6 ms·

Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick

Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick joke.

TechBro8615 7y ago
Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. It’s fearmongering by the democratic media.
- learc83 7y ago
  There was a bipartisan plan to include 30 billion in funding for the Post Office in the 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill. But the administration said they wouldn't sign anything that included emergency funding for the USPS. That doesn't prove what the administration's motives are, but they certainly seem hostile towards the USPS.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    I don't get why it has to lose money at all in the first place. Sounds to me like they're offering a unique, highly in-demand service, in a market that is currently booming. Perhaps they should consider reworking their pricing structure? Just a thought.
    - pietrovismara 7y ago
      I don't get why public infrastructure and services are supposed to make a profit. They are already funded by taxes, why are we supposed to pay them again?
      - socalnate1 7y ago
        In this case, the USPS is not funded by taxes. It has a nightmarish duality of both getting no public funds and being controlled by congress.
        pietrovismara 7y ago
        Well that sounds like an aberration of neoliberalism. My point still stands though.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        In an ideal world, healthy profits are just taxpayer money saved that can be re-invested or returned to the budget. In reality this never happens because there's an incentive to spend, spend and overspend.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        USPS is not "funded by taxes". Or at least it's not designed to be. It's not a part of the government either.
        bmelton 7y ago
        It is an "establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States" specifically authorized by the United States constitution, and (if you ignore its transition from the USPOD) predates America.
    - battery_cowboy 7y ago
      The reason is because in 2006, a law was passed that required the USPS to fully fund 75 years worth of expected retirement compensation. That's not reasonable, and was designed to destroy the service so it could be privatized.
      - Shivetya 7y ago
        Well that is the line we are always fed but it hasn't been true[0] since day one. In effect they are under similar rules to most private pensions in funding out to 25 years with requirements to project what their 75 year liability would be. Another view [1] Simply put, the use of the Postal Service has dropped a lot but the number of employees retired or eligible to retire has not. In other words, they have so many eligible for full benefit retirements that they were not even trying to service the debt and instead likely to end up defaulting it to the PBGC which would have gutted payments and left retirees in a lurch. So what would you have? [0]https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432 https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432 [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/05/13/why-aoc-is-mostly-wrong-about-post-office-pensions-an-explainer/#1fb63d701746 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/05/13/why-aoc-is-mo...
    - learc83 7y ago
      Depending on the type of mail the USPS has to publish rates 90 days in advance, and there are regulatory limits to increases.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Perhaps ease the limits then? What's the endgame here? Let it die? Keep spending tens of billions on it each year in perpetuity while it delivers packages for Amazon and Chinese overseas sellers for next to nothing? Neither is a good outcome for anyone, left or right.
        learc83 7y ago
        >Keep spending tens of billions on it each year in perpetuity while it delivers packages for Amazon for next to nothing? According to the Post Office they aren't delivering packages for next to nothing. They are delivering them for competitive rates and if they increased them they would lose business, revenue, and profit. Now this could be temporarily different due to COVID-19, but if that's the case then emergency funding would be appropriate.
        m0zg 7y ago
        There's no such thing as "competitive rates" to a lot of the rural USA because nobody else is required to go there, so nobody does. Instead, they let the taxpayer fund those package deliveries while Bezos is swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck. You don't have to carry water for him just because he owns WaPo. And to add insult to an injury, the mandatory service such as first class mail is priced below competitive and cemented that way by law. It's as though certain people in US Congress want the USPS to be insolvent, and ultimately nationalized / tax funded.
    - rbritton 7y ago
      Responding to the sibling comment: they don't need to make a profit, but they should at least break even. Call it a price, a tax, or whatever, but it's capable of being completely self-contained where those using the service can pay the full cost of operating it.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - zaksoup 7y ago
        But what does "break even" even mean in the context of public infrastructure? If you're okay with calling that income a "tax" why doesn't public subsidy through... taxes count as breaking even? Nobody complains that highways don't "break even" but it's not like toll roads pay 100% of road upkeep...
        m0zg 7y ago
        Means that instead of paying for USPS with taxes or debts (and wasting half the money on unrelated bullshit in the process), it could just charge a sustainable price for its services.
    - artimaeis 7y ago
      The USPS does not have domain over the pricing structure of its most popular commodity: first class mail. That is regulated to the Postal Regulatory Commission. As for other services offered they do maintain control, which is why priority delivery starts at $7.15. They're also mandated to provide door-to-door delivery with first class mail, so effectively every piece of rural mail costs them money, but they can't do anything about it.
      - dantheman 7y ago
        It's an idea that's past it's prime. Weekly delivery is all anyone needs, it's all junk mail anyway
        crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        Spoken like a cityfolk. In the more rural parts, mail is very important. Cutting it down to 1/week is terrible.
        artimaeis 7y ago
