a package from Japan via Japan/Austrian state posts, despite customs inspection in the middle. More reliable, too.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  UPS is not particularly strong on international shipping. Is your example because those post offices are actually more efficient, or because there are bureaucratic roadblocks slowing down UPS (a U.S. based carrier)?
  - creshal 10y ago
    > or because there are bureaucratic roadblocks slowing down UPS (a U.S. based carrier)? No, the market is fully deregulated. GLS (Dutch) isn't any better either.
chrisbennet 10y ago
Actually, they are. They perform a public good while not consuming public dollars. Oh, you didn't know that they self funded? https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/top-10-things-to-know.htm https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/top-10-things...
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Not quite. Read my other comment above in this thread. When you have the US Government locked in as a customer, and that customer continues to rely on you for the majority of their communication instead of moving to electronic communications, you are relying on taxpayer dollars to pay for those stamps that fund your operations.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Given that it would cost the US government more if they used UPS or FedEx to do their shipping, I don't see why that's a problem.
    - bsbechtel 10y ago
      Given that electronic mail is an order of magnitude cheaper and more efficient, it would drive the US Government to adopt it much more widely than it is used today. Your assumption that UPS or FedEx prices would remain fixed if they were to compete for additional business from the US Government isn't necessarily true either.
the-dude 10y ago
15 years ago we were shipping vast quantities of our devices worldwide via 'Priority Airmail'. This is regular postal mail. The business died down and I started shipping Priority Airmail last year again for a new product. I notice in some countries quality of delivery has dropped dramatically, worse reliability and transit times. The UK for example. I talked with a customer who acknowledged my feeling and said the workers were demotivated by the restructuring which seems to last for over a decade. In The Netherlands, our former national postal service PostNL is treating its workforce in the most egregious ways of all former monopolies. Consequently I found the Russian postal service to be fast and reliable, especially considering the vast distances serviced. 15 years ago, there was some corruption in Africa, South/Middle America. Not any more.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Your comment is interesting, because it points out the fact that quality does vary over time, for all types of goods and services. I think this is one of the strongest arguments for creating an environment where healthy competition exists. The reason being that if a business/organization declines in quality, competition always exists to step in and serve those whom the organization previously served. When you have government controlled monopolies, private competition is literally killed off because the private competition's tax dollars typically go to subsidize the government entity serving the same customers. This keeps prices low, but it does nothing to address the quality of the services being provided, which oftentimes degrades over time (this is partially why most Fortune 500 companies weren't on the list 20 years ago). When the government steps in and serves a group of people in the marketplace, there is rarely a mechanism to give consumers an alternative should the government entity fail to provide adequate service.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    But, is a service that is better/cheaper for 50% of the people and not available or too expensive for the rest a better outcome? For most things sure, for others that's why government programs exist.
  - the-dude 10y ago

I can stuff a few papers in an envelope, scribble something resembling an address on the outside along with a few coins worth of stamps and leave it to be picked up without prior notification to be delivered anywhere in the country only a few days later. Maybe longer if I was particularly bad at writing the address. This is practically a super power.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ubernostrum 10y ago

Yes, because our post office is doing great in comparison with its private competition these days. It is! The US Postal Service is required to operate under rules designed to financially destroy it (never mind that private shipping services often use USPS behind the scenes -- privatization would lower costs by making them, um, do more work and have to invest in more of their own infrastructure), and still manages to to keep working well. Make UPS or FedEx or DHL operate under even a rough facsimile of things like the USPS pension-funding requirements, and they'd issue you a tracking number for their bankruptcy proceedings.

paulmd 10y ago

I don't know what world you're living in but I have a side business selling on eBay and my fiance runs an Etsy store and the Post Office's service is head-and-shoulders above that of private carriers. I suspect you don't have any experience in this area and based on your other posting you seem ideologically motivated. In practical terms, USPS package shipping rates are typically 1/2 to 1/3 of those of an equivalent service from a private carrier. It's often cheaper to send something via USPS 2-day than via UPS/Fedex ground service. Their bulk rates are even cheaper - Media Mail is usually the only cost-effective way to ship textbooks for example. And Fedex/UPS simply have no service that competes with first-class or second-class mail. In fact USPS's service is so effective that UPS and Fedex actually piggyback on their service to save money. Fedex and UPS will get the mailpiece to the local post office and the post office will handle the last-mile delivery. This is called SmartPost service and I can tell you from experience that the private carrier's involvement significantly worsens the quality of service. It often spends multiple weeks in the hands of the private carrier and I've noticed significantly more damage to mailpieces with it. They also provide subpar customer support on these packages, you cannot refuse delivery or do other basic postal operations with these packages. The opinion of the private carriers essentially seems to be that the blame will fall on the postal service so quality of service is irrelevant. Nobody is perfect, and all carriers are subject to variation in the quality of the last-mile delivery. If your USPS or UPS or FedEx guy is particularly terrible then you will get damaged packages.

