3 ms·

What private companies are delivering mail to rural areas in the middle of Montana? And how much do you think they charge to deliver a single letter to someone

What private companies are delivering mail to rural areas in the middle of Montana? And how much do you think they charge to deliver a single letter to someone an hour away? (Answers: No one - they contract the work to the USPS, and at least $10 per letter)

WalterBright 7y ago
It's illegal for private companies to deliver letters.
dantheman 7y ago
Perhaps $10 dollars a letter is what it should cost in rural Montana; why is subsidizing a lifestyle choice the post offices business?
- ezrast 7y ago
  Because a reliable communications network is a public good, and cutting off millions of poor Americans from critical services is a despicable way of remediating whatever vague injustices the USPS is perceived to be committing against taxpayers.
  - dantheman 7y ago
    If you want to give welfare to poor Americans give them welfare and let them pay the true price of their goods. I bet most of them would choose to keep the money and have postal service once a week, or every 2 weeks if they could keep the cash savings.
    - ezrast 7y ago
      There's no reason we have to choose between those things. Network utility scales with connectivity. It doesn't make sense to optimize for profit when doing so triggers a race to the bottom for service all over the fringes of the network. USPS lost $9 billion in 2019[1], so roughly $30 per American. Anyone who pays even one bill per month via mail would pay at least 4x that much at current private rates. I'm not inclined to believe privatization would bring those rates down much for rural areas. Sure, if we assume we've implemented UBI and eradicated poverty or something then those prices aren't a big deal. But even then, what have we gained by privatizing? Private industries that provides critical services are either massively subsidized (agriculture, transportation - indirectly via roads) or massively unpopular and frequently monopolistic (telecommunications, health insurance). Even if a talented CEO could squeeze a few percentage points of efficiency out of this industry, it would come at the cost of misaligning incentives in perpetuity, and the government would still be responsible for keeping the industry afloat whenever the economy goes bad. Or we could let them charge a few extra cents for postage, let them operate 5 days/week instead of 6, charge the wealthiest Americans a couple extra tax dollars each, and keep consistent service available at dirt-cheap prices for everyone everywhere. [1] https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019.pdf https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019...
    - _curious_ 7y ago
      Exactly. Why would anyone be opposed to once a week delivery if it meant balancing the budget?
ken 7y ago
But why do we need to deliver paper letters? As ezrast says below, the real goal is a "reliable communications network", which I agree with wholeheartedly. In the 18th century, that was spelled "Post Offices and Post Roads". They couldn't have anticipated email. Must we interpret the Constitution's requirement so literally? Maybe "post offices and post roads" could mean "internet service". We're seeing public school taught over the internet today, due to COVID-19, so I think it's fair to call the internet an essential service. That's how I receive 99% of my communications. Does even rural Montana really find it more valuable to send pieces of paper than internet packets? Let's stop printing 100 million advertisements every day just to drive them across the country and throw them away somewhere else. Instead, let's use the office to provide internet access to everyone. I think that would be exactly in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

WalterBright 7y ago

It's illegal for private companies to deliver letters.

dantheman 7y ago

Perhaps $10 dollars a letter is what it should cost in rural Montana; why is subsidizing a lifestyle choice the post offices business?

ezrast 7y ago
Because a reliable communications network is a public good, and cutting off millions of poor Americans from critical services is a despicable way of remediating whatever vague injustices the USPS is perceived to be committing against taxpayers.
- dantheman 7y ago
  If you want to give welfare to poor Americans give them welfare and let them pay the true price of their goods. I bet most of them would choose to keep the money and have postal service once a week, or every 2 weeks if they could keep the cash savings.
  - ezrast 7y ago
    There's no reason we have to choose between those things. Network utility scales with connectivity. It doesn't make sense to optimize for profit when doing so triggers a race to the bottom for service all over the fringes of the network. USPS lost $9 billion in 2019[1], so roughly $30 per American. Anyone who pays even one bill per month via mail would pay at least 4x that much at current private rates. I'm not inclined to believe privatization would bring those rates down much for rural areas. Sure, if we assume we've implemented UBI and eradicated poverty or something then those prices aren't a big deal. But even then, what have we gained by privatizing? Private industries that provides critical services are either massively subsidized (agriculture, transportation - indirectly via roads) or massively unpopular and frequently monopolistic (telecommunications, health insurance). Even if a talented CEO could squeeze a few percentage points of efficiency out of this industry, it would come at the cost of misaligning incentives in perpetuity, and the government would still be responsible for keeping the industry afloat whenever the economy goes bad. Or we could let them charge a few extra cents for postage, let them operate 5 days/week instead of 6, charge the wealthiest Americans a couple extra tax dollars each, and keep consistent service available at dirt-cheap prices for everyone everywhere. [1] https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019.pdf https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019...
  - _curious_ 7y ago
    Exactly. Why would anyone be opposed to once a week delivery if it meant balancing the budget?

ken 7y ago

But why do we need to deliver paper letters? As ezrast says below, the real goal is a "reliable communications network", which I agree with wholeheartedly. In the 18th century, that was spelled "Post Offices and Post Roads". They couldn't have anticipated email. Must we interpret the Constitution's requirement so literally? Maybe "post offices and post roads" could mean "internet service". We're seeing public school taught over the internet today, due to COVID-19, so I think it's fair to call the internet an essential service. That's how I receive 99% of my communications. Does even rural Montana really find it more valuable to send pieces of paper than internet packets? Let's stop printing 100 million advertisements every day just to drive them across the country and throw them away somewhere else. Instead, let's use the office to provide internet access to everyone. I think that would be exactly in line with the spirit of the Constitution.