        It's simple to establish that rural delivery has a higher cost to the USPS than city delivery does. As you've pointed out, cutting delivery days to rural citizens also bears a high cost in the view of those with diminished service. It seems the exceedingly sensible thing to do would simply be for the government to subsidize delivery to the costliest areas. Unfortunately that would mean taxpayer dollars supporting the USPS and that's an idea that's seemingly untenable to rural communities. Hopefully a solution can be found in all of this. I certainly can't see one, but I'm hopeful that it'll find a way.
        dantheman 7y ago
        Maybe people in rural areas can pay for the value they're receiving?
        dantheman 7y ago
        Why is mail important? Are people sending letter? Or is that they're getting packages delivered? If it's packages they can have it delivered and actually pay the cost instead of asking other people to subsidize their lifestyle.
    - jellicle 7y ago
      Their pricing structure is set by Congress, which has refused to allow them to do so.
  - crocodiletears 7y ago
    Iirc, there was a lot of arbitrary funding allocated in that bill. For once in its existence, Congress seemingly (as I understand it, I could be wrong) passed a bill which largely affected only what it was supposed to, with a minimal amount of dead weight. The USPS needs to be preserved, it's essential. The stimulus wasn't the place to do it.
- osrec 7y ago
  Not a US resident, but as an outsider, it does seem like the government is not doing all it can to save the postal service, especially given the corporate bailouts they're looking to hand out.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It's a specific long-term strategy called "Starving the beast", implemented by the conservative wing of the republican party. Control of the US Senate makes it easy to persist policies for a long time. It's a somewhat unusual philosophy where you collect less revenue and borrow to cover the difference to encourage fiscal prudence. The USPS is a target for a variety of reasons. Think of it as a leveraged buyout target... they have a ton of assets, from information assets to real estate. Carving up the real estate alone would make for a ton of patronage. There are also some extreme positions (which have prominence these days in some circles) that the post office and civil service is a manifestation of big, Federal government exerting too much influence over local affairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
    - osrec 7y ago
      Do you feel this is a good thing or a bad thing? I know that privatisation of Royal Mail here in the UK was terrible for the average user as prices went up significantly.
      - Spooky23 7y ago
        IMO it is an awful thing.
- onion2k 7y ago
  Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. Why would anyone go on record to say they're going to let a key infrastructure service fail? No one would do that. We can only speculate on what their intentions are, but it's reasonable to say a lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence they won't let it fail.
- eightysixfour 7y ago
  The administration absolutely wants to privatize the USPS, see page 68: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Govern... Part of the plan includes a transition to a model "that delivers mail fewer days per week and to more central locations (not door delivery) [which] would operate at substantially lower costs." The plan notes "USPS already has over $100 billion in unfunded liabilities, a substantial capital investment backlog, has posted losses for over a decade, and has no clear path to profitability without reform." Except the primary reason the USPS has posted losses for over a decade is that, in 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the USPS to pre-fund retiree health benefits (supported by both sides of the aisle I should add) unlike any other Government agency or private industry competitor. It really isn't hard to understand, the USPS is not playing by a fair set of rules and is losing as a result.
  - cm523 7y ago
    Sidebar to this, it seems interesting the Whitehouse uses Wordpress. Shouldn't it use something more secure like Plone?
curiousgeorgio 7y ago
> The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. Mail delivery and shipping are crucial, not the USPS. There are plenty of other private companies that can and do show the ability to do what the USPS does - only more efficiently (and without consistently losing money). At this point in history, there's no need for us to continue supporting the tax-subsidized[1] money pit that is the USPS. Yet another piece of evidence that private industry is more effective than government-funded programs. [1] Make no mistake - the USPS might be able to claim they don't receive tax money for operations (technically), but the laws and other perks protecting their monopoly status have a real-world cost, and the net effect is no different from that of a tax. edit: Ok, it looks like many people disagree. If that's the case, explain yourself instead of simply hitting the downvote button.
- cjsawyer 7y ago
  “The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.” https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/
  - curiousgeorgio 7y ago
    > ...for operating expenses Weasel words. See https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
    - lawfulcactus 7y ago
      > Laws that bar any other shipping service from delivering mail and packages directly to residential and business mailboxes. Shapiro estimates that this gives the Post Office a $14 billion annual boost, more than three times what the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates it to be. > Tax breaks. The Post Office is exempt from state and local property and real estate taxes, along with other burdens like tolls, vehicle registration fees, and parking tickets. These exemptions save the USPS $2.18 billion per year. > Cheap borrowing. [...] It currently borrows the legal limit of $15.2 billion at a rate of 1.2%. Without this access, it would be paying somewhere between $415 million and $490 million per year more in interest. > Finally, Shapiro points out that the USPS pays its workers salaries and benefits far above the rates paid to similar workers in the private sector. From the article; it's not a /literal/ taxpayer-funded subsidy. Also, since that link is paywalled: https://web.archive.org/web/20200411145708/https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200411145708/https://fortune.c...
cactus2093 7y ago