bsbechtel 10y ago
Yes, I do have a strong belief that environments that allow private individuals the freedom to experiment/innovate and compete with one another produce massively better outcomes. However, my comment about the USPS was based on a series of stories in the news over the past several years about their financial difficulties and the closing of numerous Post Offices in small towns across the country. Keep in mind the USPS has locked in one massive customer that continues to rely on post mail instead of electronic communication for virtually everything - the U.S. Government. So while yes, the USPS may produce better outcomes for the last-mile delivery, it is most likely being subsidized by the U.S. Government using their services to communicate virtually everything to 330 million U.S. Citizens. In that regard, UPS and Fedex are saving money off the back of taxpayers when they use the USPS to deliver packages to homes beyond their most profitable routes.
- ryneandal 10y ago
  I thought the reason for the massive debt solely related to the unfair pre-funding mandate of retirement benefits enacted by Congress.

digi_owl 10y ago

How much of that is because of gutting by the people in charge? I seem to recall that British Railways was privatized basically by having politicians cut funding, then claim privatization would fix the problems that underfunding was producing...

UK-AL 10y ago
If you actually look at the data though, the railways are actually better. They're more likely to be on time, and have higher customer satisfaction.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Yes, when you ask people "and how are things apart from the eye watering, wallet haemorrhaging, income annihilating cost?" they're mildly positive about the railways. Mildly.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    Thats because that what it costs to get it up scratch. Taxes distribute the burden across everyone, and can be politically hard to get through. Privatization puts the burden on the people who use it.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      Check your facts. They were and still are massively subsidized. Supplying the profit margins of the train operating companies were made the burden of people who use it.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Actually, British passengers seem to be the second-most happy railway users within EU. [0] I'm from the happiest country of railway users (Finland), and I can tell you that also here, lots of people complain about the national railway service, both about reliability, speed and price. ([1] is a joke on announcements of VR, the train operator, about four seasonal outages in train service due to spring, summer, autumns and winter (clockwise).) And the (government-owned) railway company here offers train travel that is more expensive than in Britain (just checked my most recent trip, 37 € is the cheapest fare for a 250 km distance that is equivalent to London-Manchester). [0] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf [1] http://www.riemurasia.net/kuva/Juna-kulkee/176387 http://www.riemurasia.net/kuva/Juna-kulkee/176387

creshal 10y ago

Actually it is in many countries. Sending a package from Germany to Austria via UPS takes longer than a package from Japan via Japan/Austrian state posts, despite customs inspection in the middle. More reliable, too.

bsbechtel 10y ago
UPS is not particularly strong on international shipping. Is your example because those post offices are actually more efficient, or because there are bureaucratic roadblocks slowing down UPS (a U.S. based carrier)?
- creshal 10y ago
  > or because there are bureaucratic roadblocks slowing down UPS (a U.S. based carrier)? No, the market is fully deregulated. GLS (Dutch) isn't any better either.

chrisbennet 10y ago

Actually, they are. They perform a public good while not consuming public dollars. Oh, you didn't know that they self funded? https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/top-10-things-to-know.htm https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/top-10-things...

bsbechtel 10y ago
Not quite. Read my other comment above in this thread. When you have the US Government locked in as a customer, and that customer continues to rely on you for the majority of their communication instead of moving to electronic communications, you are relying on taxpayer dollars to pay for those stamps that fund your operations.
- hx87 10y ago
  Given that it would cost the US government more if they used UPS or FedEx to do their shipping, I don't see why that's a problem.
  - bsbechtel 10y ago
    Given that electronic mail is an order of magnitude cheaper and more efficient, it would drive the US Government to adopt it much more widely than it is used today. Your assumption that UPS or FedEx prices would remain fixed if they were to compete for additional business from the US Government isn't necessarily true either.

the-dude 10y ago

15 years ago we were shipping vast quantities of our devices worldwide via 'Priority Airmail'. This is regular postal mail. The business died down and I started shipping Priority Airmail last year again for a new product. I notice in some countries quality of delivery has dropped dramatically, worse reliability and transit times. The UK for example. I talked with a customer who acknowledged my feeling and said the workers were demotivated by the restructuring which seems to last for over a decade. In The Netherlands, our former national postal service PostNL is treating its workforce in the most egregious ways of all former monopolies. Consequently I found the Russian postal service to be fast and reliable, especially considering the vast distances serviced. 15 years ago, there was some corruption in Africa, South/Middle America. Not any more.

bsbechtel 10y ago
Your comment is interesting, because it points out the fact that quality does vary over time, for all types of goods and services. I think this is one of the strongest arguments for creating an environment where healthy competition exists. The reason being that if a business/organization declines in quality, competition always exists to step in and serve those whom the organization previously served. When you have government controlled monopolies, private competition is literally killed off because the private competition's tax dollars typically go to subsidize the government entity serving the same customers. This keeps prices low, but it does nothing to address the quality of the services being provided, which oftentimes degrades over time (this is partially why most Fortune 500 companies weren't on the list 20 years ago). When the government steps in and serves a group of people in the marketplace, there is rarely a mechanism to give consumers an alternative should the government entity fail to provide adequate service.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  But, is a service that is better/cheaper for 50% of the people and not available or too expensive for the rest a better outcome? For most things sure, for others that's why government programs exist.
- the-dude 10y ago