This doesn't seem to be a common opinion, but I generally don't understand why USPS is critical infrastructure. Vote by mail is just about the only essential service they provide that I can think of, and that could potentially still be supported in other ways without USPS the other 364 days of the year. Many of the justifications I've come across of why mail is essential seem to center around transmission of information being essential, and I 100% agree with that. But these days important information does not need to be transmitted by mail. The fact that many important services are still tied to hard-copies of paper - like mailing checks, mailing bills, mailing a warning when a bill has been missed, etc. causes some completely unnecessary problems. It's easier to keep a phone number or email address active for many years, but an address for a large percentage of the population is temporary. I've seen the argument made that not everybody has internet access, and that this is an equality issue that physical mail is still necessary for less privileged people. But many poor people are more likely to have a cell phone than have stable housing with a stable mailing address. And public libraries provide internet access for those who don't have it otherwise. Also, and this part is arguably a first world problem but it's still a big annoyance, the junk mail that props up USPS is completely out of control. How is an essential government service entirely ad-supported like USPS is? That seems crazy. Imagine if the fire department made you watch some ads after they put out your fire. I'm not arguing for getting rid of the USPS now, we do seem to need vote by mail at least for a while longer until we have a better, sufficiently secure alternative. I just think all these arguments about how essential it is to the fabric of modern society are bit outdated. Edit: anyone who is downvoting me care to comment on what I'm wrong about?
- Loughla 7y ago
  >It's easier to keep a phone number or email address active for many years, but an address for a large percentage of the population is temporary. Working with low-income folks daily, this is not true in total. We have to check phone numbers and e-mail addresses every time we interact with our clients, because they cycle through them almost monthly. Physical addresses tend to change annually. >And public libraries provide internet access for those who don't have it otherwise. There is no public library with internet access within 100 miles of my current address. >How is an essential government service entirely ad-supported like USPS is? They're not entirely ad supported? >I just think all these arguments about how essential it is to the fabric of modern society are bit outdated. And this is my take - your view is of a young, middle- to upper-middle-class person with no problems accessing the modern world today. For poor people, for rural people, the mail is essential. I receive all of my bills via mail, because the internet is so bad here. My bank does not offer bill-payment, and I don't want to link my bank account to a third party site, outside of using my bank to auto bill pay, if that's even an option.
sio8ohPi 7y ago
It's weird to me to hear comments like this. To me the postal service just seems like a slow email service with no spam filtering. (Sure they can delivery packages, but they're not unique in that regard). I get the utility of certified mail and associated services, but I don't really understand why we need first-class/marketing mail service in the 21st century. I agree it was important infrastructure 250 years ago.
- eranima 7y ago
  Because not everyone can afford internet access?
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    It's harder to afford stable housing with a stable mailing address than it is to afford internet access. And those without internet access can go to public libraries or even get free public wifi in many cities. Even some homeless shelters provide wifi now, which is much easier for them than providing mail service. Technically, I think those without a permanent address can register to still receive mail at a post office, but that seems more difficult to manage and more limiting than finding internet access.
    - undersuit 7y ago
      >It's harder to afford stable housing with a stable mailing address than it is to afford internet access. Gotta disagree. You aren't required to have stable housing to have a stable mailing address. The USPS provides services to all. https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Is-there-mail-service-for-the-homeless https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Is-there-mail-service-for-the...
- analog31 7y ago
  If we get rid of the post office for last-mile delivery of anything to anywhere, we can be virtually assured of having to bail out the major package delivery services every few years.
- burkaman 7y ago
Reedx 7y ago
At the same token, we probably should rethink the USPS from first principles. We want delivery to every address, but certainly there is a problem when ~50% of what's being delivered is junk mail[1] 1. https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/
- qppo 7y ago
  Why first principles? Create a do-not-mail list. Make up the funding gap with taxes.
  - cjsawyer 7y ago
    I wonder how much we would need to subsidize. As it is the junk mail is adding that money into the system for us. This seems like a valid idea to look further into.
  - Etheryte 7y ago
    It always puzzles me why this is the oft suggested answer. Surely the sane default should be to already not receive unnecessary spam? In the digital world, the general consensus seems to agree with this sentiment, I wonder why the same doesn't apply for the real world. If anyone wants your ads, they can sign up for it, delivering it to anyone else should be punishable by law.
    - Kalium 7y ago
      The financial structure is very different. Email service providers deal with the costs imposed by spam. They wish to be rid of it. The USPS derives much of their revenue from direct mail advertising. They depend on it.
      - Etheryte 7y ago
        This argument is not convincing, if the postal service can't be sustainable on its own without sending spam, surely the right answer would be to address the problem at the root. Think of the time and effort wasted nationwide in producing, delivering and then subsequently throwing away this amount of advertising. Surely it would collectively be cheaper to simply not produce most of it to begin with?
jakeogh 7y ago
Mail in voting is equivalent to electronic voting. The USPS is worthless in comparison to what we would lose. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=jakeogh%20mail&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=jakeogh%20mail&t...

Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick joke.

TechBro8615 7y ago

Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. It’s fearmongering by the democratic media.

learc83 7y ago
There was a bipartisan plan to include 30 billion in funding for the Post Office in the 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill. But the administration said they wouldn't sign anything that included emergency funding for the USPS. That doesn't prove what the administration's motives are, but they certainly seem hostile towards the USPS.
- m0zg 7y ago
  I don't get why it has to lose money at all in the first place. Sounds to me like they're offering a unique, highly in-demand service, in a market that is currently booming. Perhaps they should consider reworking their pricing structure? Just a thought.
  - pietrovismara 7y ago
    I don't get why public infrastructure and services are supposed to make a profit. They are already funded by taxes, why are we supposed to pay them again?
    - socalnate1 7y ago
      In this case, the USPS is not funded by taxes. It has a nightmarish duality of both getting no public funds and being controlled by congress.
      - pietrovismara 7y ago
        Well that sounds like an aberration of neoliberalism. My point still stands though.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      In an ideal world, healthy profits are just taxpayer money saved that can be re-invested or returned to the budget. In reality this never happens because there's an incentive to spend, spend and overspend.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      USPS is not "funded by taxes". Or at least it's not designed to be. It's not a part of the government either.
      - bmelton 7y ago
        It is an "establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States" specifically authorized by the United States constitution, and (if you ignore its transition from the USPOD) predates America.
  - battery_cowboy 7y ago
    The reason is because in 2006, a law was passed that required the USPS to fully fund 75 years worth of expected retirement compensation. That's not reasonable, and was designed to destroy the service so it could be privatized.
    - Shivetya 7y ago
      Well that is the line we are always fed but it hasn't been true[0] since day one. In effect they are under similar rules to most private pensions in funding out to 25 years with requirements to project what their 75 year liability would be. Another view [1] Simply put, the use of the Postal Service has dropped a lot but the number of employees retired or eligible to retire has not. In other words, they have so many eligible for full benefit retirements that they were not even trying to service the debt and instead likely to end up defaulting it to the PBGC which would have gutted payments and left retirees in a lurch. So what would you have? [0]https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432 https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432 [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/05/13/why-aoc-is-mostly-wrong-about-post-office-pensions-an-explainer/#1fb63d701746 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/05/13/why-aoc-is-mo...
  - learc83 7y ago
    Depending on the type of mail the USPS has to publish rates 90 days in advance, and there are regulatory limits to increases.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Perhaps ease the limits then? What's the endgame here? Let it die? Keep spending tens of billions on it each year in perpetuity while it delivers packages for Amazon and Chinese overseas sellers for next to nothing? Neither is a good outcome for anyone, left or right.
      - learc83 7y ago
        >Keep spending tens of billions on it each year in perpetuity while it delivers packages for Amazon for next to nothing? According to the Post Office they aren't delivering packages for next to nothing. They are delivering them for competitive rates and if they increased them they would lose business, revenue, and profit. Now this could be temporarily different due to COVID-19, but if that's the case then emergency funding would be appropriate.
        m0zg 7y ago
        There's no such thing as "competitive rates" to a lot of the rural USA because nobody else is required to go there, so nobody does. Instead, they let the taxpayer fund those package deliveries while Bezos is swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck. You don't have to carry water for him just because he owns WaPo. And to add insult to an injury, the mandatory service such as first class mail is priced below competitive and cemented that way by law. It's as though certain people in US Congress want the USPS to be insolvent, and ultimately nationalized / tax funded.
  - rbritton 7y ago
    Responding to the sibling comment: they don't need to make a profit, but they should at least break even. Call it a price, a tax, or whatever, but it's capable of being completely self-contained where those using the service can pay the full cost of operating it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - zaksoup 7y ago
      But what does "break even" even mean in the context of public infrastructure? If you're okay with calling that income a "tax" why doesn't public subsidy through... taxes count as breaking even? Nobody complains that highways don't "break even" but it's not like toll roads pay 100% of road upkeep...
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Means that instead of paying for USPS with taxes or debts (and wasting half the money on unrelated bullshit in the process), it could just charge a sustainable price for its services.
  - artimaeis 7y ago
    The USPS does not have domain over the pricing structure of its most popular commodity: first class mail. That is regulated to the Postal Regulatory Commission. As for other services offered they do maintain control, which is why priority delivery starts at $7.15. They're also mandated to provide door-to-door delivery with first class mail, so effectively every piece of rural mail costs them money, but they can't do anything about it.
    - dantheman 7y ago
      It's an idea that's past it's prime. Weekly delivery is all anyone needs, it's all junk mail anyway
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        Spoken like a cityfolk. In the more rural parts, mail is very important. Cutting it down to 1/week is terrible.
        artimaeis 7y ago
        It's simple to establish that rural delivery has a higher cost to the USPS than city delivery does. As you've pointed out, cutting delivery days to rural citizens also bears a high cost in the view of those with diminished service. It seems the exceedingly sensible thing to do would simply be for the government to subsidize delivery to the costliest areas. Unfortunately that would mean taxpayer dollars supporting the USPS and that's an idea that's seemingly untenable to rural communities. Hopefully a solution can be found in all of this. I certainly can't see one, but I'm hopeful that it'll find a way.
        dantheman 7y ago
        Maybe people in rural areas can pay for the value they're receiving?
        dantheman 7y ago
        Why is mail important? Are people sending letter? Or is that they're getting packages delivered? If it's packages they can have it delivered and actually pay the cost instead of asking other people to subsidize their lifestyle.
  - jellicle 7y ago
    Their pricing structure is set by Congress, which has refused to allow them to do so.
- crocodiletears 7y ago
  Iirc, there was a lot of arbitrary funding allocated in that bill. For once in its existence, Congress seemingly (as I understand it, I could be wrong) passed a bill which largely affected only what it was supposed to, with a minimal amount of dead weight. The USPS needs to be preserved, it's essential. The stimulus wasn't the place to do it.
osrec 7y ago
Not a US resident, but as an outsider, it does seem like the government is not doing all it can to save the postal service, especially given the corporate bailouts they're looking to hand out.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It's a specific long-term strategy called "Starving the beast", implemented by the conservative wing of the republican party. Control of the US Senate makes it easy to persist policies for a long time. It's a somewhat unusual philosophy where you collect less revenue and borrow to cover the difference to encourage fiscal prudence. The USPS is a target for a variety of reasons. Think of it as a leveraged buyout target... they have a ton of assets, from information assets to real estate. Carving up the real estate alone would make for a ton of patronage. There are also some extreme positions (which have prominence these days in some circles) that the post office and civil service is a manifestation of big, Federal government exerting too much influence over local affairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
  - osrec 7y ago
    Do you feel this is a good thing or a bad thing? I know that privatisation of Royal Mail here in the UK was terrible for the average user as prices went up significantly.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      IMO it is an awful thing.
onion2k 7y ago
Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. Why would anyone go on record to say they're going to let a key infrastructure service fail? No one would do that. We can only speculate on what their intentions are, but it's reasonable to say a lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence they won't let it fail.
eightysixfour 7y ago
The administration absolutely wants to privatize the USPS, see page 68: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Govern... Part of the plan includes a transition to a model "that delivers mail fewer days per week and to more central locations (not door delivery) [which] would operate at substantially lower costs." The plan notes "USPS already has over $100 billion in unfunded liabilities, a substantial capital investment backlog, has posted losses for over a decade, and has no clear path to profitability without reform." Except the primary reason the USPS has posted losses for over a decade is that, in 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the USPS to pre-fund retiree health benefits (supported by both sides of the aisle I should add) unlike any other Government agency or private industry competitor. It really isn't hard to understand, the USPS is not playing by a fair set of rules and is losing as a result.
- cm523 7y ago
  Sidebar to this, it seems interesting the Whitehouse uses Wordpress. Shouldn't it use something more secure like Plone?

curiousgeorgio 7y ago

> The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. Mail delivery and shipping are crucial, not the USPS. There are plenty of other private companies that can and do show the ability to do what the USPS does - only more efficiently (and without consistently losing money). At this point in history, there's no need for us to continue supporting the tax-subsidized[1] money pit that is the USPS. Yet another piece of evidence that private industry is more effective than government-funded programs. [1] Make no mistake - the USPS might be able to claim they don't receive tax money for operations (technically), but the laws and other perks protecting their monopoly status have a real-world cost, and the net effect is no different from that of a tax. edit: Ok, it looks like many people disagree. If that's the case, explain yourself instead of simply hitting the downvote button.

cjsawyer 7y ago
“The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.” https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/
- curiousgeorgio 7y ago
  > ...for operating expenses Weasel words. See https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
  - lawfulcactus 7y ago
    > Laws that bar any other shipping service from delivering mail and packages directly to residential and business mailboxes. Shapiro estimates that this gives the Post Office a $14 billion annual boost, more than three times what the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates it to be. > Tax breaks. The Post Office is exempt from state and local property and real estate taxes, along with other burdens like tolls, vehicle registration fees, and parking tickets. These exemptions save the USPS $2.18 billion per year. > Cheap borrowing. [...] It currently borrows the legal limit of $15.2 billion at a rate of 1.2%. Without this access, it would be paying somewhere between $415 million and $490 million per year more in interest. > Finally, Shapiro points out that the USPS pays its workers salaries and benefits far above the rates paid to similar workers in the private sector. From the article; it's not a /literal/ taxpayer-funded subsidy. Also, since that link is paywalled: https://web.archive.org/web/20200411145708/https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200411145708/https://fortune.c...

cactus2093 7y ago

This doesn't seem to be a common opinion, but I generally don't understand why USPS is critical infrastructure. Vote by mail is just about the only essential service they provide that I can think of, and that could potentially still be supported in other ways without USPS the other 364 days of the year. Many of the justifications I've come across of why mail is essential seem to center around transmission of information being essential, and I 100% agree with that. But these days important information does not need to be transmitted by mail. The fact that many important services are still tied to hard-copies of paper - like mailing checks, mailing bills, mailing a warning when a bill has been missed, etc. causes some completely unnecessary problems. It's easier to keep a phone number or email address active for many years, but an address for a large percentage of the population is temporary. I've seen the argument made that not everybody has internet access, and that this is an equality issue that physical mail is still necessary for less privileged people. But many poor people are more likely to have a cell phone than have stable housing with a stable mailing address. And public libraries provide internet access for those who don't have it otherwise. Also, and this part is arguably a first world problem but it's still a big annoyance, the junk mail that props up USPS is completely out of control. How is an essential government service entirely ad-supported like USPS is? That seems crazy. Imagine if the fire department made you watch some ads after they put out your fire. I'm not arguing for getting rid of the USPS now, we do seem to need vote by mail at least for a while longer until we have a better, sufficiently secure alternative. I just think all these arguments about how essential it is to the fabric of modern society are bit outdated. Edit: anyone who is downvoting me care to comment on what I'm wrong about?

Loughla 7y ago
>It's easier to keep a phone number or email address active for many years, but an address for a large percentage of the population is temporary. Working with low-income folks daily, this is not true in total. We have to check phone numbers and e-mail addresses every time we interact with our clients, because they cycle through them almost monthly. Physical addresses tend to change annually. >And public libraries provide internet access for those who don't have it otherwise. There is no public library with internet access within 100 miles of my current address. >How is an essential government service entirely ad-supported like USPS is? They're not entirely ad supported? >I just think all these arguments about how essential it is to the fabric of modern society are bit outdated. And this is my take - your view is of a young, middle- to upper-middle-class person with no problems accessing the modern world today. For poor people, for rural people, the mail is essential. I receive all of my bills via mail, because the internet is so bad here. My bank does not offer bill-payment, and I don't want to link my bank account to a third party site, outside of using my bank to auto bill pay, if that's even an option.

sio8ohPi 7y ago

It's weird to me to hear comments like this. To me the postal service just seems like a slow email service with no spam filtering. (Sure they can delivery packages, but they're not unique in that regard). I get the utility of certified mail and associated services, but I don't really understand why we need first-class/marketing mail service in the 21st century. I agree it was important infrastructure 250 years ago.

eranima 7y ago
Because not everyone can afford internet access?
- cactus2093 7y ago
  It's harder to afford stable housing with a stable mailing address than it is to afford internet access. And those without internet access can go to public libraries or even get free public wifi in many cities. Even some homeless shelters provide wifi now, which is much easier for them than providing mail service. Technically, I think those without a permanent address can register to still receive mail at a post office, but that seems more difficult to manage and more limiting than finding internet access.
  - undersuit 7y ago
    >It's harder to afford stable housing with a stable mailing address than it is to afford internet access. Gotta disagree. You aren't required to have stable housing to have a stable mailing address. The USPS provides services to all. https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Is-there-mail-service-for-the-homeless https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Is-there-mail-service-for-the...
analog31 7y ago
If we get rid of the post office for last-mile delivery of anything to anywhere, we can be virtually assured of having to bail out the major package delivery services every few years.
burkaman 7y ago

Reedx 7y ago

At the same token, we probably should rethink the USPS from first principles. We want delivery to every address, but certainly there is a problem when ~50% of what's being delivered is junk mail[1] 1. https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/

qppo 7y ago
Why first principles? Create a do-not-mail list. Make up the funding gap with taxes.
- cjsawyer 7y ago
  I wonder how much we would need to subsidize. As it is the junk mail is adding that money into the system for us. This seems like a valid idea to look further into.
- Etheryte 7y ago
  It always puzzles me why this is the oft suggested answer. Surely the sane default should be to already not receive unnecessary spam? In the digital world, the general consensus seems to agree with this sentiment, I wonder why the same doesn't apply for the real world. If anyone wants your ads, they can sign up for it, delivering it to anyone else should be punishable by law.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    The financial structure is very different. Email service providers deal with the costs imposed by spam. They wish to be rid of it. The USPS derives much of their revenue from direct mail advertising. They depend on it.
    - Etheryte 7y ago
      This argument is not convincing, if the postal service can't be sustainable on its own without sending spam, surely the right answer would be to address the problem at the root. Think of the time and effort wasted nationwide in producing, delivering and then subsequently throwing away this amount of advertising. Surely it would collectively be cheaper to simply not produce most of it to begin with?

jakeogh 7y ago

Mail in voting is equivalent to electronic voting. The USPS is worthless in comparison to what we would lose. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=jakeogh%20mail&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=jakeogh%20mail&t...